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