Caya Krinsje Locker (Noted Bouvier fancier and trainer from Holland, Caya breeds under the affix Caya’s Home. A respected and familiar face at shows and trials in Europe, many of her dogs have been championed throughout Europe with both conformation and working titles, including many IPO and KNPV titles. Interestingly, Some of Caya’s dogs have been featured in films as well): Mostly a working dog is a little bit smaller and lighter in weight than the (winning) showdog. Weight matters in working, lean and agile is better for working, jumping is easier, they are quicker in exercises and biting is not so demanding on the dog when the weight is not too high.

Robert Cargni-Mitchell and Elaine Petrov (Robert Cargni and Elaine Petrov have been involved in the Bouvier fancy since 1973, and worked with Edmee Bowles at Belco Farms. They live in Philadelphia with two Bouviers, Digo and Fyre, and an Airedale, Nigel): We believe that, in a sense, all pure-bred dogs are working dogs. That is to say, no human should purposely breed a litter of puppies that does not have as its primary objective the production of a sound canine capable of comfortably performing its basic natural functions over a normal life span. Whether those functions be herding, hunting or lying on a silk cushion is irrelevant. We have seen what happens when dog breeders separate conformation from structure. We have, among others, such genetic grotesques as the English Bulldog which cannot breathe or reproduce normally, and the modern show specimen of the German Shepherd which is an orthopedic nightmare. If the Bouvier is to be categorized as a working dog, then it must be bred primarily for working capability, even if the job market is limited. Even if it means fewer trophies on the mantle.

Pat Taylor (Tim & Pat Taylor, “bought” into Bouvs in 1981 for dogs to be “used” on the ranch as well as "sport" dogs. They have titled dogs in AKC conformation and obedience and currently trialing/titled dogs in herding in AKC, AHBA and ASCA. Breeding Franco/Belgian blood according to the recognized Belgian standard not the American): Yes, there are differences. It matters because "form to function" is not adhered to in the conformation ring. It matters simply for the continuance of the breed as a viable breed as well as for the health of the breed as a working farm/protection dog.

Charlie Price (Charles has been actively involved with Bouviers during the past twenty years. Activities have included rescue (he and Betty were among the early founders of ABRL), conformation showing, carting, Schutzhund and limited breeding, with the Crestwood kennel name. Current involvement is in the performance sports): If we are to believe the words of breed founders and the standards they set forth, the answer should be “no.” The descriptions set forth in standards (AKC, FCI, CKC, etc.) are sufficient for the ideal structure of either “work” or “show” Bouvier, especially in view of several acceptable variances such as in size, where the median is preferred. It should not matter. Though we usually hate to admit it, there is no absolutely perfect Bouvier for any task. But we do know that a good working Bouvier must be properly built and a show dog should be able to do work as intended by the breed founders. Their standards making reference to character or attributes such as fearless, bold, steady, alert, etc also apply to dogs in either venue.

Lee Lochhead Calhoun (Lee fell in love with the Bouvier when she purchased her first one, Ch. Wiljamark Barney de Jorlee, in 1978. She has bred under the Jorlee & Frontier prefix. She has bred or owned a #l Bouvier, a National Specialty winner, a Regional Specialty Winner, a BIS Bouvier in the US and Australia, and several multiple group winners): Here are my answers to your questions. Several of your questions are similar in nature so I have chosen to answer them together.

#1, #3, #4, #6 & #12— Over twenty years ago, when I first ventured into the world of purebred dogs, I recall listening in on the same discussion... working dogs versus conformation dogs. “Conformation dogs can't work. Working dogs are ugly”. And on and on. Well, I thought then, and I still believe this, why are they mutually exclusive? Why shouldn't a working dog be built soundly and be attractive to look at. Conversely, a conformation dog must never be shy or fearful, must have drive and be spirited. The standard for the breed clearly lays out both temperament requirements and conformation requirements. The job of a breeder is to adhere as closely as possible to the Standard in all of these areas. We ought to be producing champions with working titles (and by "working" I mean not only Schutzhund, but herding, agility, obedience el al) and working dogs with championships. This can be done, has been done and must continue to be done by those of us who call ourselves breeders. When a breeder narrows his breeding criteria he does harm to the breed as a whole. You can select for pieces but you end up with a whole dog. Continually doing this is what causes the division in breeds. This is why there is such a difference between the look of the field dogs and the conformation dogs in the sporting breeds. Bouviers will go the same way if this sort of lunacy continues. The gentlemen who laid out the Standard for the Bouvier at the early part of the century certainly selected for temperament but they also took a close look at how their dogs were built. These folks were farmers and businessmen and they couldn't have a dog who broke down under the tasks they required their dogs to perform. Neither could they have a dog who didn't have the boldness to protect their homes and the stock they owned. They set down a Standard for a complete Bouvier des Flandres and while some of their science might be in error with the information we have today...the fact still remains...they didn't divide up the breed into separate categories... and neither must we.

Marion Hubbard: (Marion is considered by many to be one of the foremost experts in practically every arena of Bouvdom. Having been a longtime and influential breeder under the prefix Madrone Ledge, Marion’s dogs have won the ABDFC Specialty four times (including once in 1969 owner handled in which her bitch managed to break the sex barrier). She also has worked her dogs in Schutzhund training, Ch. Madrone Ledge Nuka of Fogbank earned a Schutzhund 3. She has judged occasionally, and currently will judge Sweepstakes at the upcoming NAWBA Nationals): I will try to respond to some of these questions as time and patience and inclination allow. . . . I'm sending along what I have written from just personal opinions and my years in the breed. Not really answering questions directly in most cases but I feel that there are no - yes or no -responses that cover all. Conscientious breeders try to breed to the current Bouvier standard. There should be no difference in structure.

Kathy Heilenman (Kathy has had Bouviers since 1984 and has worked and trained in obedience and Schutzhund before becoming totally commited to herding and stock work around 1994. She currently lives and works with three Bouviers, three Border Collies and an Aussie): I don't show in conformation nor do I breed nor do I really follow what is happening in AKC conformation. I work stock with Bouviers and what I look for is a moderate size, a dog that can keep up with stock, and a dog that doesn't wear out due to excess size. By moderate, I mean in the 65 to 80 pound range.

Judy Kasper (Judy Kasper has been involved in Bouviers since 1974; joining the Southern California Bouvier Club nearly immediately after acquiring her first dog. Participation in all aspects of study of the Bouvier from conformation, breeding, club work, committee work, to obedience/working followed to one degree or another since. At the local level she has filled all the offices or director slots of the SCBDFC Secretary or Treasurer. In the National Club she has served on several panels discussing confirmation; the Standards Committee; Illustrated Standard development and the Bouvier Health Foundation. She has presented seminars on Grooming for various clubs all over the country, producing a written guide from that material that is now available for sale. She has presented seminars to Judges Study Groups at least yearly if not more since 1985 using written material that she has generated): Yes, I think there is a difference, especially in the US; a difference in appearance has always been there, but the gap seems to be widening between confirmation dogs and working dogs. Each group (show people/working people) has gone to breeding for just one aspect of the dog, conformation attributes or temperament and working ability. I wish there was some sort of middle ground here, where the show breeders attended to problems in character and temperament and the working people to a bit more conformation and breed type. What good is it to have a good working Bouvier if it is only barely recognizable as a Bouvier?

The structure and soundness of the dog are very important on both sides. Conformation dogs must be sound of body to have appropriate tireless movement. Working dogs need to be sound of body to accomplish the work they are assigned to do, with sound tireless movement. It is just that the conformation breeders want a good sound gait because it is beautiful; working dogs need it for more practical reasons.

Above also answers #12.

Herman de Vos (A former professional athlete, Herman was introduced to the Bouvier through a friend, eventually inheriting their dog, Bram, IPO 3. Falling in love with Bram and Bouviers, he started the Count of Flanders, an enthusiastic group of European Working Bouvier enthusiasts dedicated to preserving the working characteristics of the Bouvier. The Count grew quickly to over 300 members across Europe, the US and Canada. Each year, the Count holds an International Bouvier Day that attracts Bouviers and their owners involved in all the working sports): About the structure: in general we may surely say that a wet working dog, and a wet show dog are almost the same. The difference is the courage, the speed, the working drive, the will to DO something, instead of being a living dead as most show dogs seem to be.

Judith Abramsohn (Judith obtained her first Bouvier in 1987 and imported her foundation bitch in 1989. She breeds under the moniker "de la Salsa." She has competed in obedience and conformation and trained in Schutzhund (tracking, obedience and protection) and Ring Sport. She has attended Bouvier specialties across the United States and in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany. She has been quite active in the ABDFC and her local club, the Cactus State Bouvier des Flandres Club): In the abstract, there is no difference in structure between a Bouvier who is a working dog and a Bouvier exhibited in the conformation ring. In reality, there are differences in structure between and among each and all Bouviers. Each breeder makes decisions which affect the structure of the offspring when he or she plans a breeding. I can speculate that a breeder whose goal is working dogs would place focus on drives, trainability and character in the selection of the male and female. I can also speculate that a breeder who does not work his dogs may focus only on the outward appearance of the dog; in fact, I suspect that there are some breeders who intentionally have breed down the temperament of their Bouviers (hard, high drive dogs get returned to the breeder). Working Bouviers need proper structure to perform their jobs with endurance and without injury.

2. In the American standard a scissors bite is called for and in the Franco Belgian standard a pincers bite is called for. What are the advantages of each and why the difference?                                                     back

RC-M/EP: We haven’t seen any noticeable difference between our dogs with scissors bites and those with level, or pincers bites, other than the fact that, by age 12 or 13, the scissors bites showed much less wear on the lower incisors. As far as working capability, we had a dog with a pincers bite who went on the sleeve with a beautiful full-mouth attack and a bitch with a perfect scissors bite who never got farther back than her canines. Miss Edmee Bowles believed, perhaps erroneously, that the pincers bite was easier to achieve, but in succeeding generations, breeding for the pincers would inevitably produce a line of undershot bites. If there is documentation from a Bouvier bloodline with a fairly lengthy history that would support or refute her belief, we would be most interested in reading it.

PT: For my entire breeding time in Bouvs I have accepted level or scissors bites but was under the impression that scissors is what the Belgians wanted also. I personally prefer level bites as they seem to have a better gripping capability. When looking at bites of other animals whether carnivore or vegetarian, horses have level bites, lions have level bites.............if the object is to "hold it" then level it is. This does cause more wear on the front teeth but the wear is simply "normal" usage.

JC:This is not something I have particularly considered. The UK standard calls for a scissor bite. The FCI Standard 191 22/6/01 calls for either a scissor or pincer bite. I think both are acceptable but that a Bouvier with an under or overshot bite would have limitations for bite work. The FCI Standard also penalises missing premolars. I’ll be interested to see other comments on this and any explanations of the difference.

CP: FCI calls for either scissors or pincer bite. I don't really see why there should be a great preference for scissors over pincer or level bite. A dog with incisors of either configuration is quite able to do the tearing or cutting required for hunting and foraging for food. And of course either bite will serve while eating kibble or meat. It is the under and over bites that should be and are of concern. But, in spite of having said that, I still like to see scissors bites and I do think that the Bouvier world has come a long way on bites during the past decade or two.

LLC: A scissors bite (and mil dentition, also) is a requirement for a strong jaw. A strong jaw is necessary for the farm work originally required of the Bouvier. To take a kick from a cow or to latch onto an intruder, a scissors bite is simply better. In Edmee Bowles translation of the Franco-Belgian Standard with explanations by the Joint Commission it states that a "pincer bite" indicates a perfect set of jaws. If this is so then we have no discrepancy.

MH: The scissors bite should be preferred in any and all instances. The pincers bite is what has happened to the bite since the standard both in this country and abroad calls for a skull and muzzle in a 3 to 2 proportion. The teeth literally have no space to exist in the shortened muzzle and almost brachycephalic head. Needless to say, a pincers bite in a young dog will ultimately fall out of position as the teeth wear down and the jaws will appear to be undershot. Another example of designing a dog for appearance and not for practicality. The only advantage I see (a personal opinion) in the pincers bite is that it allows space for the teeth to position themselves in other than an undershot position.

JK: The Franco/Belgian Standard (FCI) actually calls for both, "Jaws should be powerful and of equal length; the teeth strong, white and healthy. The upper incisors must meet the lower ones like the blades of a scissors or fit like a pincers." (ed jhk. Level/even bite) Which is stronger pliers or scissors? I was mentored, early on, to consider that a pincers bite was the stronger for holding and not tearing. Obviously, the pliers have the stronger hold than scissors. It is very difficult to breed for a pincers bite, however, so easy to slip from pincers to undershot. When the sheep herding dog uses a scissors bite on the sheep I imagine that there is some damage to the hair, though I doubt that in the long run that anyone is aware, (when the wool is processed).

JA: Both the AKC standard and the FCI standard call for powerful jaws of equal length. The AKC standard indicates that the incisors meet in a scissors bite; the FCI standard calls for a scissor bite or pincer bite. One could argue that the occlusion of a properly aligned scissors side bite should produce a stronger grip. It has been my observation that the teeth in a pincer mouth suffer from more wear than the teeth in a scissors bite with correct occlusion on the side bite.

3. What do working dog owners feel is superior about the working dog structure in terms of agility, working ability, stamina? What are the pros and cons of current working dogs. What do show dog owners feel is superior about the show dog structure in terms of agility, working ability, stamina? What are the pros and cons of current show dogs.                                                                                                             back

RC-M/EP: Sorry, but we can’t comment on #3 and #4. There is a leap in logic there that we can’t follow -when did we get two categories of Bouvier? The last time we were involved in a breeding program, the goal was to produce a balanced dog. This meant that from time to time it was necessary to do a breeding in which one of the animals was prepotent for, say, temperament, but had a lighter eye or a less showy coat, on another animal that had, perhaps, a softer temperament, but more show potential. Isn’t line breeding supposed to be about getting all the desirable traits together? The only reason to sacrifice show potential for working traits, or vice-versa, is impatience. Breeding animals is a long-term project, not suited for people in a hurry to get next year’s prize.

PT: Superiority in working dogs is based on "form to function". I cannot say that enough. I KNOW I have the agility to get the job done and working ability simply because form follows function (to a certain degree). Working dogs in general is going to highlight faults/defects/flaws in conformation which I need to review/change/cull from my breeding program so that I can continue to breed appropriate conformation that will do whatever job I have to do with the dogs. Running around a 30 x 30 ring does nothing to tell me the stamina my dog may have but being in continuous motion in an arena OR a larger field gives me a much better perspective as to structural faults as well as endurance and stamina as pertains to structure. The WORK itself is the final judging ground for the conformation. Not some judges opinion of whether or not the dog can do the work it was bred to do. I think as a show person, speaking ONLY for myself...... showing dogs in conformation keeps me focused on the WHOLE dog as a breed and not just whatever performance event I'm currently involved in. Superiority of show dogs for anything is questionable in my mind over working conformation other than it DEspecializes my breeding program and it makes me think twice about every breeding from more than just a specific performance event's subjective viewpoint. Makes me more objective. From showing and finishing the championships on several "working" dogs I feel I have a greater knowledge of conformation analysis. Showing changes the working attitude of "My dog does it and thus his conformation is fine" to one of "WHY does this conformation work for me and how can I improve it AND does it fit the standard for the breed". Thus I cannot think of a truly valid reason why a show dog's conformation would be superior to a working dog's other than possibly setting type for a breed. I can only think of what showing does for me. I think show people truly feel that "because it says so in our standard (and I interpret it as such) that it IS so". That just ain't the way it works.

JC: I don’t feel either a working or a show Bouvier is or should be superior to the other. What we should be aiming for is a dog that matches the standard and is capable of working. A working Bouvier should have character, drive, stamina and athletic ability and these characteristics can also be present in a show dog. I have seen working dogs that are light in bone, long in muzzle and with incorrect topline and tailset. However they display great character and protective ability. Many show dogs have incorrect angulation and shoulder placement, lack any drive when moving, toplines appear level because of clever trimming and temperament/working character is an unknown quantity unless a character assessment is a requirement for championship status. I have also seen some extremely good working dogs that are or would also be worthy show champions. Int Ch. Altan von der Prinzeneiche, Ch Madrone Ledge Val St Lambert, Ch Vasco van’t Hertendal. Rumba des Hautes Marches to name a few.

CP: I think that working dog owners place more emphasis on speed, endurance, and agility and generally prefer a medium sized dog. But, the characteristics they consider the most important have to do with drives and the illusive “character.” I’m not sure that show breeders/owners are so concerned about those aspects of movement as they are of “showy” movement. Most, if their goal is high priority in the conformation ring, are not so concerned with drives. Still, given reasonably equal conformation, I suspect the happy and driven dog will demand the judge’s attention. So, size and drives are the mains points of differences.

MH: Agility, working ability and stamina are not terms that most show dog aficionados think of when they look at their 'show dogs'. Just give them a dog with a full coat and all of its teeth in scissors position. No wonder owners who work their dogs turn away from show people. For the most part, conditioning, agility and stamina aren't even in the lexicon of dog show people. In terms of the standard, dogs that only go to shows have little working ability, stamina or agility.

I would like to use my own dog, Ch. Val St. Lambert, BH as an example of a show dog that could also work. A good Bouvier must be a dog for all seasons. This doesn't mean that each and every litter will have some, all or any puppies that meet such requirements. But a diligent breeder will try to incorporate agility, working ability, stamina, character and good structure in each litter. Searching for a male that has some of these qualities and not just show titles will help. Judge Burke, at the 2001 National Bouvier Specialty show in Arizona, commented that he did run the dogs around the ring endlessly to see which ones would tire out. Val, is a modest sized bitch with tremendous musculature and stamina and agility. She proved it on a very hot day in the Arizona desert. The massive, bulky dogs dropped by the wayside.

JK: Answering as a show dog owner, correct movement and agility are the expression of the properly made dog. Whether he works or shows he must have a quality structure with minimal faults, illustrating that he can work long and hard without tiring unnecessarily. There is a wide range of 'soundness' in dogs, whether they work or show.

D&CS: I truly don’t know how to answer this. Show dogs are too slow. They are too “boxy”. In horse terms they only “canter” and don’t seem to get the double joint “gallop”.

JA: No opinion-see question above.

4. In your opinion is one better than the other? Why?                                                                       back

CKL: I do not say that one is better than the other, it depends on what you are looking for. Do you want to work or do you want to have a pet/showdog. If your demand is a pet/showdog I should choose a puppy from showlines, most of these dogs are much easier to learn to do well in the house. Working dogs can also be great housedogs but you must make very clear to them who is the boss and what the rules are. Not everybody is capable to do so.

PT: I hate to say this but I think the working analogy of “form follows function” is superior to “pretty is so pretty does”. “Pretty is AS pretty does” doesn't say much either.

JC: No, what I want is a Bouvier that retains the working character but conforms to the FCI standard.

CP: Although some of my dogs have been quite large, I definitely prefer mid-size so long as they retain the desired structural

make-up. When I think of the type of Bouvier that I prefer for myself, a few dogs are in my mind’s eye. I think of them as individuals and do not categorize them as “working” or “show.” I think this is really the most important issue; to evaluate dogs on an individual basis and not on stereotypical perceptions.

MH: Many working dogs aren't bred closely to the standard. The breeders are more concerned about character, intelligence, stamina and agility than the qualities that appeal to judges - massiveness, full coats with no concern for coat quality, no concern for agility, for character. If you read the standard, it is necessary that the correct Bouvier have all of these qualities without massiveness.

JK: It seems to me that the working dog people are less stringent in applying the standard to their dogs. Their primary interest is in the brain, its working instincts, and drive. Show dog folks need to look not only to the appearance of their animals, but to the correctness of temperament in their show dogs.

D&CS: See question #3

JA: No opinion - see question 1.

5. What needs to be repaired in the Bouvier? And how can that be accomplished?                          back

RC-M/EP: The Bouvier has become a genetic disaster, and now there is a stupefying amount of finger-pointing going on. Every so often, we get a phone call from someone who wants to know what the truth was about Lutteur Val du Rol, or Xurie de la Thudinie, or Tanya du Posty Arlequin: all dogs with whom we lived and worked. The caller wants to know what we know, because it is believed that there is strong evidence that Lutteur, or Xurie, or whoever, was the genetic source of SAS or glaucoma or von Willebrand’s, or whatever. There is a heartbreaking number of things that need to be repaired in the Bouvier, but the dogs didn’t reproduce all by themselves. People created the existing problems. People have methodically, and with all good intentions, set about making this mess and now want to believe that the problems were caused by some kind of genetic chain reaction set off by an animal that lived thirty years ago. Even more astounding, they seem to believe that somehow the mess can be cleaned up without any people having to sacrifice any personal gratification. How can the repair of the Bouvier be accomplished? For a start, ask the breeders, handlers, owners how much they’ll deny themselves today in the hope that in twenty, thirty years we’ll have a pool of sound animals with the classic temperament. Who will willingly step out of the spotlight for a few decades in the name of responsible and humane animal husbandry? Just for a start, ask them to have fun with their friends at shows and meets, but anonymously for a while. No published show photos. No brags. No egos. Ask that they produce fewer litters. Just do what is best for the dogs with nobody looking. Just for, say, a couple dozen years. Right.

PT: We need to DE-Americanize the Bouvier. Bigger is NOT better. ONE standard to support the "parent" club in Belgium should be adopted with working function paramount in the breed. A logical, well thought out breed standard which takes TRUE working heritage into account and applies it. Not a working point-of-view or a show point-of-view but a harmonious blend to accomplish a clear picture of what the Bouv should look like and its conformation thereof for working. "Grooming" is the #1 reason a LOT of dogs seem to "appear" appropriate conformationally. (And thus I think a lot of the reason for breeding for MORE coat.) Somehow the standard MUST be changed so that a coiffed Bouv does not have precedence over a more correct Bouv in the show ring in America. A LOT of all breed judges cannot see under the hair for conformational correctness. The only way in my not so humble opinion to change this would be to implement a "working utility cut" which is adopted by the ABdFC and thus implemented into AKC show rings so that Bouvs with "working cuts" and Bouvs with less coat would be more acceptable to "all breed" judges. PLUS judges seminars to promote SMALLER, LESS ANGULATED, LESS HAIR Bouvs. Approach the problems from BOTH ends. Judges AND the dogs.

JC: If we continue in the present vein then we will have two totally divergent types of Bouvier. (Many argue we are at or past that stage already) I don’t know if it is possible to agree upon a single standard with a character assessment to attain championship status. It would also mean the US and Canada abandoning their light colours and profuse coats and reducing the size of their dogs. It would mean mainland Europe and the UK agreeing on a character assessment test. There are many obstacles to this which go far beyond the individual breeders or indeed the national breed clubs. The European laws on ear cropping and tail docking immediately affect the appearance of the breed. Each country’s Kennel Club has different rules for running shows, selecting judges and how dogs attain championship status. America, UK and Holland have no requirement for any character assessment for show dogs. If I recall the breed clubs did meet to discuss the future of the breed way back in the late eighties but couldn’t reach a consensus. If we could ever in the future reach a consensus then I can see the only way of implementing it would be to set up an international breed council with the power to licence and control breeding. Breeding stock would have to be assessed for ‘breed type’ and ‘character’ which is a whole political can of worms. Who makes those decisions? How do we train breed judges to judge to an ‘absolute’ standard? What role do the various Kennel Clubs play – or do we opt out all together? How are each country’s representatives chosen?

CP: Size. Bigger is most always not better, when it comes to dogs that are structured to do the jobs for which they were intended. We need to get size more uniformly to mid-standard range. Coat. We need to keep in mind that the Bouvier is/was intended to be a working dog who was subject to the abuse of weather and other environmental conditions. Temperament, drives, character, etc. are too often overlooked or relegated to lesser importance as key ingredients for breeding suitability than is due. The breed type selection has too long leaned toward the couch potato, lacking in stamina and drives. While I know that there is a place in many good homes for individual dogs of this type, they are the type preferred by the breed founders. Too often fads set “type” - at least temporarily - and change in accordance with what is winning. High profile dogs become so dominant in pedigrees that the gene pool(s) are quite limited. While these dogs most always have qualities that should be propagated, too many breeding decisions are based upon ribbons and titles instead of how those characteristics mesh with those of the breeding partner or of the planned puppies. So, regardless of what needs repair, it can best be done by objective evaluation of potential breeding stock based upon ancestors, siblings, progeny, etc. LLC: If we breed as closely to the Standard as possible, nothing needs to be "repaired". The breed is perfect — That's why I've had them for over 20 years. How about you?

MH: There is pure hatred between most of the working dog owners and the show dog owners. Unless there is an amelioration between the two groups, there is no way that this can be accomplished. Feelings of animosity among the Bouvier owners began in the 1970s with the development of interest in schutzhund and personal protection dogs. It had its roots in the fact that working dogs needed to have character and intelligence. "Show dogs just walk around a show ring." As the breed increased in popularity, indifferent breeders really haven't cared whether the litters they produced had anything but size and coat. No thinking required. When the Louis de Rochemonts imported a Bouvier as a companion for their diabetic son in 1940, they had been told by the AKC that the breed was one that could be highly recommended and trusted to watch over their handicapped son.

KH: For stockwork, a coat that repels mud, dust, and yuck, especially yours, is a huge advantage. I have an Aussie with a fairly long coat who can be covered with mud, dry off, shake, and he looks as if he'd had a bath. All the Bouviers I've had have needed to be cut very short to even come close to approximating this... and even then.

JK: Heads. The head planes are often not parallel these days. It gives the head a peculiar look that is far less desirable than the regal, wise expression of a dog with parallel planes. It seems to me that this is a great part of our dogs entity. The head and expression accounts for the particular 'Bouvierness' of the animal. If what your animals have isn't correct, you must strive to correct it when breeding. Too often I hear people remark on the beautiful wide and long back skull (redundant ) of the animal they are praising. Well, what about it's relationship to the muzzle, the fill under the eye, and the amount of stop; a wide skull does not a complete head make. Look at the total head, not just the parts. The description of our Bouviers as 'cobby' eludes us as well; many long dogs in the rings here.

HDV: Now the breed is in danger. We will have to use the last remainers with the real heart/character to breed with. No compromises are allowed. The best, most healthful dogs must be brought together. So real CO-OPERATION is necessary. Forget influence/POWER/politcs/money. If we fail, the light will surely go out in 10 years. Don't doubt it!

D&CS: Many Bouviers are lacking in quality temperament. However, this is partly due to the “market” and the breeders who supply the public with “companions” and “pets”. It’s relatively easier to sell a ‘couch potato’ rather than a dog that continually wants to be doing something. We also need to get away from the ridiculous ‘show coat’ as well. Flemish farmers would NEVER have a dog that required:

money to be clipped

considerable grooming

6. Are there differences in structure between the various types of working dogs -- Schutzhund/ guard, herding, or drafting. Are there important structural differences for the function of each type of work?   back

RC-M/EP: Do you mean various breeds of working dogs, or various types of Bouvier? As mentioned in our response to #4, there should be no sub-categories. If there are structural differences for Schutzhund that limit the Bouvier’s capabilities as a guard or herding or drafting dog, then perhaps Bouviers shouldn’t be expected to excel in Schutzhund which is, after all a German sport created for German sheep herding breeds. (Miss Bowles, quintessentially Belgian, disliked Schutzhund for the Bouvier saying that it did not address breed-specific Bouvier traits, that it was too Teutonic.) But the Bouvier breeder’s responsibility is to produce a single type that encompasses all the historically verifiable Bouvier traits. It’s faster and easier to sub-divide the breed than to spend years developing a balanced bloodline.

PT: Yes, there are some people that breed for a specialty instead of for the overall breed. Structurally the correct Bouv can compete across the board all events without modification of its conformation. Some modifications DO make the dog compete on a more "equal" scale with "other" breeds of dogs in some sports. Like lighter dogs in Ring Sport are faster and more agile than a more correctly made Bouvier and can compete more directly physically with dogs like Malinois. The rational of this question should not be if there should be structural differences in the Bouv to compete with other dogs but if the correct conformation of a Bouvier is appropriate to DO all of the things it was bred to do? Obviously, modification of the conformation may make ANY dog more viable in one sport or another but that is NOT what we should be looking at. In short what type conformation should the Bouvier have for a “Jack-of-all-trades” dog AND still BE a Bouvier? There are NO "important structural differences" necessary to perform in any of the above mentioned events and perform well. Temperament is the biggest drawback. PLUS these sports were not designed specifically with the Bouvier in mind nor to promote a Bouviers specific strengths thus why on earth should we think them the epiphany of whether or not our dog can do what it was intended to do by the founders of the breed. Logic has to prevail somewhere.

JC: I’m going to pass on this question, primarily because I’ve only done obedience and agility with my dogs so don’t feel qualified to answer.

CP: Slighter angulation and longer body seemed to be more prevalent in some of the working types, especially the “old style”

protection/police dogs. In recent years, however, Bouviers active in the protection sports have been closer to the mid-range in height, square, and moderately angulated. I cannot speak from direct experience but think that big is more acceptable in KNPV than in Schutzhund, Ring Sport, Herding, etc. Very likely big is also better in drafting although great power is often seen in medium-sized dogs. As an aside, I think that the relatively new and dynamic interest in performance sports such as agility by AKC clubs and those who gravitate toward AKC events will have a positive effect on size and structure of Bouviers and other breeds as well. There is a renewed interest in medium sized Bouviers, those who can amaze with agility.

MH: Of course the draft animal functions more correctly with less angulation. Less angulation doesn't give that high (but incorrect) kick that so many judges look for in the show ring. Perhaps the most unfortunate decision breeders make is that they breed for what judges will acknowledge with ribbons in the show ring rather than vice versa, breeders telling the judges to judge to the AKC standard and for breeders to try to breed dogs that fulfill the requirements of the standard.

JK: No answer here from me.

D&CS: I’m not qualified to answer that because I do not own any ‘herding line’ dogs.

JA: From my perspective, the question confuses type with function. Many different breeds, i.e., different types of canines, can do the same kind of work. And a particular breed may be able to do more than one kind of work; but the fact that a particular breed can do more than one kind of work does not mean that the breed's type should vary based on the training of a dog. Of the disciplines listed in the question, Schutzhund is the only one that was developed with a particular breed in mind; breeds other than German Shepard Dogs, however, can be successful with Schutzhund. While some of the exercises in ring sport may favor a smaller dog, law enforcement departments generally do not want a 60 pound Malinois to assist an officer with protection work because the dog does not have enough mass to go against "bad boys." When it comes to draft work, there are significant differences between the Alaskan Malamute and the Siberian Husky; the Malamute is designed for heavy work and the Husky is designed for pulling sleds with speed and endurance. The Bouvier is a basic structure square dog. His background is of an all round farm dog; he can function as a guard or protection dog, tracker, herder, cart puller, companion. The particular use of a Bouvier is not to be used as an excuse to deviate from the ideal Bouvier described in the standard.

7. What is the appropriate angulation for a Bouvier, both front and rear, and why? The Belgian and Dutch standard mention no angulation on hocks -- as a matter of fact, on the sketches, they show the hocks to be perpendicular. The AKC standard states "slight angulation at the hock joint". Why the difference? How does angulation affect dogs for show, schutzhund, herding, other protection, drafting?                               back

RC-M/EP: We are unfamiliar with the current standards, but in the Bouvier as we were given to understand it, the hocks were perpendicular to the ground. The angle that was debated was the stifle. See Miss Bowles’ skeletal drawing for what she believed to be the desirable configuration. How angulation affects dogs now seems to us less significant than how flexibility and stamina affect their working potential. We have seen dogs with straighter shoulders and stifles cover ground effortlessly and with great agility because they were extremely athletic. We have a photo of our Airedale airborne in a perfect double suspended gallop with a concave spinal curve worthy of a Borzoi. She had the typical Airedale angulation, but was extremely strong and agile. Bouvier breeders would do better if they put down the protractors and calipers and paid attention to the active performance of their breeding stock. This does not necessitate participation in organized working activities. If your dog can’t chase a ball for half an hour or play in a yard with another dog without plopping over, then, for pity’s sake, don’t breed him, and no dog should be bred until he is old enough to have demonstrated this ability to perform over time. Miss Bowles never bred her bitches until their third cycle nor her males before age two or three. This was even before OFA regulations. She waited because she wanted to see what she had in that particular dog. Obviously if more breeders had waited a bit longer before finishing their eight-month old puppies, many genetic problems might have had time to surface before the dogs were bred, and the breed today might not be riddled with genetic disorders. (We also might mention here that Miss Bowles almost always free bred her dogs saying that if the dogs were not strong and sound enough to copulate with little or no assistance, then they shouldn’t be in the gene pool. We might add that if a dog is blind, crippled or dead by age three, he’s probably not sound stock. Time is a very useful tool in animal husbandry.)

PT: Simply put angulation should remain relative from shoulder to hip. In other words they should match with emphasis being placed on a LONG sloping shoulder blade with proper arm attachment for angle and length for reach and to absorb concussion and for soundness. BUT each is determined by many factors. There doesn't seem to be that much confusion over shoulder (scapula) angulation (or the measurement thereof) though I think it needs to be discussed as I find people with upright shoulders but decent arms (humerous) saying their dogs have good shoulder angle when in fact they have good upper arms (humerous) which allows for reach but have poor angulation in the shoulder blade). So I suppose we are talking about angulation in the STIFLE as is relative of stifle to hock. Angulation in ANY standard should be defined better. Angle of hip (Ilium) or length of stifle which directly relates to how the hock is set on and will determine the illusion of length of hock (cannon)! I will assume that we are talking about the stifle and about the length from stifle to hock joint as angulation. The cannon bone in the rear, per se, should be perpendicular (vertical) to the ground when the dog is standing 4 square. The hock joint will bend to allow for flexion of the joint and to allow for a cannon bone to be perpendicular (vertical) at rest and for moderate extension of the hock joint in motion (but not to knuckle over at the point of full extension which is a severe fault). Proper angulation AT REST and standing 4 square, for working, should be; if you were to drop a plumb from the rump/shelf (pin bone) to the ground, the rear cannon (in dogs most people call this the hock) would be flush, with the plumb running along backside (flush with) of the cannon. Another plumb dropped from the hip JOINT would land directly at the toes of the foot. The hock (cannon) should be perpendicular (vertical) to the ground when standing in this position. If when the cannon (hock) is perpendicular this is NOT the picture you get but the cannon (hock) is behind this line or in front of this line then you have a "bad" angle in the hip and/or an inappropriate length of stifle. The angle at which the hip is set can totally determine where the foot falls beneath the body, e.g., whether the animals stands too much under themselves (in horses you can call this standing sickle hocked) or whether they stand "camped behind" with the feet behind the pin bone at a natural stance. Another way of looking at (measuring) angulation (and appropriate length thereof) used to be measured by laying a yard stick across pin bone and hock joint and when standing 4 square with a perpendicular hock there should only be a slight gap between the stick and the back of the stifle. The more gap, the more angulation (and length), and the more incorrect that angulation (with the result of the hock being behind the pin bone in a natural stance. If the angulation is correct but you still don't have a perpendicular hock then you need to look at the angle of the hip for faults or a defect in the hock joint which doesn't allow it to bend to vertical (like sickled).

To much angulation in the stifle and length thereof increases incidence of injury of the stifle joint (the cruciate mainly) through over flexion of this joint and the application of too much stress to the joint during turns and quick stops. (This is a common injury in cutting horses with too much angulation.) Drafting requires moderate angulation for utility of strength (see draft horses.....they are NOT well angulated but moderately so to keep their feet up under them).

Over angulation makes the "appearance" in show dogs of a "hock well let down" as well as the appearance of great "impulsion" and "drive". But this proves to be an optical illusion when put to the test in the field. An animal simply cannot have its rear legs way out behind him and have any kind of agility for performance or strength for drafting. Simple physics won't allow it. Thus "show" dogs tend to have more angulation (because it's pretty and looks "fluid") while true working dogs have a choppier gait (not up and down but not any excessive reach in the rear) because they have less angulation. Doesn't mean they are not "fluid" as per the standard but it definitely has a different look to the movement.

JC: I suppose this begs the question why did the American’s see fit to alter the standard?

CP: I like a moderately angulated dog, more than we usually see in “old type” but less than we see in a majority of “show winners”. The “stacked” dog usually seen in the show ring may indicate little or no hock angulation, but the dog standing naturally would likely have slight hock angulation. While the skeletal drawing shows hocks that are perpendicular or very near so, the Bowles sketch indicates rather extreme hock angulation. I would prefer slight hock angulation on the dog standing naturally (skeletal sketch). Angulation definitely affects flexibility, agility, speed, rapid starts, turns, etc. It also affects endurance, power, and working longevity.

LLC: The AKC Standard calls for moderate angulation at the stifle and slight at the hock joint. The Standard also calls for an angle "slightly greater than 90% when standing. Straight shoulders are faulty." This is not a breed judged at the flying trot. The Bouvier is a moderately built dog. Curtis Brown, "K-9 Structure and Terminology", "Dogs with low (short) hocks have endurance". To quote Mr. Brown again, "...if the purpose of the dog is heavy draft, agility or fighting, the hocks should be straight or moderately bent." "Moderate angulation is seen on most wild dogs". Wild dogs, by the way, are endurance trotters. "Endurance requires well-laid back shoulder blades". "The most efficient angle between the shoulder blade and the upper arm for trotting with endurance is between 100 and 120 degrees (measured in the posed position with feet under the center of the shoulder blade)." The Bouvier was bred for not only draft, but stock handling, guarding, agility and to work all day. In other words, endurance. Efficiency.. If you accept that, then the Standard is right on. Of utmost importance is the necessity that front and rear angulation match. The movement faults that we see in so many dogs are caused by an imbalance front to rear.

MH: When a number of breeders were assigned the task of rewriting the standard about 1974, (Carl May, Jack Van Vliet, Ernie Topolski, Marion Hubbard and Carolyn Markham) one of the major sticking points was that of angulation. We might still be sitting there quarreling over that point if we all hadn't agreed to the moderate angulation statement. A more angulated dog moves more gracefully. Europeans have always bred for less angulation. Felix Grulois (du Posty Arlequin) was one of the few who departed from that point of view.

JK: You can't expect to make a Bouvier or any other breed of dog with a protractor. I believe that it is the spirit of the requirements, not the exactness that is most important. When the Standard calls for moderate angulation, that applies to front and rear in all parts. Moderate, as in 'not over done', to me, means the dog

will then move moderately and not like a running breed (i.e. Siberian, GSD).

D&CS: "This is something that can not be said enough....you can not (I repeat NOT) breed for appearance (and that means putting ANY stipulation on what a dog looks like) and keep an honorable standard of work. To restate the obvious: it is not possible to breed for anything except working ability and keep integrity in your work. If for any reason you insert a criteria other than work in your breeding program, you will dilute the working ability." Candy Kennedy on fighting AKC recognition for the Border Collie.

JA: My personal concept of moderate angulation is as much balanced reach and drive as can be placed under a square dog, i.e., the greatest length of stride that is compatible with the length of body. And the quality of the canine's shoulder determines the true reach of the stride. The keys here are square and balance. A long-bodied dog will generally have a greater length of stride than a square dog. A dog with an overangulated rear assembly may be able to lengthen his stride at a fast trot beyond the true reach of the front assemble by the power of the rear lifting the front off the ground during a phase in stride — an inefficient gait.

The AKC standard and the FCI standard both describe the same hindquarters as the ideal for the Bouvier. When reading standards, be mindful of the terms. The hock is a joint between the second thigh and the metatarsus; the metatarsus is the rear pastern. In casual conversation, the term "hock" is often used to refer to the metatarsus. A Bouvier is a Bouvier is a Bouvier. The various Bouvier standards all describe the same breed. Each standard may use different words and phrases, and some have more detail than others, but each describes a basic structure square dog with moderate angulation who should be balanced and built for endurance and who should be powerfully built, strong boned, well muscled, without any sign of heaviness or clumsiness. I read the various standards as complementary, not contradictory, of each other. To assist in understanding the AKC Bouvier standard, I use the FCI Bouvier standard, and any commentary by the French and Belgium clubs thereon, as well as references such as the AKC Glossary, Spira's Canine Terminology, review of other breed standards (both AKC and FCI), Gilbert & Brown's K-9 Structure & Terminology, and various other texts on canine movement, coat color inheritance and the like.

8. What can/should we do about coat, and the fact that the coat in the show ring is so different than the standard, yet not penalized?                                                                                                                 back

RC-M/EP: Here’s our suggestion: Hold a fun match in which the requirement is that all dogs be shown soaking wet, sort of like a canine wet tee shirt contest. See how many people take their dogs into the ring when there’s no fault grooming allowed. The coat problem is another people problem. It has nothing to do with the breed and everything to do with ego. You’ll never change the big, fluffy coats as long as people are unwilling to let someone take an honest look at their dogs, until they really understand what a good Bouvier should look like naked.

PT: My suggestion is to ignore the coat (because we all know all breed breeders are going to continue to produce masses of coat) UT add a "utility groom" to the standard (like in poodles as they have several grooms). Something to the effect of showing the dog more European style for benefit for working dogs. If such a standard was adopted then all breed judges wouldn't scream when a dog was shown in just 2 inches of coat for body and legs. This cut would #1 cue the judge that this was a working dog (maybe not but then whose going to campaign a dog in this type of cut) and #2 it allows for a better look at what's underneath all that hair without condemning the coat (or groom). European dogs have the same massive coat problems we do and simply cut it off. Why not us?

Also, I recently went to a show where I discussed coat with a lady. She was told her dog had terrible coat and was offended. He DID have terrible coat. (Masses of it though.) But my point is that she had NEVER SEEN a proper Bouvier coat (at least that's what I derived from the discussion). Most people that I've met nowadays haven't seen the old fashioned double coated Bouvs I knew 20 years ago that had hard, Brillo type outer coats and soft, thick, fine undercoats. Not the cottony coats on a bunch of the Dutch dogs or the all undercoat type coats on some of the old de Clos du Cerberes dogs which I had but a true double-coated dog with harsh coat for guard hair and soft down for undercoat. How can we expect people to understand a good coat when you cannot find one to show them.

It sure wouldn't hurt to put together a seminar which had LIVE examples of a perfect coat and the "other" coat textures now known throughout Bouvdom. It would probably surprise a LOT of people or at least gain a ton of debate.

CP: Basic coat quality is genetic. While there are things that can be and are done to bring out the best in a coat they cannot create a good coat. Sprays, mousse, creative grooming, etc. only mimic a quality coat or alter the perception of structure. These things should be discernable to qualified judges, who should be expected to judge according to the standards and to penalize the artificiality. Unfortunately, most working people do not care enough about coat and often do little or nothing to nourish its quality. Most settle for an easy-keeping coat and keep it trimmed quite short. While I see nothing wrong with one being able to keep his dog(s) in such a coat, the result of this attitude spills over into the coat having little importance in selection of breeding stock.

LLC: You do not indicate in what way you feel the coat as seen in the show ring is different from the Standard. The correct coat is a double coat, harsh, with a thick, dense undercoat. Judges generally get it right when they fault the silky, flat coat. However, I do see judges reward a coarse single coat over a correct double coat. In breeding, consistently getting the correct mixture of outer coat to undercoat is tricky. If these dogs were left outside. Mother Nature and the brambles would take care of mucking out the undercoat! Are you talking scissoring the coat? That is manmade and a good judge of Bouviers can look at the coat and tell if it is correct.

MH: Bouvier Clubs could undertake this. So many so-called show coats are scissored; the owners make no attempt to rake out the undercoat or to hand strip their show dog. Just take it off of the sofa, clipper the required shape and drive to the show. A good coat takes months of preparation. Perhaps terrier breeders should help to instruct our Bouvier owners on the fine points of hand stripping.

KH: See above. I was out working cattle last night with a Border Collie and a Bouvier. The arena was clay type mud. I got home and had to spend almost half an hour prying the mud out of the Bouviers feet and off his belly (and he is cut short and has his feet trimmed). I didn't have to do anything with the Border Collie. A wash and wear coat would be a huge advantage for the Bouvier. I very often have people come up to me after they see Kaz work (farmers mostly) who tell me that they really like the way he works but no way could they deal with the coat (and Kaz is always in some version of a utility cut).

JK: The education of judges seems to have no consistency regarding coat. What is tolerated as hard coat in the US is often a too 'kinky type' of hard hair. As in other aspects of the dogs, the coat is often sold to the judges. The proper coat, neither unkempt nor correct, seems to be what the handler has to offer this year.

When we (breeders here and abroad) tried to improve the density of the coats we over did it, now we have so much coat, it is hard to know what to do with it. The Bouvier was designed not to be a pampered pasture poodle, but a dog with a rugged covering to protect it from the elements. How many Dutch or Belgian farmers could care for the modern Bouvier (Euro or US)? The dog has lost its rustic appearance and has been 'beautified'. This has also happened to the Wheaton Terrier, the Bichon, etc and will happen to the newly recognized breeds like the Petit Bassett or Havanese, whose standard says no trimming. It is part of the American culture to improve/to make better, or more of what ever they set their minds to improve.

**ON JUDGING. Foreign (Euro) judges are 'governed' by the breed clubs, not by a registration agency as we have here. The judges for each breed are lectured yearly, by the breed clubs advisory panel, as to problems cropping up in the breed and instructed on how to judge accordingly to help eliminate them. US judges are not tended to in this individual manner by anyone. There are educational groups, which meet throughout the country and conducted by breed club members, but these groups lack consistency plus attendance by judges is voluntary rather than compulsory. I find this to be an area, which can be improved by having discussions and suggestions for presentation of the Bouvier, by the presenters/mentors (yearly). With the vast space between all the mentors, which is not a problem in Europe, we are at a distinct disadvantage as to consistency.

D&CS: As long as the AKC gets its registration money, judges earn a living and people can sell their “sired by a Champion” puppies, there is no point in worrying if judges are ‘putting up’ the correct dog. I myself can’t recite the Bouvier standard, yet we expect a few people to be able to know the entire HERDING GROUP set of individual standards and the precise angulation required. Ideally, we would show our Bouviers to a judge who has studied the standard and DOES NOT NOW NOR HAS EVER bred Bouviers. Why do I say that? Because at one show, I know the winner was chosen two days prior to the competition while the judge was looking at his pedigree “Oh yes, we’ve bred to him….Oh that’s a great dog and this dog has him in the pedigree three times”

JA: I have observed Bouviers whose coat in my opinion deviates from the standard. The coat's deviation can be a matter of genetics, or grooming, or both. Genetically, coats may be too flat, too soft, too curly, or over-abundant. Coats may not be properly maintained so that the mix of the double coat and the texture are not reflective of the genetic quality of the coat. Coats that are too scissored generally will not lay on the body in the manner of a properly maintained coat. I would like to see the current trend towards over-abundant coats and that fluffy, coiffed ring presentation fall out of favor. I would like to see judges not place dogs whose coats have been doctored for the ring. Some breeders and some judges have a better understanding of proper Bouvier coat; it is a matter of knowledge and experience.

RC-M/EP: Miss Bowles often drew her skeletal picture when the was describing the Bouvier des Flandres that could best perform the functions with which she was familiar in her native Belgium, and remember, she had her first Bouvier as a child, before World War I. That gave her a lot of hands-on expertise. She drew one skeleton. One structure for all normal Bouvier functions. She would have been absolutely astounded and annoyed by your questions. The implication that there is a subjective and variable ideal structure runs completely counter to everything she worked to achieve in her fifty years as a breeder and all logical animal husbandry practices as she understood them.

PT: Square is square. Period. Should be the same across the board. A square dog of the proportions I've mentioned herein (see # 14) can go from show ring to SchH field to herding pasture and do carting also. WHY would we have a different look for one than the other? A Quarter Horse should look like a Quarter Horse and a Bouv like a Bouv though there are Thoroughbred types of Bouvs and Thoroughbred types of Quarter Horses it doesn't make them correct. The Bowles picture shown is of a square dog but is a 3/4 frontal view which doesn't allow for accuracy of viewing of the dog's proportions but both dogs (Dutch and Bowles) look fairly correct to me in proportions. They appear square with moderate angulation. The Dutch picture LOOKS as though it allows for a "steeper" shoulder assembly than I like to see on a Bouvier while the Bowles picture looks like a better shoulder angle and assembly.

But notice on BOTH pictures that the angle of the shoulder appears to MATCH the angle of the hip which is important and something I have seen vary. Uniformity should be the goal with a standard that calls for angles somewhere between the two in the pictures but more toward the Bowles’ angle. Angles are not everything either. Length of shoulder should be a major consideration and Bowles seems to have captured length better than the Dutch picture The Dutch picture shows a neck which IMNSHO is not anatomically correct for the structure while Bowles is more realistic. Basically, the Dutch picture is simply too upright without the "withers" needed for the transition from back to neck. The shoulder should slope well into the back. This decreases the angle between the scapula and humerous and therefore reduces concussion. The length of rear cannon on the skeletal Bowles picture is more correct than that shown on the "haired" Bowles picture also. Notice the haired Bowles pictures appears to have a longer length of stifle which appears to be placing the "hock" behind the dog which is incorrect. Again, 3/4 frontal view is NOT the way to view a dog and make judgments. The Dutch picture shows more accurate rear angulation and hock length.

CP: I particularly like the type presented in the drawing. I think that it, along with the skeletal sketch, depicts a well balanced dog - one that is pleasing to the eye but can “take care of whatever business is at hand.” No. A standard for a breed is just that. It is an anchor to keep those of us with wild perceptions of a breed from drifting too far in any direction. If there are several standards then the breed “Bouvier des Flandres” needs to be sub-divided into varieties, etc. While some Bouvier “lines” may be at either extreme of “working” or “show,” the mainstream Bouvier should be close to that anchor.

LLC: No, once again, I would not have several different skeletal images of the Bouvier depending upon their area of work. The Dutch drawing is standing underneath itself so I much prefer Miss Bowles' conception. Her image with coat appears to be sickle hocked and that won't fly with me but the skeletal image is okay with the exception of the shoulder. The angle is 90% which does not appear in nature.

MH: One dog for all protocols.

JK: Correct me if I am wrong, but figure A is actually from the French Club Publications Comment Juger et Confirmer un Bouvier des Flandres. On examination of the Dutch publication I find this to be the case, the drawings and commentary are French; the material was borrowed. However, I find that both drawings illustrate well enough what the Bouvier is to look like. The implication that we need a different drawing for each discipline is erroneous. It is one breed, should have one standard, that of the countries of origin. Allowance for language differences must be considered, I believe that the 'spirit' of the standard comes off inaccurately when translated.

The study of dog skeletal anatomy is vitally important to each breeder and exhibitor, we all need to be on the same page as far as the meaning of terms. When we discuss heatedly, it is very hard to make a point to someone who has a different definition of something like the 'front assembly'. The drawings aid the novice as well as the veteran in establishing uniformity, which I believe is what we are after.

RC-M/EP: So what? If the dog moves easily and smoothly, all of one piece, if he can cover ground effortlessly for lengthy periods of time without tiring, if he’s flexible and athletic, if you watch him move and don’t see all kinds of distracting bits and pieces wobbling around, then you’ve got good movement, perpendiculars and median lines notwithstanding. The problem today seems to be that so few people understand or have seen really good movement, they have to get all bogged down in geometry. A dog that moves with an exaggerated gait, whether it be single tracking or double tracking, is moving inefficiently, and efficiency of movement is the primary criterion, isn’t it?

PT: See #14 also. As the animal moves faster at a trot a "true tracking" animal will "tend TOWARD single tracking". This doesn't have to be much but as speed increases this WILL happen. Depending on density and mass of dog and "correctness" of build will determine the extent of the "tendency TOWARD single tracking". This is interpreted as drawing a line in the sand straight down the middle of the animal. At rest you will have the animal standing 4 square. As the speed of the animal increases the footprints will "tend toward single tracking" which means they will begin to come IN UNDER the body and be closer together (from side to side) than they were when the dog was in its natural 4 square stance. This happens because #1 the center of gravity for the animal changes as speed is increased and the angling in of the legs keeps the support directly under the center of gravity of the animal and #2 if the legs did not tend toward single tracking the animal would have tremendous lateral displacement in movement (side to side motion) and would waste too much motion from side to side instead of going straight forward. An animal which exhibits a lot of side to side motion (seen when viewed head on) will tire quicker and have less stamina than an animal which is smoother of movement and does not exhibit any displaced movement side to side (or up and down for that matter). BUT there will STILL be two tracks laid. The tracks laid by the left feet will be in a line (single tracking) and the tracks laid by the right feet will be in a line (single tracking). The distance between the left and right footprints front and rear will decrease with speed. The animal will tend "toward" single tracking but not lay an exact single track. My estimation of a good "single tracking" dog would be one whose left rear fell INSIDE the footprint of the left front foot when at an extended trot. Many times in Bouvs you will find the tracks for the front feet are wider apart than the tracks for the rear.

CP: Here is my guess or interpretation - and it is just that. The “firm and flat” of the American standard is an indication of front and rear angulation, reach and drive, and balance. It would penalize a bouncy or ground-pounding movement. The 2+2 diagonal motion does require some balancing by the dog, done through angulation and movement timing. I think that most judges prefer seeing the dog move at a rather slow trot. At that speed the properly built dog would not absolutely single-track, as it would at an increasing speed. I suspect in practice, a dog that tried to trot without some tendency to single track would fall or appear to do a “high-wire” balancing act. The Belgian standard’s “When in motion” as stated above seems to address the hocks and fails to address speed or gait. There is reference to a direct relationship of increasing speed and single tracking. What type of “motion” are we considering? The placement of feet and the manner of balance changes with type of movement - walk, trot, canter, gallop, pace etc.

LLC: If the Belgian judges are not favoring single tracking dogs then they are not following the physiological principles established many years ago. Perhaps they have misinterpreted the phrase "moving on the same plane". If we accept that a Bouvier was designed to be an endurance trotting dog then let me quote Curtis Brown again: "When judging the quality of leg and body motions for endurance at the trot, any motion that wastes energy is undesirable. Without considering body shape or size, the following principles are important for evaluating efficiency for endurance:

6. Each side's motion should be symmetrical to the other side (no lameness).”

Rachel Page Elliot states the following: "When a dog breaks into a trot, his body is supported by only two legs at a time, which move as alternating diagonal pairs. He must therefore balance himself, as nearly as possible, over a center column of support, in order to travel easily and efficiently; otherwise, he will sway from side to side… Variations in the dog's height, breadth of body, and length of leg influence the extent to which the legs incline inward, but all dogs make the effort - regardless of breed or type... Regardless of differences, the principle of seeking balanced support remains the same for all, as this is Nature's method of offsetting wasteful action that reduces efficiency." To learn more please read The New Dogsteps by Rachel Page Elliot. So, I will risk the ire of some and state I feel that the Belgians are completely wrong here.

JK: I think this is one of the areas of translation problems that I referred to in the answer to number 9. I believe the spirit of the issue is that the dog hocks are not to be really close, not crossing over in a true single track. . . . but tend to single track at greater speed. This question deals primarily with semantics. With regards to the back remaining firm and flat, we want taut skin that move with authority. Not the 'wet dog' look of an animal whose skin rolls from side to side as he gaits.

D&CS: See answer to #7.

JA: The question appears to confuse the hock with the metatarsus as well as stem from a fractured reading of the standards, which derives in part from the vagueness of translation. Also, the FCI standard does not state regarding the hock that "their action must be parallel to the median line of the body." The current English text of the FCI standard states for the hocks: "Seen from the rear when in position stay, they should be straight and completely parallel. In action they may not turn in or out from the member axis." The prior FCI English translation stated: "Seen from the rear they should be straight and perfectly parallel when in a position of ‘stay.' When in action, they should neither close in nor out, but remain perfectly perpendicular." The AKC standard states: "When standing and seen from the rear, they will be straight and perfectly parallel to each other. In motion, they must turn neither in nor out." The AKC standard states that the properly built Bouvier "will tend to" single-track at a fast trot. The standard does not say that the Bouvier should travel with all of its paws on the same line. Spira defines "single tracking" as follows in part: "In normal canine movement, irrespective of breed (but more readily observed in the taller varieties) the tendency is for the legs to incline more and more under the body as the speed increases." Of note is that the 2001 FCI Bouvier standard calls for the Bouvier to single track, but uses a different definition of single track; the FCI standard states: "The Bouvier single tracks (meaning that the footprint from the hind leg exactly covers the footprint from the front leg on the same side) in normal motion."

11. In both the Dutch and Belgian standard the length of the neck is to be "slightly less than the length of the head". The AKC standard states: "strong and muscular, widening gradually into the shoulders. When viewed from the side, it is gracefully arched and with proud carriage. A short, squatty neck is faulty.". It would seem, a neck that is shorter than the head would be short and couldn't be "gracefully arched". (It may have a crest which looks arched, but it would seem it cannot be gracefully arched, without becoming longer than the head.) What are the advantages of a short neck in all areas of work and what are the advantages of a long, arched neck?                                                                                                                                          back

RC-M/EP: Miss Bowles believed that if the shoulder were properly laid back, the neck would naturally appear longer and more graceful. To her, a short, squat neck was an indication of a straighter shoulder. Our experience with Airedales shows this not to be the case. The length of neck is determined mostly by the size of the vertebrae. In the Airedale, the longer neck gives more leverage when whipping a small animal to death. In the Bouvier, as in other breeds that protect herds from predators, a shorter, more muscular neck would tend to make the guard dog less vulnerable. We suspect that this neck business, like coat color, may be another matter of personal taste.

PT: I have had problems with necks on Bouvs with injury doing protection and in using my dogs long ago as catch dogs on goats. I've had both squatty necks and elegant necks injured BUT the longer the neck the more prone to injury I find it to be. A short neck (as per Belgian standard) effectively absorbs concussion with minimum damage. This is probably because more muscle mass usually accompanies a shorter neck. A longer, arched neck (as per the way most people describe the American standard) seems to be more prone to whiplash and concussion damage. In horses I've had TWO young horses break their necks at the 1st vertebrae where it meshes with the skull. BOTH horses had long elegant necks and refined throat latches and the consensus was that these types of necks were more prone to injury. Thoroughbred horses with long elegant necks are more prone to Wobblers. Though Wobblers has been associated with diet it is thought that the "length" of the vertebrae (which results in the longer neck) is not conducive to stability of the neck and results in damage to the nerves when maximum growth rates are achieved through nutrition. (Now who among us does not feed their dogs well.) Wobblers may not be a problem in dogs (our dogs) BUT it IS a problem in Dobies (my past experience is that it is) and THEY are supposed to have long, arched necks. I personally create the illusion of a longer, more elegant neck through having a longer, sloping shoulder which allows for the pronounced withers and a longer "line" from occiput to the beginning of the back. Proper "withers" gives you that effect.

CP: My thinking relates a long neck with speed and possibly agility and a short neck with strength. The strong and muscular requirement also relates to work. I suspect that a neck length could make the dog more susceptible to spinal injury.

LLC: There is absolutely no advantage to a short neck as it is indicative of a straight shoulder. Nor is a long, graceful (swan?) neck called for. Once again, if the Europeans are calling for a short neck I feel that they are incorrect - However, just by eyeballing my dogs in "trim" the neck does appear to have approximately the same length as the head.

JK: I believe that this is a problem. A 'cobby' animal, would probably not have a gracefully arched neck, but be compact, have a center of gravity different than one with an elegant neck. To me we must look at the whole picture not just the parts, remember the parable about the Blind Men and the Elephant?

D&CS: I think the term “arched neck” has nothing to do with the breed. It seems to be so common in most standards. Examples:

Bouvier - Strong and muscular, widening gradually into the shoulders….it is gracefully arched with proud carriage.

Doberman Pinscher - Neck proudly carried, well muscled and dry. Well arched, with nape of neck widening gradually toward body.

Pointer - Long, dry, muscular, and slightly arched, springing cleanly from the shoulders.

Boxer - The neck has a distinctly marked nape with an elegant arch blending smoothly into the withers.

Look at the pictures on the below (remove the coat of the Bouv) – it is pretty close to the same silhouette. Soon all the dogs will have the same body type because it is pleasing to the eye. These pictures aren’t even accurate to the angulation anymore.
How about:

Visla - Strong, smooth and muscular, moderately long, arched and devoid of dewlap, broadening nicely into shoulders which are moderately laid back.

Dalmatian - The neck is nicely arched, fairly long, free from throatiness, and blends smoothly into the shoulders.

It’s all the same. (Pictures from AKC website)

JA: The ability to understand the information contained in breed standards is enhanced by an understanding of canine structure and terminology; I highly recommend the reading and rereading of Gilbert & Brown's K-9 Structure & Terminology. The question posed in 11 stems not from any inconsistency between the AKC and the FCI Bouvier standards, but from a fractured reading of the standards. The neck is not an isolated part of a canine. To understand the appropriate neck on a Bouvier, you must understand the standard for the entire dog. Others can explain it better than I. I would recommend pages 103 - 105 of K-9 Structure & Terminology: "Dogs with long necks usually have well laid-back shoulders blades; dogs with short necks usually have steep shoulders." I would also recommend pages 68 - 71 of K-9 Structure & Terminology, with particular attention to figure 5-11: "Dogs with short necks or short rib cages or both usually have steep shoulder blades and lack of forechest. Dogs with long necks often have long rib cages and well-laid back shoulder blades."

12. Some breeds have split between working and show. Is this what will happen in the Bouvier? Is it already happening? If so, do we want to bring the two back together? If so, what would that take? Why do you feel that the structure of show dogs and working dogs is diverging/has diverged?                                         back

RC-M/EP: We probably addressed this matter as thoroughly as we are able in our responses to other questions.

PT: I think it is a simple issue of making working dogs pretty and show dogs sound enough of temperament and body to work AND allowing working dogs in the show ring on equal footing without having to have all that coat. There is definitely a chasm between working and show. It is being bridged by people in agility and herding though and I don't know why it cannot be bridged by people in the protection sports as well. But unless proper temperaments are put on a higher level of concern, working people simply are going to keep calling the show dogs "foo foo dogs" and not be interested in working one.

CP: It is what some perceive as having happened. Personally I do not think there has been so much of a split of the breed as of the people who follow the various dog sports. So far as the breed is concerned, I think that any split is narrowing. If there is in fact a significant divergence, I view that as undesirable for a small population breed such as the Bouvier. The common denominator for maintaining the breed as one is adherence to a standard. More interaction and better understanding within the people part of the equation is very important.

JK: See answer #1.

Alfons Verheyen (Eminent Bouvier breeders and enthusiasts for over 40 years, Alfons and his wife Annie were the proprietors of the v.d. Buildrager kennel. [Annie worked closely with Justin Chastel in the Belgian Bouvier Club for over 20 years being one of the individuals who helped to write THE standard for the Bouvier, as accepted by the FCI.] Alfons trained his dogs for Belgian Ring Sport and was a Belgian Ring Sport decoy. Feeling that a Bouvier not only had to LOOK good, but it had to be able to work, Alfons was instrumental in ensuring that in Belgium, a dog MUST pass the CQN prior to being able to be awarded a conformation championship. The v.d. Buildrager lines achieved IPO titles, Belgian ring titles and beauty titles in many countries. One of their dogs, Ch. Yago v.d. Buildrager, was imported to the U.S. by Edmee Bowles at the age of 5 as a Belgian Champion, becoming an American Champion as well. Their last litter, produced in 1991, produced Czech champion Parnas v.d. Buildrager, IPO 3, a dog who graced the cover of the Dutch Bouvier Nieuws. Alfons and Annie always achieved a CQN on any of the dogs that they used to perpetuate their bloodlines. Descendants of the v.d. Buildrager kennels feature in many of the bloodlines used today for both conformation and working titles. At this time, Alfons is actively participating with a group of individuals who are resurrecting and writing the standard for the Bouvier de Ardennes, once thought to be extinct. Both Alfons and Annie are FCI Qualified Judges for the Bouvier, who are invited to judge Bouvier events world wide, and in the spring of 2002, Alfons was invited to Denver to judge the NAWBA conformation classes): I personally feel that this separation is unavoidable. This separation has existed for years for the Belgian sheepdog. There are those which are bred by fanciers for their remarkable qualities as a utility breed, known worldwide for its character, courage and keenness. And there are those which are bred exclusively for the show ring, where as a rule these characteristics can no longer be found.

If we keep giving international and national titles to Bouviers des Flandres (a work breed) to specimens not possessing a work certificate, then a separation will not only be unavoidable, it will be necessary.

D&CS: In our opinion, this has happened a long time ago, only nobody wants to admit it. I have yet to see ANY showline stock be able to compete on the KNPV field. Probably none ever will. I do not see any benefits to ‘bringing the two back together’. No conformation person would choose an old fashioned KNPV dog and no working person would ever pick a show dog to work with. Isn’t that the same as two different breeds?

JA: If there is a split or divergence between work and show, that split has to do with drives, trainability and character and not so much with structure. Many of the public puppy buyers are looking for Golden Retrievers in a Bouvier coat; they like the look of the Bouvier, but cannot handle a hard dog.

13. It seems bitches are often looking quite doggy in the show ring, yet the standard says they should look feminine. Why is this important? What advantages are there to a feminine bitch in working?                 back

CKL: This is again not breeding on overexaggeration. I have worked males and females and in capacities there is no difference to my opinion. A female has a bit disadvantage because of heat-periods, some are at that moment a bit mellower.

RC-M/EP: Years ago, when we went to dog shows we could pretty much tell just by looking at most of the Bouviers who the breeder was. It was not the grooming: The established bloodlines at that time each had a type. This was true both in America and in Belgium. The types seemed to be determined largely by the individual personalities of the breeders. They each had a picture of an ideal Bouvier in their head, an esthetic, and that’s what they put out there. There was an overall esthetic in breeding purebred dogs which preferred that the bitches be slightly smaller and more refined than the dogs. There appears to be a natural tendency for this to be the case in most mammals. We have, however, since become more enlightened about gender differences. There is no pragmatic justification for selecting for feminine bitches. The times have changed. This issue seems to be another example of intrusive anthropomorphism.

PT: There are no advantages OR disadvantages to a feminine bitch in working that I can see. But my bitches remain feminine no matter how I breed and they can do any job the male can do so I figure it is a natural occurrence to have gender differences. The rule of thumb I've heard from show people is that it takes a doggy bitch to produce a top winning dog special though. Not necessarily true but that may be why you see doggy bitches winning.

CP: Type. It would (should) be difficult for a doggy bitch to be typey. Females should be feminine. I don’t know of any advantage to a feminine bitch nor of a doggy bitch in working, other than that stated above -- a female should be feminine.

function as the most important thing. Suffice it to say that I would not go to an AKC breeder of Border Collies for a working Border Collie. Nor would I go to someone whose Bouviers are selected uniquely or even mostly for the possibility of winning in the breed ring, for a herding dog.

JK: There is a visual differentiation of sex in almost all species, why not the Bouvier, seems natural to me? I would imagine that an advantage of the female working dog would be in the get'um down and kill'um attitude natural to the female gender (males are aggressive over sex, bitches are just simply aggressive). The bitches would be lighter of bone, thus more agile, and would have less stress on bones when jumping. Other than that, I cannot see that one is better than the other for working. The possible exception would be in hauling a cart; the added brawn of the male, perhaps would provide an easier pull (but then maybe you could use one of those "doggie bitches").

D&CS: There are no advantages to what a dog looks like for a good working dog. In the showring, if it wins…… See answer to #7.

JA: The AKC Bouvier standard does not differentiate between the sexes, except in size (height). It does not call for a "feminine" bitch. There is long standing lore in the fancy that some want the dogs to look like dogs and the bitches to look like bitches.

14. Many dogs in America are what one European judge termed ‘elephantine’. What do you think? What are the advantages and disadvantages?                                                                                                      back

RC-M/EP: We presently have two Bouviers. The bitch is 29", the dog 28". Belco, the dog Miss Bowles selected to protect her and her mother on their flight from Europe during WWII, was barely 25", yet he could knock a man down, pin and hold him. The Bouviers we now own could knock down, pin and hold a cow. We don’t think that’s necessary. Americans typically believe bigger to be better. Thus, the ‘elephantine’ American Bouvier. However, extremes in size do not necessarily determine a dog’s ability to work well. We believe that ‘elephantine’ is pejorative only when it describes movement. Some of the early Belco Farm stock was quite large, but moved like quarter horses. At the time we worked with Miss Bowles, she had been selecting for shoulder, topline and bite at the expense of size, with the result that many of her dogs were becoming too small and light in bone. The problem with American breeders has been just the opposite. They have been selecting for size at the expense of structure, thus the big American Bouviers that move like elephants. Clearly a standard that specifies size and then allows that specification to be consistently ignored in the breed ring is no standard at all. Your problem is not size but consistency. If you allow the breed ring to promote the whims of breeders and judges, then you have lost more than criteria, you have lost control . You have abrogated your responsibilities as guardians of this unique type of canine.

PT: From my observations the structure being shown in the ring varies GREATLY from one end of the scale to the other with breeders/exhibitors TRULY knowing little about what type of conformation it takes for the dogs they are showing to actually do a day's work in the fields of herding, protection or drafting. Since the breed was undisputedly based on a farm dog for use in both field and protection it would seem that structure would be paramount but...... pretty rules in the ring.... not form to function.

Aside from coat..... I've seen gargantuan dogs in the ring and more moderate sized dogs in the ring. A couple of current BIS dogs have so much angulation that doing a day's work would be difficult for them PLUS their size would greatly interfere with being able to physically maneuver around livestock or make quick moves in the protection field. Their stamina would be very questionable. Other BIS dogs have more moderate size but continue to lean toward well angulated. Herding consists of continuous motion when moving a herd and good wind as well as strong, fluid motion go far to make sure the dog has the stamina to get the job done without fatigue setting in. Well angulated Bouvs have trouble with the side-to-side action needed for diving in and out on cattle. They lose much of their agility and ability to "get away" when the need arises. They also lose quick acceleration or sprint speed with more angulation as it simply takes more energy and longer to get to top speed. (Simple Quarter Horse versus TB comparison.) Angulation does not lend itself to soundness in general for the Bouv as when the Bouv carries adequate mass as per standard PLUS has even a tad too much angulation it tends to be more vulnerable to cruciate injury because of the stress put on the cruciate with quick turns and stops. Too much angulation simply lends itself to injury and is less efficient than moderation of angulation. Too much size also slows a dog down and hinders the ability of the dog so stop and turn around quickly. This applies to herding AND protection as whether it be livestock or agitator you want the dog making quick, instantaneous corrections in direction to "handle" the stock OR agitator and size hinders this and diminishes the dog's ability to do so. These faults are readily overlooked in the breed ring.

Even among working folks the conformation varies greatly so all blame cannot be laid on "show people". But the greatest "lack" of conformational quality for true working abilities continues to lie within show dogs which are bred strictly for the conformation ring without such conformation being proofed in true working conditions (not instinct testing). Conformation people seem to continue to breed for "all breed" judges and "all breed" show wins instead of for the "betterment of the breed". This attitude perpetuates differences in working versus show.

Conformation which will stand up in the field of herding will usually either #1 consist of a lighter dog or #2 consist of a smaller dog for agility's sake. There are too few herding Bouvs out there to truly make a comparison of Bouvs today in herding but from doing true herding work myself with Bouvs for the last 20 years my personal experience and comparisons support my conclusions. These are: Dogs with size and mass simply cannot function in the field with any adequate "continuous" success nor do they have the agility to "step out of the way" when danger impedes. Thus my conclusion is that IF I chose to remain with Bouvs that I would have to adhere more closely with the Belgian standard than the American as the Belgian standard called for a more moderate (smaller) size than the American standard PLUS the Belgian standard has maximum weights which aides in determining proper size. The smaller size simply works more efficiently with less injuries. A small amount of size differentiation can make a big difference in working ability. By definition of smaller size I have found that the maximum height for a dog with adequate mass is around 25&1/2 inches. Such mass being around 85#. Taller with matching volume of mass and you lose agility. Bitches I've found to be fine at around 24&1/2 inches and 73#. These are optimum sizes but they are very close to the mark and any variance over about 1/2 inch for greater height and you begin to lose quite a bit of maneuverability per 1/2 inch of height IF mass is also increased proportionately. This size does not seem to fall true in the conformation ring where bigger is better in most cases for all breed judges. Thus losing the working ability in "show" dogs seems to be a given if trends toward bigger were followed. Also, dogs with straight shoulders tend to do just fine in all breed shows. These same dogs in the field would be hindered by such conformation and would have to exert more effort to accomplish any given task as well as it simply would increase the risk of concussion injury. They'd tire easier, have less give in jumping and turning. Dogs which are over angulated in the rear tend to do fine in all breed shows. This seems to be the BIGGEST difference in many cases as GSD type angulation seems to abound in the breed now and the term "moderately angulated" seems to now have a great variety of meaning. MY definition of moderate and today's definition of moderate seems to be very far apart. Also dogs which interfere with their OWN movement do well in all breed shows as people use treadmills to compensate and "teach" the dog to move without interfering OR compensate by moving the dog at a speed that won't highlight the fault. Dogs which are tall (long of leg) but have no heartgirth do well and those same dogs probably would have no "wind" for the long haul. But "grooming" gives them the appearance of mass and heartgirth. Simply put, the show arena is NOT the place to prove conformation as to whether or not it was appropriate for the breed. Small rings, abundance of coat to cover up faults and little time spent by the judge truly watching a dog move leads to grave errors in the conformation ring in AKC.

When conformation dogs are directly compared to herding dogs you generally find the more agile the dog the smaller BUT the same error in breeding also goes for performance people. They tend to breed specifically for one sport (instead of for the breed) and thus may tend to breed specific conformation which MAY be sound BUT does not conform to the overall standard (whether American or Belgian). For instance from my viewpoint the dogs I know of being bred for Ring Sport carry too much height and not enough body mass. They are fast on the run and have good agility BUT they lose the body mass in order to gain such agility. I don't think there is anyone specifically breeding for herding (other than myself) and I have shown conformation also so I cannot make a direct comparison other than my own dogs and smaller with mass is better for herding.

So it seems that YES there IS a great variance between conformation dogs and performance dogs and no consistency in either group for one particular type of conformation. Each group of people showing in their own Specialty seem to be looking for only what wins in their on sport/event instead of at the whole of the breed. There doesn't appear to be a national consensus on breeding for the WHOLE DOG as a Bouvier but for breeding toward specialization. Specialization for the breed ring being more toward pleasing "all breed" judges thus bigger is better and more angulation is better and more coat is better and each breeder breeds the most winning dog INSTEAD of for the more appropriate TYPE as per breed standard. Specialization for each specific sport also. Tall and lighter for Ring Sport and smaller for agility (sometimes very small), protection factions have their own wants and needs and smaller doesn't appear to be one of them but at least the dogs ARE physically challenged in SchH and those which do not hold up are generally culled (unlike in conformation). As a whole, from what I've seen, dogs being bred for performance seem to hold more "soundness" than those being bred for conformation only. That should say in itself that there is a big difference in the requirements between breeding for conformation and breeding for performance (whatever the performance event).

No advantages. ALL disadvantages for increased size.

CP: If “Elephantine” means what I think, I see no advantages to either a working dog or one that is shown in conformation evaluation. The disadvantage should be evident to all.

LLC: I do believe that there are many Bouviers who are overbuilt.. . too heavy on bone, too large to be agile— Once again, I refer you to the Standard. Bone is required to be "strong" not huge, heavy, as big as a tree stump We have height requirements. The Bouvier must be agile by Standard definition. The gait is "free, bold and proud". "HE GIVES THE IMPRESSION OF GREAT STRENGTH WITHOUT ANY SIGNS OF HEAVINESS OR CLUMBSINESS IN HIS OVERALL MAKEUP." The bold italics are mine.

KH: I would never choose a Bouvier whose look tended toward the "massive" for herding work. As I said earlier, I prefer Bouviers around 65-80 pounds. Any bigger, they tend to tire, and to not be able to keep going.

JK: Bigger is not always better; the Bouvier is to be a large dog, not a giant breed. Big 'loafy', over done animals are not inclined for working nor do they have the stamina needed even for the show ring. I call these types of Bouviers, 'ground pounders'. It seems to me, again, that Americans especially like bigger dogs, with more hair; thinking that size equals quality (the more is better syndrome). It just isn't so, however, the opposite extreme is not good either. We should strive to hit the middle of the recommended sizes. (Dogs 24 ½ in to 27 ½ inches and bitches 23 ½ in to 26 ½ in.)

AV: I can speak of experience here. There is no difference at all between bitch and dog. Of course, in competitions, bitches are always judged last, in order to avoid spreading bitchy odors which might influence the dogs. Naturally, one must also take into account the unavailability of bitches when in season, or when they are used for breeding purposes.

D&CS: It is true that many American’s feel “Bigger is better”. It seems that North Americans like extremes – Teacup Poodles and Warlock Dobermans.

JA: Jean DuMont has used the word "elephants" to describe Bouviers who are too big and too heavy. The Bouvier standard describes the ideal size and substance for the Bouvier. The AKC standard quantifies the size only in height. The FCI standard quantifies the size of the Bouvier in both height and weight. The height range in the AKC standard allows both dogs and bitches to be approximately an inch bigger than the FCI standard. The FCI standard calls for dogs that weigh from approximately 77 to 88 pounds and bitches from approximately 60 to 77 pounds. Using the FCI height and weight guidelines, many Bouviers in America are too big and too heavy.

15. Do you feel the standard needs to be different from the standard accepted in the countries of origin? In other words, why isn't every country in the world using the standard from the country of origin? In the recent copy of the proposed Belgian Standard revisions, fauve is no longer listed as a usual color for Bouviers and under disqualifying faults it states “blonde dogs from washed out through auburn.” Isn’t this a change from the original standard of origin, and related to current fashion? Are there not advantages to fawn colored Bouviers, e.g., heat reflection and camouflage in guarding a flock of sheep providing help in actually catching two-legged or four-legged predators? Is it true fawn first went out of favor after World War I due to the fact that the lighter color dogs when acting as messengers or guard dogs were easier targets for soldiers (could that be the source of the bias and perhaps decades of misinformation)? Some people say the Bouvier was meant to be a general purpose farm dog, and fawn was too light to perform guarding duties adequately, why then was fawn originally accepted in the standard and darker chocolate brown was not?                back

RC-M/EP: Do you mean that the Afghan Hound should be judged by today’s standard in Afghanistan? And what country would set the standard for the Dalmatian? Coat color in the Bouvier is now and always has been arbitrary. So much of every standard reflects the varying tastes of the people on the committee. There is little or no pragmatic justification for color preference except to support the shade that would best blend with the original terrain. Miss Bowles used her Bouviers to patrol the family estate for poachers, so she preferred a dark coat. She did not believe that the Bouvier was bred to be used with sheep, so the lighter coat held no advantage for her. The Franco/Belgian region in which both she and the Bouvier originated had a temperate climate, no need for heat reflection. The Bouviers she knew from childhood were varying shades of grey to black. Why not chocolate, or spotted, or salt and pepper, was the subject of controversy and speculation then and will likely remain so.

PT: I'm sure we simply tried to apply English rationalization to the Belgian standard and flubbed the deal to start with. But taking my own likes, dislikes and considerations aside we SHOULD adopt the country of origins standard. Even I would like to improve on their wording however and explain things in clearer detail. I'm not too sure "our" definition of fawn was ever recognized. I've yet to see the exact, original Belgian standard in print with a date on it. There HAS to be one somewhere. I get confused by so many being put forth as to which was the original.

The color white in ANY animal seems to draw with it mutations and lethals which are simply unpredictable. I could go into color genetics but from merle dogs to white horses (not greys which are modifying colors but true white horses), colors dealing with white have been prone to problems and defects. Even "grey" horses have a higher incidence of cancer.

As for the color itself being pro or con for guardianship of herds.... for most guardian type of dogs the color of choice it seems is white as it blends in with the herd and stock are less likely to see it as predatory (sheep that is)...you don't guard cattle.

It is recognized as problematic that white is NOT a color you wish to consider using in camouflaging as white IS reflective and is easily seen from great distances as well as at night. So I can see white being a detriment during wartime and not being desirable in Bouviers used for protection.

As for herding, it is known in the herding world that black gains more respect and response in herding dogs. White and red dogs tend to have to "earn" their respect from livestock while black or even gray (meaning silver to gunmetal blue) dogs tend to have more power simply due to color. This doesn't mean a fawn Bouvier has no power. Big, hairy monster is still a big, hairy monster but when working other breeds of dogs I find that my black Bouvier or grey (silver) Bouviers have a markedly greater fear response in livestock than red Aussies or red BCs or even red merled dogs like ACDs and Aussies. Some of these merled dogs have quite a bit of white in them and others only the white markings (like collars and feet) but it remains consistent that black provokes a greater fear response and thus gives the dog more presence/power from the start. On cattle this means more responsive stock OR stock that may possibly move away from pressure easier. I've not seen a fawn Bouv worked on cattle but have seen other breeds and the color prejudice remains consistent with cattle and sheep. Haven't tried it with goats but they fight everything anyway.

CP: I believe that one standard for all Bouviers, regardless of country of residence should work well but I doubt that it will ever

be possible. Changes in recent years in the standards named above make it difficult to ever have a unified standard. We sometimes confuse standards with dominant fads and those fads become trends. We have seen and will continue to see changes in the various standards that exist today. Regarding color, we have seen changes to the standard named above and others as well. Since I have had no fawn dogs nor have had very much personal experience with Bouviers of that color, I don’t have information that would cause me to feel strongly about the fawn color. Personally, I prefer black or black brindle; but some standard at one time referred to black as “acceptable.” I think that meant not preferred.

LLC: I certainly believe that we have largely adhered to the original standard of the Bouvier. I also feel that the American Standard has a better grasp of structure and locomotion principles than the European standard. That being said, even the Belgians change their Standard — Must we rigidly follow along? I don't think so. The Europeans are no different than we are… individuals framing their own opinions regarding their breed and attempting to impose that vision on the members of their national club. Some things get voted in, some do not. As to fawns, the color appeared in the original standard. Obviously there were quite a few fawns in the original gene pool - I would be interested to know exactly why fawns have fallen out of favor. I suspect some is that they became fashionable and there were influential breeders who were jealous of the success of those breeding fawns. We are all human. As to the war, I can see that reasoning but the war is long over. Is there any science to prove that breeding fawn to fawn weakens the breed's health? I personally do believe that fawns dilute coat color and possibly would dilute skin pigment and eye color if bred for successive generations. However, as breeders, it is our job to balance all of these issues, I will never throw out the best dog in my breeding program just because he or she arrives in the "wrong" packaging! There will always be "bad" breeders. I am back to my original tenet … if a breeder narrows his breeding selection criteria to one or two areas (be it color, temperament or conformation) and neglects the rest of the dog. he will do harm to the breed. He will also eventually do in his own breeding program! And those breeders, who have remained true to the spirit of the Bouvier will go on without him!

HDV: First of all, there is only ONE standard: the original Franco-Belgian one. There is no discussion about that. It's crazy that several countries made their own, just because it suited them more. People accept a standard, or they don't. If they don't, they have to create their own breed. The standard is clear about structure and character. I know there are NO correct translations of the original standard. Last week I received a new English version: it was full of other details. Crazy. Most of your questions lead to the sad story of the Bouvier des Flandres: The Money Interest. Let it be clear: from the beginning the black Roulers, and the grey/black Bouvier des Flandres were mixed. After WW2, the "leaders" in the Bouvier world (Belgium) did outcrosses with other breeds, to change the hard coat. The Schnauzer was one of them, but even more the Briard. THIS IS THE REASON WHY THERE EXIST FAWN AND BLOND BOUVIERS. So the story about the coat is a story which some don't like to give daylight as you will understand. But even a more sad thing happened: they wanted soft, lazy characters: it sold better too; they didn't have problems with the owners. Money. Money. As they had outcrossed the REAL Bouvier, these people had to change the Standard in the 60's. Note that the head was shorter from that period! It is the proof that they messed up things.

AV: Internationally, the standard of the breed belongs to its country of origin. For the Flemish Cow Dog – Bouvier des Flandres (France and Belgium), no other standard may be recognized. In case of dispute, mostly due to incorrect or erroneous translations, the standard of the breed of the country of origin will be casting. Just imagine the muddle if each country were to make its own standard for each existing breed!

I recently read in the paper, and it was also announced on TV, that after years of investigation, a comportmentalist came to the following conclusion : dogs with a dark coat are sharper and have a stronger character than lighter colored dogs.

D&CS: A Bouvier is a Bouvier. It should be the same everywhere. To deviate too much will severely limit the genepool. Just look at the difference between the AKC style German Shepherd and the German Working Shepherd. However, it is a slap in the face to the Belgian people to change THEIR standard for THEIR dog. Part 2: I don’t breed or own a fawn, so I can’t comment on the color. Part 3: Generally, most of the KNPV lines are solid black. Generally, not all.

JA: A Bouvier is a Bouvier is a Bouvier; the concept of the breed should not vary from country to country. There will always be some differences from region to region based on breeding cycles and the genetic make up of the local dogs. The official standard for any breed recognized by the AKC, and any revisions of the standard, originate with the parent breed club; the membership of the parent club must vote on and approve the standard or revision before it is submitted to the AKC Board of Directors for approval. While I personally would have no objection to the American Bouvier des Flandres Club approving a revision to the standard so that it tracks verbatim the FCI standard, such a decision can only be made by a vote of the membership of the American Bouvier des Flandres Club. A segment of the Bouvier fancy in America has adopted the myth of fawn. My view of the fawn myth is the improper use of the term "fawn" to describe any color of Bouvier that is not a brindle or black, despite the written European legacy of the Bouvier that blonde, yellow and other washed out coat colors are incorrect for the Bouvier. And then the people who want to justify the fawn myth do so by pointing out that the word "fawn" is in the FCI standard. There are no advantages to blonde and washed out Bouviers, just like there are no advantages to white German Shepherd Dogs or white Boxers or parti-colored Poodles. People have stated many things to attempt to validate their belief in the fawn myth. Lack of proper pigment in the hair of the Bouvier is a fault.

16. What would you change in your breeding program to improve your bloodlines?                              back

RC-M/EP: This question does not apply to us.

PT: I like what I have conformationally. I have a 26" dog now which has quite a bit of mathematical hybrid vigor which probably helped gain him his size over 24&1/2 inch parents and I have to keep his weight down to 92# for a comfortable working weight and I notice reduction in agility so I wish to maintain a smaller size again. I would like to have a better temperament for protection. Innate, inborn confidence combined with the prey drive and sharpness I already have is what I'd like to add without losing the biddibility I now have. Of course, coats is a buggeroo. I hate masses of coat but need it to show. I can shave it for working but growing it can be a pain.

CP: I would like to see stronger fronts, not only in my own dogs but in the majority of Bouviers that I see. With our relatively few litters bred over the years and small number of those dogs having been used for breeding, getting closer to goals has taken much time. Through close line-breeding then total out-crossing, my preferred “type” is finally established. If time and health allows, I would like to bring some of our “old blood” back into the dogs we have today.

LLC: I will always strive to improve health. As to breed type and temperament, I am very pleased with the Bouviers, Dave and I are producing at present.

JK: I would wish that Marion Hubbard and I had had the opportunity to sperm bank Ch Nack du Clos des Cytises when we first imported him. I think that he could retrieve much of shortness of back, classic parallel plains of the head and reinforce the temperament of today's dogs. However, at that time this sort of process was still in its infancy for dogs. Ah, hindsight.

D&CS: I would go back 30 years and breed to some of the tough, honest, hard, and “ugly” working dogs. I would ideally only like to produce the old fashion “wash and wear coat”. I have a bitch like that and it’s WONDERFUL. Our breeding program is too young to successfully answer this question. At the moment I’ve very happy with what we’ve produced.

JA: Become independently wealthy and find the perfect brood bitch and stud dog. Short of that fantasy, breeding is a combination of luck, skill, knowledge, experience and heartache. One should continue to learn and share knowledge of the breed. When tested by the "breeding gods," one should strive to do the right thing.

In this section we present additional thoughts or answers
supplied which did not fit within the Question format.

back

RC-M/EP: We have no questions to add, but would like to close by clarifying our position with regard to the present state of the Bouvier des Flandres. We are not apologists for Edmee Bowles. We assumed that we were included on your list largely because of our experience with her, and so we included as much information as we could about her practices. Miss Bowles had a lot of mistaken notions about the Bouvier. She could be stubborn, willful and greedy. She was a terrible judge of human character. Miss Bowles, however, was no dilettante. She learned about breeding livestock as a child. She devoted most of her life to producing what she hoped would be a genetically stable line of sound, elegant Bouviers. This task required immense patience and planning. Sadly, in our opinion, her Du Clos des Cerberes line was eventually destroyed by her successor. Even more sadly, the breed to which she dedicated more than fifty years has become a genetic disaster, barely recognizable as the same animal we came to love thirty years ago under her tutelage. She did not contribute to this entropic spiral. She stopped making significant decisions in her breeding program in the late 1970’s. We bred one litter in all our years, so we didn’t mess things up very much, if at all. So how did things arrive at their present state? These questions, would indicate that you have not yet confronted the true enormity of the problems in the Bouvier des Flandres and the amount of work, discipline and sacrifice necessary to set things right, if that is still possible. As for us, our next Bouvier des Flandres will probably be another Airedale Terrier.

CP: With this non-question question, I'm probably getting way off track here; but ----- What, really, is the determining factor(s) in categorizing Bouviers into "working dogs" or "show dogs?" Is it a very general and very subjective perception base upon appearance -- working is "ugly" and show is "pretty?" Or the reverse mentality that directly relates “ugly” to "working" dog and “pretty” to “show dog?” To some degree, the majority of us have been guilty of stereotypical thinking.

The more likely scenario is based upon dogs - sometimes only one or a very few dogs - in the ancestry. For example if conformation titles show up in the pedigree, and especially if those ancestors are high-profile winners, the dog will absolutely be labeled a show dog. Conversely, the existence or prevalence of working titles and especially if those ancestors are high-profile working dog(s) appear, the dog is labeled a working dog. For sake of simplification, let’s assume the working titles to be one of the protection sports since those seem to be the most used in “determining” working versus show.

What happens when “show dog” is titled in or observed at doing some really good work. Does it become a working dog or, because of titles held by it forebears, does it stay a show dog that had a good day. Or what is the deal when a conformation judge points at “a working dog,” awarding a ribbon over the products of show dog ancestry. Does one or two very impressive titles such as Int. CH, BISS, or Working (SchH, KNPV, Ring, etc.) Champion somewhere in the pedigree pre-ordain the category one chooses for a puppy? Or is it the kennel name or breeder name that does so? Oh, well ----

AV:The Flemish Peasant Dog – the Cowdog – or, as he was simply named, the “pik”, has existed for much longer than the breed standard. Ordinary hard working folks, who could not even read or write, developed the breed. They bred the dogs solely for their usefulness and their ability to lighten their own tasks.Those people wanted a dog which could herd cattle, but also protect the farm. He had to have sufficient courage and character. His looks were unimportant, as long as he gave the impression of strength and pluck. That these illiterate people, in spite of their lack of schooling and computers, were yet able to breed dogs to meet their requirements and needs, is no wonder. Just think of the horses which were also bred solely in function of their usefulness. I know, from personal data, that these dogs were already present in farms and agricultural concerns as early as 1880. They were called “pik” in those days. This is an old Flemish expression (jet black – inky black – strong character – short tempered – sharp). The name “pik” was then very common for this type of dog. As to his color, we can deduce from his name that these utility dogs must always have had a dark or black coat in the Belgian Flanders. It would be utopian to believe that the Flemish Cow Dog only started to exist at the time the standard of the breed was made up, in the early days of 1900.

HDV.: Here some comments/info concerning your questions. Sadly, the story is quite simple: money people who had the power (who didn't go on with their lines was out of the circuit for them), changed the Bouvier into a soft-coated dog and with complete lack of character. It is not more complicated then that. The same people have interest in creating fairy tails about the Bouvier. (The crazy story about the Bouvier as a real herding dog: Some seem not to understand that when the Bouvier was created at the beginning of the 20th century, Flanders was VERY POOR (remember that thousands of Flemish people emigrated because it was so poor here compared to the USA/Canada -Titanic!). [This was] especially [true]where the Bouvier has his home: the south of Flanders. The farmers did not have more then 5 cows (those were the rich ones! So….herding for a farmer who was only too glad to have 2 cows???? NO, this makes us - Flemish people laugh). Now the breed is in danger. We will have to use the last remainers with the real heart/character to breed with. No compromises are allowed. The best, most healthful dogs must be brought together. So real CO-OPERATION is necessary. Forget influence/POWER/politcs/money. If we fail, the light will surely go out in 10 years. Don't doubt it! I wish every Bouvier lover the best, and the necessary success.

Fokke Krottje: (An active participant and enthusiast in the KNPV program with Bouviers for at least 20 years, Fokke has trained numerous Bouviers to achieve their PH 1, PH 2 and Object Guarding titles, many of them "met lof" (with honors). He prides himself in producing a strong working dog. In 2002 alone, 2 littermates out of his last breeding achieved the level of PH 2, with honors. Fokke's dogs have been bought world wide for their strong work ethics and characteristics. Fokke's kennel name is v. Fokrohof. V. Fokrohof dogs feature strongly in the pedigrees of many working Bouviers all over the world, including Canada and the U.S. Fokke has been interviewed and featured in both Dutch and US Working Bouvier magazines. Fokke owned and bred Malinois prior to using the Bouvier for KNPV sports. He feels the Bouvier is a superior dog to the Malinois and the Bouvier continues to be his personal choice for training): [After] my article in Dutch Bouvier Nieuws, Aug. 1994, I was sitting in the ad hoc commission for new breeding / health rules. The only responses (4) came from the working Bouvier people. The others say nothing, thus agreeing. No objection from the show/mix breeders.

THE BOUVIER IS A WORKING DOG.

The above title is clear and its definition can also be found in the breed standard of the Bouvier des Flanders. It indicates that the inner and the outer construction of the dog must be in balance. No matter how you look at it. Each part must be viewed completely from all sides and each part has a positive and negative aspect. For the Bouvier each separate part and their totality are significant. My meaning is this: all members of a Bouvier Club, Dutch and worldwide, must work together to enforce this point so that together we can have quality. The Bouvier should not be a dog that “John and everyone” should have — let alone breed. If this happens — and it happens all too frequently — then many things go wrong. The lazy dishonest breeder sells dogs that do not satisfactorily compare to the breed standard: timid, hotheaded, lazy, etc., and this is worse than only in words — breeders talking an ugly Bouvier/dog. Let us state crystal clear from the beginning, that the Bouvier became great as a working dog, but, it is true, the Bouvier became popular as a showdog. But this is absolutely not what it was supposed to be. If we can't acknowledge this fact than we will continue to have two types of Bouviers, such as we have today, no matter how many people claim that is not so. What I see is that those who don't see their showdogs aren't working dogs are the ones who do not work with their own dogs. Their excuse is that if they had to, their dogs would, of course, be capable of completing this training. Another common excuse is that the training is too hard for females and that there are aspects of the training that are excessive.

The sole question upon which I was truly feeling firm is that ponderous dogs are often put up in the show ring and they cannot work because they tire too quickly. But they are not supposed to be put up in the breed ring either, so I don't know what that means except poor judging.

Here is the reason why I cannot answer your questions. There are not enough Bouviers out there working to measure performance against structure. We don't actually know what structure gives an advantage to a dog so much as we know which dogs just can't make it...the ponderous ones. For the rest, the differences could as easily be the relative intangibles of drive, heart and work ethic. To me, given the fact that dogs with the spirit to work will tax their bodies to the max, one couldn't even determine what body structure is best for work without doing evaluations of senior dogs who have been working for years and see what sort of shape they are in. Did their spirit carry them past discomfort so often that they broke themselves down? Or is their body still fit and youthful after years of work?

So after much thought, thanks to you, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't really answer your question because the question itself implies a form of answer that is inherently wrong headed. When I began in Bouviers, the working Bouviers were also able to get championships except for some KNPV dogs who were a very different type. And most of the champion Bouviers could do some work. The difference was that at that time in North America was difficult or impossible to determine working ability because no one had a chance to do real testing of the dogs. Schutzhund was just in its infancy here. Almost no one had ever heard of the ring sports and KNPV. Herding was barely available as a sport. There just wasn't much way to test one's dogs except temperament testing, which gives false positives. As the working ability slipped away, very few people felt it leaving. Everyone was happy getting group placements for Bouviers, a thing that hadn't really happened much before. Breeding for show dogs was the vogue. No one even knew the damage that was being done to the breed. But show breeding brought with it it's own new culture. Dogs were being bred to be handsome instead of useful. Well, most dogs were both back then. There seemed no harm in breeding for looks. We didn't know much about the genetics of behavior then and didn't know the hidden pitfalls of ignoring behavioral drift.

Where the difference lies between breeding for show and breeding for work is in the selection process itself. What produces a line of working Bouviers is selection for work as the sine qua non of the breeding program. What that means is that a dog's strong, strong abilities will almost always justify breeding it, as long as qualities of that caliber are relatively rare and difficult to stabilize genetically....no matter what its shortcomings in type so long as it is not unsound. Doesn't this sound lots like show breeding except from another vantage? So if my working litter has a dog who is really very good looking in it, but that pup appears to have the lesser potential for work, will I breed this dog or not? The moment I complacently make the decision to pick looks over talent, I change the breeding program.

Look at it this way. Let's say I have a line of dogs who have excelled as working dogs. I might say to myself, "Ya know, Chris, your dogs always can work and you've gotten pretty consistent results lately, so let's see if it wouldn't be wise to pick the dog who looks good too in this litter. So you keep to breed the dog with a better head instead of the one with top working aptitude, just this time, eh? But a compromise has been made that will be felt for several generations.

This, then is the real difference between show breeding and working breeding. Questions of which structural attributes might be better for work are very difficult because a dog can have what appears to be perfect balance and still not have stamina. It may suffer too much from the heat. It may have a hormonal imbalance just enough to cause lower stamina. It may be the dog food. What it really may be is that there is a fundamental physiological difference that no one even thought of...like perhaps lower pack cell volume than a look alike dog who has more stamina. So one dog does better than the other because it has more oxygen in its blood and can therefore focus and keep going even when it is strongly exerting itself. Or one dog may do better because an inch of extra length of body has given the dog more room to move its angulated hind end under it and therefore fatigue less rapidly. I have seen a drop dead gorgeous working dog with great spirit fail at a working trial because it could not go the distance in the heat. Other dogs that same day under those same conditions could handle it and succeeded. I don't know why he couldn't go the distance. Was it the copious coat? Was it the shorter show style muzzle? Was it a question of red blood cell count? Was it something about his gorgeous structure that made him tire faster but we did not notice because he looked so good while he was working? Would I breed to this dog with such great drive and temperament? Not likely as that could be a step back. There is so much that goes into breeding for work. I once bred a dog who got kicked in the face trying to herd horses. It did severe, life threatening damage to his head. A canine tooth was driven up through his hard palate into the nasal cavity causing rapid swelling and compromised ability to breathe. The muzzle was fractured. He still had to be dragged off the field, having only yelped once and kept on going. On the one hand, this is nuts, but on the other hand, as a culture, we admire such courage and it is the stuff of heroes. Such a dog would be likely to collapse from heat instead of quitting. Is this a good quality for a working dog?

I just read an article regarding humans that isolates a certain protein present in a disproportionate number of people who respond to situations violently. Such fine points of biochemistry are often genetic and we can only guess that there are many of them. While knowledge of such things is beyond the reach of breeders, such minute genetic elements are likely to be responsible for the huge differences seen between many working dogs and many show dog lines. There are performance breeders in several breeds who acknowledge that some show dogs can work well, while most who show early signs of working well never make it to the top because they lack that certain something that breeders and trainers call "bottom" or the ability to pull out that last bit of effort and spirit to overcome all difficulties. Those working breeders won't even touch a show line because they feel it would be adding many unknown problems to their working line.

In the end, with all the complications of genetics and environment, we are not really much past breeding like to like in the hopes that we will get like. There may be a certain wisdom to that from a genetic standpoint.

There are different kinds of working dogs. A dog who is bred for herding will tend to have some differences in the way they problem solve than the dog whose character makes them better at protection work. These can appear in the same litter, but they are often very different dogs with only a little overlap of aptitudes. Which direction does the breeder take in such a case? I guess it depends upon that breeder's focus. But if it is a show breeder, then that breeder would go with the handsome one whichever aptitude it has.

Probably, if all were really in balance in terms of having to get working titles to get a championship, the breed would change strongly for the better in about ten dog generations, as long as the working titles could be in the diversity of tasks that form the true Bouvier heritage. So all the various forms of protection work, herding including cattle, scent and search work and a bit of strength for weight pulling without too much compromise to athleticism.