|
|
|
|
Period perfection, circa 1900.
My candidate for a compromise perfect Bulldog |
|
The topic of what constitutes an authentic fit-for-function
‘In-Standard’ English Bulldog’ was debated between
myself and fellow breeders over a period of months in an e-mail thread
that I started, titled “Bulldog Debate”. All known Bulldog
Breeders were included in the circulation list to afford everyone
an opportunity to participate. Hendrik van der Merwe of Mervander
Bulldogs and Frans Muller of Wolgemuth Bulldogs made class idiots
of themselves. Kassie Kasselman of Kassinja Bulldogs, chairman of
the Cape Bulldog Club, of which I am a member, was the only breeder
to put up any quality debate worth rebutting, leaving my thesis and
supporting arguments unscathed by the entire Bulldog Breeding fraternity
and remaining unchallenged to this day on all matters of fact.
My extensive research over several months of
the original published literature from that period in which the
Standards were authored and implemented, was put forward in support
of my hypothesis that actual representatives of the intended idealised
dogs must have existed around that time and hence can be used to
properly inform our interpretation of the Standard. I present this
here in the form of a more cohesive unified lecture. Any reader
wishing to receive the full uncensored e-mail thread bearing all
inputs and responses and which prints to in excess of 50-pages,
now a open access public document, need just e-mail me at director@gaiaresearch.co.za
At the centre of the formation of any fancier's club must be the
object of their fancy, in this case, old English Bulldogs from around
the time that the Standards were authored. Granted, as with all
animals today, including humans, bulldogs come in all sizes, but
the breed description 135 to 145 years ago was generally cohesive
in terms of characteristic features, and different weight categories
then does not constitute an argument against the original breed
description standards being based on existing ideal dogs of that
period.
The first rudimentary Bulldog Standard in 1865
was intended to preserve the old English Bulldog that existed prior
to the disastrous out-crossings to the Chinese Pug around the mid-1800’s
and the second Standard in 1875, based on the first, was changed
to accommodate the then established Pug-outcrosses and two decades
later, after incorporation, to accommodate the trendy exaggerations
that accelerated the decline of Bulldog health and welfare. The
bottom line is: depictions of Bulldogs at these critical periods
are the only means to determine historical intent.
Centuries earlier, English Bulldogs were imported
to Spain as war dogs and selectively bred there emphasising their
mass. Between 1868 to 1873, return importation of the offspring
of these Spanish English bulldogs increased the bulldog size previously
reduced somewhat by the Chinese Pug out-crosses in England and also
held promise to cancel out some of the damage to the Bulldog genome
caused by the Pug outcrossings, by return-in-crossing more authentic
Spanish English Bulldog genes to the Pug-bulldogs. These developments
were the genesis of the defensive Bulldog Standard infighting that
still continues to the present, as witnessed by the KUSA moratorium.
The Spanish crosses incensed Pug-bulldog breeders
who considered their then 50lb dog as purportedly specifically bred
for bull-baiting, to be the most authentic British Bulldog. This
is not as clearcut as it might at first seem, since earler English
Bulldogs in the hands of farmers, butchers, dog-fighters and traditional
bulldog fanciers and also the Spanish return-imports, were of greater
purity than the Pug Bulldog outcrosses. It was concern over this
Spanish invasion that led to the formation of the Bulldog Club in
1875 to defend their Pug outcrossed Bulldogs.
Whilst the original Bulldog Clubs authored the early Bulldog Standards,
the U.K. Kennel Club is nevertheless the historical owner of the
English Bulldog Standard, by virtue of that authority having authorised
and subsequently administered that Standard and furthermore, being
the legal custodian of the Bulldog as the native dog breed of the
United Kingdom. The Bulldog Club, formed in 1875 and Incorporated
in 1894, has, in this writer’s opinion, been largely responsible
for the morphological and hence health degeneration of this once
magnificent and noble breed.
In January 2011 the writer wrote to the President
of the Bulldog Club Inc (U.K.), Mr Chris Carberry, as follows:
“I (Stuart Thomson) am somewhat perplexed
that the oldest Bulldog club in the world, ‘established to
promote the breeding of pure Bulldogs of the true type, and to urge
the adoption of such type upon breeders, judges, committees, and
promoters of canine exhibitions’ no longer seems to be committed
at this time, if indeed ever since 1894, to that lofty aim. My observation
stems primarily from comparing the image of Hutchison's 1908 Perfect
Bulldog used in your Club banner, with the winners of your Club's
Bulldog of the Year for the last 33 years, since 1977, as illustrated
on your website. This is also evident from your Centenary photographs
and even your Down Memory Lane collection, which shows the last
true pure type appearing circa 1910 with CH Leone Hazelwyn.”
The curt reply: “You are of course
entitled to your opinion. There will be no further response from
this club. (T. Carberry).”
So there you have it, the late great Bulldog
Club Inc, but let us return to my Bulldog authenticity thesis, which,
I note, is fully in line with the Kennel Club’s recent pronouncements.
At least, unlike the U.K. Bulldog Club, the U.K. Kennel Club is
better late, than never, and after more than a century of the Bulldog
Club having its way, has acted.
The Kennel Club's preamble to the 2009 revised
Bulldog Standard reads:
"A Breed
Standard is the guideline which 'describes'
the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance of 'a breed'.
Absolute soundness is essential. Breeders
and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious
conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way
to the health, welfare or soundness".
Well, that certainly disqualifies most current
conformation show Bulldogs and also pet Bulldogs for sale and adequately
explains their breeder’s perverse resistance to a more explicit,
health-focussed Standard, that clearly disqualifies Bulldogs suffering
from a legacy of a century of uncontrolled exaggerations for competition’s
sake. My Gaia Bulldog Report presents irrefutable evidence that
practically everything that show bulldog breeders, judges and administrators
have achieved this past century to the present has been detrimental
in 'every' way to the health, welfare and soundness of this breed.
No-one, myself included, can claim to possess or breed a ‘healthy
Bulldog’, not yet, but I believe I understand the way to get
to that objective, which is not possible without honest humility.
The U.K. Kennel Club's (note, not the Bulldog
Club) post-amble to the Bulldog Breed Standard reads:
"Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered
a fault. The seriousness with
which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion
to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the
dog".
My assertion is that, contrary to Mervander Bulldogs’ Hendrik
v d Merwe's response thereto to 'save him, not by criticism,
but by adhering to the 'true' standard', pertinently, no
show bulldog breeders or judges in South Africa, not today, nor
since the formation of the South African Bulldog Club more than
a century ago, have been adhering to the 'true English Bulldog Breed
Standard'. I even argue that current conformation show dogs
are not Bulldogs at all.
The U.K. Kennel Club, in January 2009 announced
Healthy New Year Regulations for Pedigree Dogs, stating: “The
breed standards - the picture in words that describes each breed
of dog - have been revised so that they will not include anything
that could in any way be interpreted as encouraging features that
might prevent a dog from breathing, walking and seeing freely.
The changes represent a major additional step forward for the long
term health and welfare, made following a series of reviews, which
included breed experts and independent scientific and veterinary
experts”. Note that this clearly says 'each'
breed and not 'envisaged' breed.
Rather than speculate on the basis of self-interest, which is what
everyone tends to do, as to what the Bulldog Club in England intended
by their 1875 standard that was first adapted and then adopted first
by the Bulldog Club and then approved and administered by the Kennel
Club and has been accepted, even revered, as authorative ever since
as correctly describing the ideal Bulldog, let me analyse the earliest
records of the Bulldog pioneer’s foundational activities at
my disposal from that defining period for reliable facts to clarify
this issue, for once and for all, beyond any and all dispute, as
to what constitutes an authentic fit for function ‘in-standard’
English Bulldog.
If the reader has any information to the contrary,
please submit this to me for my consideration. My contextual comments
appear in brackets interspersed throughout the presentation of supporting
evidence in green text.
Please note that I am working chronologically from the period
of greatest importance to that of lesser importance. The passage
of time serves mainly to reiterate first principles and also to
definitively document the degeneration of the Bulldog under the
perverse influences of exaggeration to outdo the opposition and
later, blind copycat fashions.
Let me state categorically that I am not suggesting
that we restrict ourselves to breeding Bulldogs from the 1875 era.
That would be impossible, since those authentic Bulldogs are essentially
extinct, and I must make it clear here, this is entirely as a direct
result of widespread mal-interpretation of and non-conformation
to the Breed Standard then adopted by the Bulldog Club. That revered
Club itself, nineteen years after adopting the well-intentioned
Standard, was hijacked upon incorporation in 1894, by the very type
of flashy snob Bulldog Breeder that is today so opposed to the U.K.
Kennel Club’s ‘better late than never’ revisions
to the Breed Standard as an urgent attempt to save the Bulldog from
biological extinction at the hands of just such self-revealed callous,
selfish, ignorant scum.
What I am suggesting, is that ethical breeders
urgently salvage, return to and re-invigorate the Bulldog genome
under their care with whatever authentic Bulldog genes still remain
in Bulldogs that were previously stupidly discarded for decades
as reject pet Bulldogs by ignorant breeders selecting in their foolish
pursuit of exaggeration. The mark of a true authentic Bulldog breeder
should be the degree to which their Bulldogs bear characteristics
of the authentic traditional old Bulldogs illustrated in this thesis,
provided that the stock used is from registered pure-bred Bulldogs,
rather than as a result from out-crossings to foundation breeds,
which is not at all my intention. Bulldog conformation should accordingly
be judged and awarded in competition to the degree that they so
comply. |
|
|
|
I submit into Evidence the following:
My earliest record, the 9th edition of the 'Encyclopædia
Britannica’, (1875)
pronounced on the bulldog thus: "The
actual lay back Bulldog type is according to Bulldog historians, the
result of Pug
blood influx
which over time became fixed into a less tall, but more clumsy animal
with Pug-like face proportions." |
|
|
L. Wells’ impression of a contemporary
Bulldog, circa 1875 |
|
(The above encyclopaedia entry was accompanied
by a drawing by the artist L Wells, illustrating a then "contemporary
bulldog" (i.e. 1875, precisely the era
of the first conformations to the Breed Standard then adopted by the
Bulldog Club), representative of bulldogs of that earliest Bulldog
Club era that accurately documents the historical Bulldog morphology
intended to be preserved by and pertaining to the English Bulldog
Breed Standard that became official then. Note the long forelegs,
long body, long tail and long snout, all hallmarks of authenticity.) |
|
|
|
In that same year
that the Standard was adopted,
Charles
Darwin, in his book ‘The
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication’,
Vol. 1, Lond, 1875), also stated his own scientific
opinion even more bluntly thus:
“Some of the peculiarities characteristic of the several breeds
of dog have arisen suddenly, and, though strictly inherited, may
be called ‘monstrosities’,
for instance, the shape of the head and the under-hanging jaw in
the bulldog. A peculiarity suddenly arising, and deserving to be
called a
‘monstrosity’,
may be increased and fixed by man’s selection”.
(Clearly, the early warning signs were
already in the layperson’s and professional scientist’s
domain in the very year that the Bulldog Club was formed to preserve
the old Bulldog that was already facing extinction, not least due
to breeder out-crossings and selection for grotesque mutations.
If observers and scientists were already alarmed at relatively minor
mutations, then they are now fully justified to lament the dead-end
future that the Bulldogs currently face. It is a sad indictment
of the Bulldog breeder fraternity to note that even now, in the
breed’s urgent 11th hour, ignorant and or selfish considerations
still prevail to the point that breeders will put the breed at risk
of extinction, either by reproductive impossibility and/or an by
an eventual international ban on showing and even breeding, imposed
on welfare grounds, which I would not oppose were it to come down
to allowing the suffering to continue.) |
|
|
|
John Henry Walsh
(FRCS), a Committee Member of the Kennel Club and Editor of the
influential sporting magazine, ”The Field”, in Part
III, Chapter I ‘The Bulldog and Mastiff’
of his book ‘The Dogs of the British Isles’
(Horace & Cox, 1882) provides a detailed
reliable early perspective
(I provide a mere précis to make my point as to what was
in the minds of the founding members of the Bulldog Club when
they authored the Breed Standard)
thus:
“Until the early part
of the nineteenth century the bulldog was bred with great care in
this country for the purpose of baiting the bull, because he was
exactly suited to the purpose; his nature being to run at the head
of the animal he attacks, and after laying hold (‘pinning’)
to maintain it in spite of any amount of punishment, short of insensibility
from injury to his brain. The large
head was indispensable and the skin covering it well
wrinkled.”
“To permit his keeping
his wind while holding on to the bull, the nostrils, wide and open,
must be set as far back as possible behind the level of his teeth,
or the soft and yielding substance of the lip would suffocate the
dog, and hence the breeders have
always insisted on the necessity of a shortness of the face to such
an extent as is never seen in any other variety of the species.”
“The chest
must be very wide and deep, giving a great girth, the thickness
of brisket being specially to be noted as different
from that of all other dogs in reference to the width between the
elbows. The forelegs should
be stout, short, straight, and well clothed at the arm. The
elbows should be set on to the
true arm wide apart, the arm itself turned out at the elbows and
sloping out from the shoulder joint.”
Note from the period drawing
above and those below, how moderate these defining morphological
characteristics were then, relative to the modern exaggerations.
Modern conformation showdogs are fakes. They are not Bulldogs.
“Soon after the enforced
cessation of bull-baiting, the breeding of bulldogs was in great
measure put a stop to. The bulldog
is only to be regarded as a remarkable curiosity in natural history;
but as such it would be a great
pity to lose him. Gradually, for want of encouragement, the ‘pure
breed’ became more and more rare, even with the aid of the
original Bulldog Club.”
“After a short interval from death by inanition (lack
of enthusiasm) of the old Bulldog Club and with a desire
to stop attempts at improvement of the bulldog with a 65lb dog imported
from Spain, several influential breeders lately established the
new Bulldog Club, the chief difference being in the allowance for
the skull, reduced in importance, the balance being given to symmetrical
formation.”
“Mr
Vero Shaw has kindly placed his kennel at my disposal for illustration,
and I have selected two specimens from it to show the peculiarities
of the breed in a marked degree. The foreshortened sketch
of the dog exhibits the formation
of the chest, shoulders, width of skull, and ‘rose’
carriage of ears peculiar to the breed, while the bitch’s
side view shows her wonderfully short face and ‘roached’
loin, rather met to the same extent. Their pedigrees are as follow:
The dog, ‘Smasher’,
by Master Gully, out of Nettle, by Sir Anthony. The bitch, ‘Sugar’
(formerly Lily), is by the Abbot out of Mr. J. L. Ashburne’s
Lola, and was bred by the latter gentleman.” |
|
|
J.H. Walsh's sketch of the Bulldogs, Smasher
and young Sugar, circa 1880 |
|
(Whilst it is true that all of the underlined
descriptive sections above and below, fit the Standard, it is nevertheless
a fact that modern showdogs have little to no correlates in history
from the critical time of the founding of the Bulldog Club and the
authoring and adoption of the Standard, in which milieu, logically,
the Standard once applied and should still apply in its purest form
in pursuit of true conformation to the Standard as per its declared
original intention and raison d’être.
The “peculiarities” described above pertain to the
illustrations from the foundational period of the Bulldog shown
above and below and in conjunction with the remaining earliest period
photographs catalogued below, clearly illustrate the then limited
degree of these peculiarities relative to the monstrous dysmorphism
of the present show Bulldog and which exaggerations are directly
responsible for the currently peaking concerns over the health and
welfare of contemporary Bulldogs.
Clearly therefore, to the extent that past, current and future
Bulldogs match the Bulldogs of that era, to that extent alone are
they pure-bred authentic Bulldogs and vice versa and clearly the
more highly or lowly they should be judged. The Standard has not
changed, only the dogs have and the latest revision on health and
welfare grounds is merely a more explicit version of the original,
facilitating a return of the Bulldog to the type from an era when
Bulldogs did not suffer daily from mal-interpretation of its conformation
and could procreate without the now almost universally considered
essential invasive veterinary interventions.) |
|
|
|
Rawdon
Lee, in his book 'A
History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and
Ireland', (Horace Cox Ltd., 1894),
provides some interesting perspectives on developments in the late
1800's thus:
In Chapter IX, titled "The Bulldog", Lee wrote as follows:
"Time is known
to play grim jokes with historical monuments, but it probably has
never burlesqued anything more than it has our national emblem,
the British bulldog. To say that bulldogs are bred to-day (1893)
on the same lines as they were even sixty years ago (1833
– just before their activities being legislated against)
would be an assertion that could not by any evidence be defended".
"The standard laid down for this breed has not materially altered
during the last twenty years (1875,
when the Standard was adopted),
though judge's decisions may have sometimes been at variance with,
if not diametrically opposed to the standard type".
"The average weight of bulldogs is now (1893)
from 40lb to 50lb, and of bull bitches 35lb to 45lb, but dogs
have been shown as heavy as 65lb (30kg)
within the last three years
(since 1890)".
(Permissible maximum weights were later increased by 5lb to allow
the changing dogs to fit the standard)
"One thing there always will be against the actual popularity
of the bulldog, is the great difficulty there is in breeding first-rate
specimens. Inbreeding, huge heads, and malformation of chest and
forelegs are no doubt responsible for this state of things, nor
is it likely matters will improve at any early date. Anything approaching
deformity, weakness, or crippledness is rightly considered highly
objectionable, though this point does not appear to be always clearly
ascertained.”
(The rot of exaggeration had
already started to erode adherence to the well-intentioned Standard.
Implicated in mal-reproduction was inbreeding [a.k.a. line-breeding],
huge heads and malformation of chest & forelegs.)
“Many good,
sound, and active bulldogs flourished to about 1882."
(There you have it, the unfettered
reality. Lee’s book was written 12-years after this date,
incidentally was the year that the British Bulldog Club was established,
by which time there were apparently already no really good, sound
and active dogs on the conformation show circuit for more than a
decade. Only degenerates were in vogue. The history of purebred
bulldogs is very much a history of the breeders and their organisations,
who determined throughout, what direction the bulldog would take,
and are now again neglecting the bulldog more than ever in its most
critical hour of need.) |
|
|
|
Hugh Dalziel,
Honorary Secretary of the Bulldog Club in 1875, in Chapter
VII, 'The Bulldog', in his book titled: 'British Dogs:
Their Varieties, History, Characteristics, Breeding, Management
and Exhibition' (The Bazaar Office, 1897)
elaborates on what were considered ideal bulldogs of the past
and then present (abbreviated) thus:
“The
outline of 'Rosa',
in the well-known print of ‘Crib and Rosa’, is
considered to represent perfection in the shape, make, and size
of the ideal type of the bulldog. The only exception that
has ever been taken is that it has been alleged to be deficient
in wrinkles about the head and neck, and also in substance of bone
in the limbs. This, however, does not alter the fact of its being
a correct representation of the
true type of the old-fashioned bulldog. Some allowance should
be made for her sex - never as grand and well developed as dogs
- and her position in the drawing.” |
|
|
Abraham Cooper's impression of the Bulldogs,
Crib and Rosa, 1811 |
|
There we have it
again, 113-years ago and from an icon of the dog world, the founding
Secretary of the Bulldog Club, the authors of the Breed Standard,
'after Incorporation' and the 1894 'pragmatic omission' of reference
to the then truly-extinct 'Rosa type' from the Standard, clearly stating
3-years after omission, near the turn of that epochal century for
the English Bulldog, that "the outline of 'Rosa'
is considered
to represent perfection in the shape, make, and size of the ideal
type of the bulldog, a correct representation of the true type of
the 'old-fashioned' bulldog". Clearly this was and remained
the type intended by the Standard authored and adopted by the Bulldog
Club in 1875 and still considered by the Club’s founders to
be the ideal near the turn of the century, even though Rosa had lived
in the 1st quarter of that 19th Century, before the disastrous outcrosses
with the Pug in the mid-19th Century. Mr Hugh Dalziel,
mentioned an outstanding living Bulldog as representing that ideal
(abbreviated), thus:
“An engraving of another very good specimen, though not
perfect, is of Mr. Donkin's 'Byron',
a red dog by Gibbon's Dan ex Rose, by Tiger ex Bush; Tiger by Crib,
broad in muzzle, with ‘good
legs’ and chest.” |
|
|
Byron,
circa 1878. An exemplary Bulldog 3-years after adoption of the Breed
Standard |
|
(Around this time, the first photographs
of bulldogs began appearing in print and for my purpose, provide a
more reliably accurate record of the Bulldogs from this critical period
so central to my Bulldog authenticity thesis. All period Bulldog photographs,
not just the selection that follows, undisputedly serve to fully corroborate
my thesis. Fortunately for the Bulldog as a viable breed, remnants
of original gene quanta dating to this critical period also continue
to be carried over, generally very poorly in living show bulldogs,
but often very richly in pet Bulldogs in the care of commoners, from
where I predict, this noble breed might yet be saved, in spite of
the obstructive toffee-nosed show-dog fraternity, if the importance
of this task can be urgently communicated and implemented, hence my
vehement objections to the KUSA Moratorium on the Revised Breed Standard
and my support for revisions). |
|
|
|
Edgar
Farman, Honorary Member of the Bulldog Club and Editor
of the Kennel Gazette, in his book 'The Bulldog - A Monograph',
(The Stock Keeper Co, Ltd., 1899), provides
considerable rare photographic evidence and also highly authorative
reliable detailed descriptive historical information to this present
controversy (abbreviated) thus:
In Chapter VI, titled 'Description of a Bulldog', Farman
wrote as follows:
"The Standard drawn
up by the Bulldog Club Inc is a carefully compiled description of
an ideal Bulldog. … It is one thing, however, to read
a formal description, and another to apply it, and can
only become experts by constant observation of the various specimens
exhibited at the shows 'now' held. …
It would tax the ability of the
smartest to grasp (example) without actual observation and comparison.
... The standard description of
the 'old English Bulldog' was drawn up by the Bulldog
Club in 1875, after the very 'early days of the breed’s
existence as a show dog'.
This record of what the national dog should be is perfectly
identified with 'old England',
and he is a dog of which Englishmen may be proud." (Don’t
be deluded into thinking this is your pitiful modern show bulldog.)
"Up to date breeders, pause and think: Is
that the sort of animal you are breeding today (1889)?
Such is the description which, in the year 1864, well-known breeders
accepted, and, in formal manner, adopted as correct,
and although a little high flown, there
is no doubt that it fitted the Bulldog of that time a great
deal better than it does of those of present-day specimens
(1899). In fact,
to pause a moment before a pampered champion nowadays
(1899),
and endeavour to imagine the heart and ability of his ancestors
inside him, will produce a feeling of sadness in the observer at
the painful results of inbreeding for points.
From one extreme breeders have gone to the other, and the
national dog in many instances is not possessed of those characteristics
of which he always figures as the emblem. … He
is a manufactured article, a mass of show points."
(Clearly, the Bulldogs then on the bench
were already degenerate. Modern show-bulldogs are their descendents.
The hard to swallow truth for most breeders is that authentic Bulldogs
live on only in some pet Bulldog lineages.)
"Inbreeding has been going on to an alarming extent with
the result that ... to make it
better fit the dog, a statement in the standard that ‘the
outline of Crib and Rosa is considered to nearly approach perfection
in shape, make and size of the ideal type of the Bulldog’,
after nearly a quarter of a century, the committee of the Bulldog
Club (Incorporated) in 1894 ruthlessly dragged Rosa from her high
estate because the present day animals will not fit her beautiful
outline. Her retention became a farce in consequence of the continued
disregard to her model by the judges one and all. The description
of the English Bulldog of the Bulldog Club was drawn up by the Bulldog
Club in 1875, after ascertaining the views of 'old breeders'
upon the subject."
(In short, show bulldogs, even a century
and more ago, were but a degenerate shadow of their former glory.)
In Chapter X, titled 'The Formation of the Present Club', Farman
wrote about the formation of the Club as follows:
"The preliminary meeting of the Bulldog Club was held in
March 1875 and Mr James Berrie, voted to the chair (later
President), held forth upon the necessity of resuscitating
the Old Club, dwelt upon the threatened extinction of the pure English
Bulldog if steps were not taken to ensure its preservation. Three
questions were put from the chair:
Shall we here present tonight do anything to support the 'Old'
English Bulldog?
Is it necessary, in order to do so, to form a Bulldog Club?
Do you agree to band yourselves together with that object?
The gentlemen present exclaimed in one voice ‘Yes’
and the Club formed. The work of the was the framing of its rules,
the preparation of a standard description and arrangements for promoting
the welfare of the Bulldog."
(Look at the Bulldog Club Inc today.
Under the likes of its subsequent presidents, the Club became as
degenerate as the member’s bulldogs, utterly unfit for any
purpose other than to stand witness to the absence of any morality.)
In Chapter XI, titled 'The Objects of the Club', Farman, very importantly
to this controversy, wrote as follows:
"The Standard Description
was proposed in the catalogue of the first show held by the Club
at the Alexandra Palace on June 14 and 15, 1876, and
as a matter of history, it is interesting to note
the animals then named as considered to approach and fairly represent
the true type, though not each faultless." (This
statement informs the original purpose of show-dog conformation
competitions, which was not to change the Bulldog breed, but rather
merely strive to perfect individual specimens by eliminating the
variable faults that will variably exist in each.)
"A Standard Description of the Bulldog was drawn up and
adopted after full weight was given to the previously drawn up description
of what an 'Old English Bulldog' ought to be by Philo-Kuön
in 1865, and this Standard Description is now (1899)
the same as then. The (only)
exception, two omissions (made
nineteen years later by the Committee in 1894, when the Club was
incorporated), namely the Statement that the outline
of Rosa was considered to nearly approach perfection in the shape,
make, and size of the ideal Bulldog; and that no living (or dead,
for the matter of that) specimens are now referred to as fairly
representing the true type described, and sought to be preserved
and perfected."
(The pure Old English Bulldog for
which both Bulldog Clubs and Standards were formed and adopted,
with the purpose of preserving, had at the hands of breeders and
judges, arrived at the brink of extinction and was quietly, nearly
completely killed off by the then Committee of the Bulldog Club
Incorporated, to hide the unsavoury fact that they had utterly failed
the founders of both clubs and their noble objectives.)
(Personally, I am not sentimental
over the loss of the Philo-Kuön era Bulldog that was already
long a relic of the past and all but technically extinct as a separate
strain by the time the Bulldog Club Standard was authored to model
the then current evolution of the Old English Bulldog, which undeniably
existed prior to its mutation into the previously non-existent wide-shouldered,
short-legged monstrosities that started to appear around 1894 following
incorporation. Clearly, the Standard was changed via strategic model
omissions, to match the degenerating breed.)
(It is painfully clear that from 1894 onwards, unrestrained by the
Club's previous adherence to prior and later living specimens as
observable exemplifications of the standard when it was authored
in 1875, a mere two decades previously, henceforth spawned exaggeration-driven
monstrosities, degenerating and culminating in the present show
bulldog and a century later, necessitating the U.K. Kennel Club's
2009 revision of the Breed Standard to urgently attempt to reverse
the exaggerations that turned out to be so detrimental to Bulldog
health and welfare.)
(Edgar Farman's priceless chronicle contains dozens of plates with
black and white period photographs, showing most of the dogs making
their mark from 1875 onwards to 1898, the exact period covering
the onset of the Club and its Breed Standard through to 4-years
after the perverse tampering with the Standard in 1894 following
the Club's incorporation, 19-years years after the Club having been
founded and its Standard adopted and it can be clearly seen from
this photographic evidence, that the Bulldog degenerated dramatically
under the influence of member’s unbridled exaggerations in
pursuit of mal-interpreted conformation in attempts to outdo the
competition, rather than adhere to the official Breed Standard and
its intended objective of preserving the old English Bulldog.)
Ch V Modern Bulldogs - The Principal
Strains |
|
|
Champion Datholite, circa 1886, an exemplary
Bulldog specimen, a decade into the Standard |
|
(Edgar Farman’s earliest photos of
period Bulldogs included the exceptionally good specimen, Champion
Datholite. In spite of many such dogs with long forelegs, which helped
to retain a good measure of proportion, there is in his photographic
selection, increasing evidence of manipulation towards the unnatural,
broad-chested monsterism that became increasingly apparent henceforth
with the passage of time as shorter and shorter achondroplastic legs
were selected for and which led increasingly to more severely crippled
dogs. See my Gaia Bulldog Report.) |
|
|
|
H.W.
Huntington, in an article titled 'Exaggerated
Types of Bulldogs', (Outing, Vol. 36, Issue 2, May 1900),
provides further detail to this present controversy (abbreviated)
thus:
"It is the characteristics of the Bulldog as a defined
type and his conformation to, or rather departure from, the Standard
as set out in the official edicts that I consider upon this occasion.
From this point of view one might well be confused by the awards
at the late show of the Bulldog Club. The
standard of excellence adopted by the club calls for the whole contour
conveying ‘the impression of strength and activity', yet one
looked in vain for an exhibit that complied in conformation."
"Perhaps within
the last decade (i.e.
1890-1900)
no breed has been so tampered with as the bulldog,
or so subjected to the innumerable whims of the faddist. By some
he has been transformed into little
else than a monstrosity.
One characteristic after another has been made paramount, till many
prize winners seem, to the true lover of the breed, little
else than cripples."
"The
perfect-to-type bulldog should be active, full of life and vigour.
How many can we find to-day that are? Of a verity, not upon our
present-day show benches! Each judge has his own
conception of the perfect dog, irrespective of what the standard
calls for. No marked and emphatic
improvement can or will be seen in this breed till the club sends
forth its edict that the dog shall be judged by the standard
adopted. If not, of what use is a standard?"
|
|
|
|
W.
D. Drury, in the chapter ‘The Bulldog’
in his book, ‘British Dogs’ (Charles
Scribner, 1903), wrote as follows:
“As to whether the fancier has improved the breed constitutionally
is a moot point. No dog is more deceptive than the Bulldog. His
strong, muscular, heavy-boned frame and sturdy appearance suggest
a dog of almost unlimited powers of endurance, and it is hard to realise
that he is one of the most delicate of all the canine creation. His
poor constitution is entirely due to the inbreeding that has been
practised for generations. The purpose of this has been to
secure and perpetuate certain desirable points, otherwise impossible
to establish permanently. And the points have been secured, but at
the cost of a delicate and degenerate constitution.” |
|
|
|
James
Watson, in Ch. 25, ‘Bulldogs’, in Vol.
II of his book titled: ‘The Dog Book’
(Doubleday, Page & Co, 1906) recalled
having repeatedly as a child visited the best bulldog kennels outside
London with the father of a schoolboy companion and having seen
many coloured patched white and brindle with white bulldogs, leading
him to state half a century later, as follows:
“Not only is it our own recollection, but the illustrations
of dogs of that period are all to the effect that the bulldog
of 1855-60 was totally unlike the dog of to-day (1905).
He was ‘only moderately low on the leg’, and stood closer
in front than our ‘exaggerations’
do. His tail more frequently than not was a plain whip tail,
and he ‘lacked the massiveness of head’ of the later
dog”.
“This period was up to 1868. We were again in England
from 1877 to 1880. Meeting Alfred George at the Alexandra Palace
Show, when looking at the bulldogs, we said something about the
alteration in them, and we can recall almost word for word his reply:
‘Oh, there has been a great change since you went away. You
will see some of the old sort
at father's, but they don't do for showing’."
“The first presentable
bulldog shown in America was in 1880, the lightweight 'Donald',
about the best lightweight in England at that time. We do not think
the dog was so leggy as the photograph shows him to be, but he could
not have been a low dog, though we do not remember him as any way
out of the ordinary … with exaggeration such as we see in
some bulldogs when the excess of some property approaches the line
which marks the monstrosity.
A very sound man in the ring goes for good type, while at the same
time he does not care for anything like an excessive exaggeration.”
|
|
|
Donald, circa 1880. An exemplary Bulldog
5-years into the Standard |
|
“It is useless for fanciers to argue
that the present-day dog is the same as the old sort. The
old ones were good dogs, undoubtedly. Strong, active bulldogs, possessed
of character, and from conformation and strength fully fitted to show
that their name was not misapplied. Not one of them, however,
would get beyond the VHC (Very
Highly Commended) stage and then more than likely it
would take an all-round judge devoid of specialty fads to recognise
its merits. 'Monarch'
was such a step in advance in many
ways that he moved the ideal mark quite a distance ahead and made
the breed more than ever a 'fancy variety'.” |
|
|
Champion British Monarch, circa 1884.
An exemplary Bulldog a decade into the Standard
|
|
“The difficulties in breeding
bulldogs are many. There is first the getting a bitch that will breed,
for many are incapable. Then the demands of fancy often render the
birth of puppies very hazardous. Finally, if the puppies are born
alive and the dam survives, will she suckle her puppies? We find that
a large number of the best bulldogs are from unknown dams, more of
the kind that a dog man will style ‘a rare good one to breed
from’. While not up to show form, these are capable of giving
birth to their puppies without any more than the normal amount of
risk, and will rear them without assistance.”
(I have included the above for its valuable
insights applicable to my theme of the degeneration of the modern
show dog vs. the authenticity of traditional bulldogs not so damaged
by the assault of relentless severe exaggerations. Please note that
the breeding problem of which he writes, were already, at the turn
of the century, evident in the showdogs, even then necessitating the
use of more traditional females to birth the show Bulldog monstrosities.
However, in order to “fix” the monstrous physical characteristics,
female offspring needed to be line-bred, which eventually necessitated
Caesarean section births to reduce the high mortality and loss of
monetarily valuable puppies, which challenge will yet have to be faced
up to by breeders in the foreseeable future as the number of C-section
births are to be restricted in future in the interests of producing
healthier dogs)
[James
Watson was born in Scotland in 1845, grew up in England where visited
many prominent British breeders and attended early British dog shows,
emigrated to America in 1870 and provided a vital link between American
and British fanciers, returning to England frequently to purchase
top dogs for breeders. Watson's profession as a journalist provided
him with opportunity to both promote purebred dogs and to report
on the dog world as kennel editor for multiple newspapers and editor
of several publications.
In 1883 Watson launched the American Kennel Register, also the
first U.S. magazine devoted exclusively to dogs. A founding member
of the American Kennel Club, following a long period as an independent,
he was made chairman of both the Stud Dog and Rules Committees of
the A.K.C. in 1892. In 1898, Watson was appointed the first editor
of the American Kennel Gazette. In 1900 he left to again found his
own dog magazine, Field and Fancy. Watson is best known among dog
historians and book collectors as the author of The Dog Book cited
above, considered to be the finest early work on dogs in America,
where today the purebred bulldog is considered to be more authentic
than those of its native country.] |
|
|
|
Robert
Leighton, in his book titled 'Dogs and
All About Them' (Cassell & Co. Ltd., 1910),
on describing Bulldog morphology, confirmed its application
to an early reference specimen thus:
'"The Bulldog is known to have been domiciled in this
country for several centuries. The body
was broad, muscular, and
compact, as is shown in Scott's
well-known engraving of 'Crib and Rosa'. The specimens alive in
1817, as seen in prints of that period, were not so cloddy as those
met with at the present day. Still, the outline of 'Rosa'
in the engraving
of Crib and Rosa, is considered to represent perfection in the shape,
make, and size of the ideal type of Bulldog. The commencement
of the dog-show era in 1859 provided a fresh incentive to the dog
fancier to breed Bulldogs. It is to their efforts that we are indebted
for the varied specimens of the breed that are to b e seen at the
present time."
"In forming a judgment of a Bulldog the
general appearance is of 'most importance', as the various
points of the dog should be symmetrical
and well balanced, no one point being in excess of the others
so as to destroy the impression of
determination, strength, and activity which is conveyed by
the typical specimen. His body
should be thickset, rather low in stature, but broad, powerful,
and compact. The head should
be strikingly massive and large in proportion to the dog's size."
(So there we have it again. A century
ago, 35-years after the Breed Standard was adopted in 1875, ideal
Bulldog morphology, in accordance with the Standard, was still acknowledged
by yet another eminent canine specialist author, assisted by the
eminent bulldog expert, W.J.Stubbs, as being 'along
the outline of Rosa'. Note how the peculiar, relatively
exaggerated characteristic features of the old English Bulldogs
- when compared to its historical relatives – were considered
impressive in the middle to last quarter of 1800’s.)
(The Bulldog Club Breed Standard logically
had only these actual period degrees of grandeur in mind in its
description of the ideal Bulldog and certainly did not intend that
these features be so artificially exaggerated beyond the degree
that optimised the renowned functional utility of the Bulldog that
the Standard intended to preserve, yet subsequent breeders actively
engaged in such monsterism that rendered the high utility Bulldog
utterly useless for its traditional, indeed any other utility purpose
and cruelly rendered it a perpetually suffering veterinary disaster.)
|
|
|
|
F
Barrett Fowler, Honorary Secretary of the London Bulldog
Society, in the Introduction to his revised edition of the 1914 book
by Henry St John Cooper titled 'Bulldogs' (Jarrolds,
1925), wrote as follows: “Some
15-20 years ago (1905-1910),
a vast number of cripples,
unhealthy and grossly exaggerated
specimens of the breed were being exhibited, and what is worse, winning
prizes. It is certainly not an easy task
to compare the dogs of 1890, 1900 and 1910 with those of the present
day (1925). During those
years (1890-1910)
we had without question some of the finest specimens ever on the show
bench, or ever likely to be bred. The present-day Bulldog is not,
and cannot be, so good as the dog of the past. Unfortunately
the dogs of today are not to be compared with those of the past. No
doubt in time, we shall fall back on the old production, and perhaps
even beat the noted dogs of that time."
"At one time it was the aim
of some breeders to produce the most exaggerated specimens possible.
They misread the Standard and taught others to misread it also
(much as Hendrik vd Merwe and others
are still doing today). The
Standard declared that the skull of the Bulldog should be large. Every
effort was now made to make it abnormally so. The Standard
required great width of chest, with short (relative
to the hindlegs), sturdy, muscular, but straight forelegs.
These breeders set to work to produce
a dog that was nothing more nor less than a gross
caricature of what he should
be. It was not uncommon to see an unfortunate animal waddling
helplessly round the ring after his master."
"While these exaggerations
of form were being produced, it was at the cost of the dog’s
stamina and health. What was the result? With greater and greater
frequency, distorted, crippled, and short-lived dogs were exhibited
at the shows and were only too frequently awarded prizes.
... Imagine such a creature as this tackling a bull or putting up
a two hours fight in the dog pit. We no longer wanted the fierce dog
of the earlier days, but we did not want the helpless, rickety, pampered
creature that was utterly unworthy of the name of 'Bulldog'.
I (Barrett
Fowler, Honorary Secretary of the London Bulldog Society)
know for a fact that
in producing these exaggerations, cruelty even worse, because longer
drawn out, than was ever practiced in the bull-ring or pit was used."
"To prevent the dog from 'going up on the leg', and to give it
an appearance of great width of chest which it did not possess, various
instruments of torture were used. Some of the 'more' humane, or I
might say, the less barbarous, loaded their dogs during their puppyhood
with a kind of harness generally made of leather, with sometimes the
addition of metal. This harness was so contrived that two large stuffed
leather pads were secured between the forelegs of the dog, spreading
them out and causing the unfortunate animal to waddle miserably about
the kennel yard instead of enjoying its puppyhood as every puppy has
a right to."
"Others, I have been told, though I cannot vouch for the truth
of it, placed heavy weights and secured them on the shoulders of the
young and growing animal. But the worst form of all was that adopted
by a few barbarians. This was to confine the growing puppy in a hutch-like
place of which the roof or top was so low that it was never possible
for the wretched animal to stand upright. ... It meant the utter degeneration
of the Bulldog." |
|
|
|
(Whilst this practice
is likely unthinkable today, the perverse legacy remains, not only
in the minds of those modern breeders who still find a sense of delight
in such relics of the Bulldog's darkest past, but moreover in those
demonstrating this perversion by selecting and concentrating remnants
of this trait in their own show-dogs, in particular, where line-bred
lineages still reproduce, or stock from these lineages still throw
such torturous genes and produce varying degrees of such monstrosities
by virtue of there being no alternative genes in the extremely depleted
and limited gene pool to allow nature to return more normal morphology
via gene-selection homeostasis.) (The
only means out of such closed studbook practices is logically to
allow normal genes from pure-bred pet and hobby bulldogs to cross
with such deliberately narrowly line-bred dogs, which may still
sometimes satisfactorily allow normalisation to occur via deliberate
invigorating gene-pool diversification. Sadly, this seldom happens
intentionally as witnessed below, including two South African examples
illustrated on the right of the group below.) |
|
|
|
|
1910 Champion Dames Double |
1960 Mervander Bulldogs Monster |
2010 Wessenhof Bulldog Monster |
|
|
|
|
Ernest
Baynes & Louis Fuertes, in their book titled
‘The Book Of Dogs – An Intimate Study Of Mankind’s
Best Friend’ (National Geographic Society,
1919) expressed compassion for Bulldogs and
disdain of breeders thus:
“The bulldog
of today is a grotesque
deformity
– short-legged, short-winded, short-lived, and barely able
to reproduce its kind. It is chiefly useful
for infusing courageous blood into other breeds, for adding variety
to a dog show, and as an example
(to be avoided) of what can be done by senseless breeding to spoil
a perfectly good dog. But they haven’t quite spoiled
him, for he still retains his old-time dauntless courage, and he
has a homely smile that would melt the hearts of even the few unfortunates
who boast that they hate dogs.”
“And here is an appropriate place to register a friendly protest
against the arbitrary fixing of points for which dog owners must
breed in order to win at the dog shows. There is tendency in the
very proper enthusiasm over dog shows and show dogs to forget that
the primary object of breeding most dogs is to produce animals which
are useful in different fields of activity, and not to conform to
a particular standard unless that standard is the one most likely
to develop dogs fitted in mind and body for the work required of
them.”
“With the idea of making as ugly and surly looking a beast
as possible, the present
(interpretation of the) standard for the bulldog demands a type
that is all but unfitted for existence, so great are the deformities
exacted of this unfortunate dog. Undershot so that he can scarcely
eat his food; teeth that should normally meet never being able to
do so; the nose so jammed in that breathing through it becomes almost
or quite impossible; the shoulders so muscled and legs so out-bowed
as to make locomotion difficult,
he is indeed a tribute to the art of man in its most perverted manifestation.” |
|
|
|
A.
G. Sturgeon in his book, titled 'Bulldogdom'
(Abel Heywood & Sons Ltd., Manchester, 1920)
remarked: "Comparisons
between the present day dog (1920),
and reliable prints and pictures of the old-timers will reveal the
most marked changes in their general appearance. Detail
in nearly every particular has altered. At the time this is being
written (90 years ago and 25 years
after incorporation and removal of reference specimens from the Standard),
there appears to be less first-class Bulldogs in the country than
for many years. Of course, dogs have been winning challenge certificates,
but generally, the dogs winning
first today are not as impressive and faults are prevalent. The
high-water mark, in the writer’s opinion, was reached in the
year 1909 (a
decade before time of writing, now more than a century ago)". |
|
|
|
Conclusion
This last entry concludes my review of the early evidence
and I believe, undisputedly corroborates my ‘authenticity’
thesis. To wrap-up, let me summarise the thesis and the evidence
submitted, from a less formal perspective.
The salient descriptive features of the Bulldog mentioned repeatedly
above that we all likely agree defines the bulldog, eg "body
broad, muscular and compact"; "head large, well wrinkled";
"forelegs stout, short (in
relation to the hindlegs)"; and "elbows wide
apart, sloping out from the shoulder joint" along with
the rest of the descriptive Standard, serve to conjure up a clear
image of a bulldog in our mind's eye to circumscribe breeders and
judges to the ideal. As with any standard, there is, however, always
a 'context' that provides critical 'real-life perspective'.
In the case of Bulldog conformation to the Standard, the oldest
breed standard in the world, actual such Bulldogs existed at the
time of the adoption and immediately subsequent application of the
Standard on the then new phenomenon of the show-dog circuit. Logically,
the top 'breed foundation dogs' from that period represented the
breed so idealised and described and should inform our interpretation
of the Standard, which had as its intention, to circumscribe the
application of the Standard to the preservation of the old Bulldog.
The only latitude the Standard afforded to club members was in fact
an obligation to minimise or eliminate faults in their kennel lineages.
This was not a competition rewarding the creation of a new breed,
let alone a breed with the most faults and novel serious health
problems.
The first Bulldog Club and Standard were superseded by a second
a decade later in order to broaden the membership base to accommodate
half a century of change to the earliest foundation, but by then
extinct working Bulldogs. Clubs, their committees and members come
and go with the passage of time, but the Standard, until superseded,
remains cast in stone. The Standard has recently been substantially
revised by the highest authority over the Bulldog, the U.K. Kennel
Club, administrative owner of England’s National Dog, now
for the first time so extensively, since 1875. The Standard has
however, not changed in the slightest. It has merely been carefully
revised to circumscribe the description of the Bulldog to that intended
by the 135-year old version and only to the degree that breeders
over that period have mal-interpreted the original. See my notated
comparative versions here
That subsequent breeders, judges and administrators somehow erroneously
read conformation into the hoards of mutants is beyond my comprehension
other than to conclude, sadly, indeed angrily, that exaggerations
at all costs to create a more-fancy animal in an attempt to outdo
the competition were put before any considerations of the welfare
of the dogs themselves. I shall not even go into the shocking collaborative
veterinary medical literature at this time, other than to remind
you that according to Dr Lucy Asher (BSc, PhD) of the Royal Veterinary
College, Herts, in the U.K.: "The
Bulldog suffers 42 inherited disorders, 16 of which are conformation
related and 2, conformation exacerbated. Current
breed standards give breeders financial incentive to continue inbreeding
and until breed standards are amended, it may be difficult to convince
breeders otherwise." (Asher
L et al, ‘Inherited defects in Pedigree Dogs. Part 1: disorders
related to breed standards’, Vet J, 182(3), 2009)
Whilst I am not suggesting an impossible return to the extinct
phenotypes, I am claiming, brutally so, that most, if not all current
showdogs are in fact not bulldogs at all compared to many pure-breed
pet Bulldogs alive today and that accordingly, it is appropriate
that we all honestly determine which bulldogs today are more fake
than fact of all living so-called bulldogs and stop awarding them
false accolades and start honouring the more authentic Bulldogs
alive today by recognising them for their priceless genetic worth
and accordingly award them the accolades so long overdue to them.
Bulldogs that exhibit serious inherited disorders, and that is virtually
all show bulldogs, should not be allowed to procreate (and can’t
do so anyway without veterinary intervention, so perhaps veterinarians
should be held accountable by their professional and regulatory
associations and be disciplined, charged and prosecuted).
Ignorant human interference over time has dealt cruel blows upon
the Bulldog. The photos of Champions Donald,
Datholite, Monarch
and most others of the critical period between 1875 and 1894 bear
witness to the phenotype of the true old Bulldog and when compared
to the manipulated monsters and degenerate specimens appearing circa
1890, clearly demonstrates the 'fact' that the mutant freaks put
up since then and especially today, became less and less Bulldog
as phenotypic genes were progressively discarded throughout the
passage of the Victorian era.
With rare exception, mainly amongst pet bulldogs, living specimens
of the breed scarcely deserved the name “Bulldog” from
the Edwardian era onwards and although WWI did afford the Bulldog
some respite, the post-war show-dog era dealt knockout blows to
what few unfortunate truer Bulldogs were still left on the bench.
The fundamental Bulldog genotype, as witnessed by these grossly
mutated physical phenotypes and a disproportionate propensity for
serious health problems, had clearly become so depleted of the essence
of the traditional old Bulldog, as to have little resemblance to
the old Bulldogs that the Standard of 1875 was intended to preserve.
These early photographs referred to in the historic texts above,
are with the exception of Champion
'Surplice'
below, the oldest evidence I have of traditional old Bulldogs. The
reliable photographic record of period bulldogs starts circa 1880
and are more definitive records of period bulldog morphology, genotype
and phenotype than are earlier engravings, sketches and paintings,
which nevertheless constitute collaborative evidence. I have repeatedly
challenged Bulldog breeders to submit photographic evidence of short-fore-legged
bulldogs from this period, failing which, the South African bulldog
fraternity, collectively tacitly concede that modern show bulldogs
are poor fakes of the true traditional old Bulldogs, both dead and
alive and thus are totally unworthy of their precious false accolades.
|
|
|
Champion Surplice, Circa 1880
(Check out those long forelegs)
|
|
The illustration I have used throughout
(below) to separate evidential entries is of unknown origin and period
and with the possible exception of its large ears and short tail,
I consider it to be a good example of the old English Bulldog that
the original Standard sought to preserve and improve by eliminating
any faults (such as the oversized ears). A dog of this type would
not be out-of-Standard with the original 135-year old Standard, nor
the recent revised Standard, which latter would serve to eliminate
most competing current conformation show-bulldogs. |
|
|
What a sound modern bulldog ought
to look like. |
|
Parting
shot I consider it shameful that amongst the
entire bulldog fraternity in this country, I, a mere novice, have
assumed, by default, the roles of bulldog health and welfare researcher
and activist and now, additionally, bulldog conformation historian.
(A heated, uncensored e-mail debate with the selfish South African
Bulldog breeder fraternity, printing to over 60 pages and upon which
this short lecture above is based, is available from the author,
upon request at: director@gaiaresearch.co.za
Yours sincerely, for Bulldogs the world over,
Stuart Thomson
Director, Gaia Research
Proprietor, Bygones Bulldogs.
|
|
|
|
Bygones Bunty conversing with
the author |
|
|
Humphrey of Bygones, default
Bulldog representative, with the author |
|
Personal Postscript
The best male Bulldog I have at the moment is my Humphrey of Bygones,
who makes contemporary show Bulldogs look absolutely ridiculous
with their short bodies and their short, stumpy forelegs. |
|
|
Humphrey of Bygones. An exemplary
specimen. |
|
The best female Bulldog I have at
the moment is young Lady Becci of Bygones, whose rich traditional
gene repository may get me to closer to the traditional old type Bulldog
faster than I had previously hoped for with Bunty. |
|
|
Newest long-fore-legged Lady
Becci of Bygones |
|
Thank you ever-so-much
for your valuable time and interest in real Bulldogs and their serious
modern dilemma. |
|
|
Bygones Bulldogs is copyright
© 2009. Bygones Bulldogs all rights reserved
|
|
|
|