Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on January 27, 2010 at 8:51pm

Here's a bulldog in 1938.

Here's a bulldog from 2004.

Can you see that the earlier bulldog is both larger, much wider in shoulder, more disproportionate between shoulder and rear, and more extreme in head (notice the substantial jutting out of the lower jaw)? They're both show dogs; the first is from Morris and Essex in '38. That dog was almost certainly free-whelped. The second is from Westminster in 2004; that dog was almost certainly c-sectioned.

Permalink Reply by David on January 27, 2010 at 9:38pm

Just to show you guys how much the Bulldog breed has changed since the dog stopped bullbaiting, here is the picture of the dog from 1880's:

I sure hope Corgi's won't go through that extreme of transformation!

Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on January 28, 2010 at 1:35am

Donald was described as "lacking in substance but with a good head," which is comparable to the reception he'd get today. ("Substance" = heaviness of body, width of bone, etc.)

He does have a goodish head - round, nice clean finish to the mouth, etc.

Here's a dog from the 1850s:

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 28, 2010 at 10:15am

Ha ha, I just realized my spell checker was inserting "bread" in place of "bred" so my above entry reads rather funny. Sorry :)

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 28, 2010 at 10:36am

I tried to find pictures of early Cardis but didn't come across any, however, I recall my books at home talking about the difference between Cardis then and now and it mentions them having floppy ears, being of a heavier build and coming only in brindle and shades of red.

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 28, 2010 at 11:13am

I found a couple Cardi pictures:

1930's
http://www.corgis.biz/GriifO1jp.JPG
http://www.corgis.biz/Gelerpupsjp.JPG
http://www.corgis.biz/marynelmsjp.PNG

And this is a 7 pg breed development with photos from 1930-1990
http://www.cardicommentary.de/PDF-filer/Breedtype_Developm.pdf

Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on January 28, 2010 at 6:56pm

Patrick's article is wonderful, and a great explanation of the fact that when a breed is perceived to be in need of improvement we work to improve; where it is in good shape we work to maintain, and where it has gone too far we work to push back. For example, there is a lot of work being done in Bassets right now to get weights back down to 50-60 lb from the 80s. In Cardigans I think there's a good and appropriate focus on improving toplines (many of which are still weak) without compromising shoulders.

The only thing I am not sure Patrick has correct is the floppy ears part. I think the situation was probably very similar to today, where many ears do not stand if you don't tape them. Some of the dogs would have had upright ears and some would have had "flops"; you can see in that first picture that the dog doesn't have Lab-style ears; they're ears that are strong and upright at the base and then fall.

Permalink Reply by Cindi on January 26, 2010 at 11:03pm

I really appreciate everyone's input. I've been mulling this subject for some time. Thanks for all the breeders, too, who took time to answer.

Permalink Reply by Beth on January 28, 2010 at 7:01am

Wind Dial, I appreciate your honest response. I do think bulldogs are cute in their own way. I always hear "form equals function" from show breeders, though, and I just cannot in any logical way understand how the form of a dog who cannot reproduce naturally at anything close to species viability rate and who needs air conditioning in hot weather to avoid overheating, and is also prone to breathing problems, has the function to do bull-baiting. I think it's a classic case of people on the inside, surrounded by other like-minded people, never taking the time to step back and think about something with a fresh eye. This is not a personal criticism of your mother, whom I am sure loves her dogs very much.

Joanna, I've seen other photos from the 1800's and very early 1900's that look much like David's dog. You have shown a painting, and while it is possible the painting is accurate, it's generally true that animal paintings were frequently idealized (as were people). Do you really think everyone Renoir painted looked that way?

Here's a famous horse painting from the 1700's. I saw it hanging in the National Gallery in London and have a kitchen trivet of it so I look at it every day. I've never seen a real horse look much like it, but it's typical of the stylized presentation of horses at that time:

But it's this sort of justification of what most average people find artificial (the intentional breeding of a dog who can't mate or whelp on its own) that tends to invite in outside investigation into the dog-show world and the methods used their, I think.

Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on January 28, 2010 at 8:55am

I don't know how much more clearly I can say this, but they CAN whelp on their own and they CAN mate on their own. We CHOOSE to not let them, because we don't want to lose puppies. They have been mating and giving birth for centuries, and so have the other brachycephalic dogs (the pug is perhaps the oldest true purebred in the world, and from that came the Peke and the others, and somehow they've survived as a breed with VERY exaggerated features long before c-sections were the norm).

I know it sounds bizarre to anyone who is not in the middle of it, but c-sections are becoming standard across a huge swath of breeds. The Cornell study that showed that more live puppies could be depended on was a pretty huge decision-maker for a lot of people. I think right now the majority of the toy breeders are all doing sections and a decent proportion of the large and giant breeds are getting them too. My vet does scheduled c-sections on a weekly basis. And a HUGE number of breeders no longer do any natural breedings.

Bulldogs are (literally) a broad target, and the note people have made of their exaggerated features has coincided with a national movement toward not doing natural breedings/whelpings with any dog, so again and again it gets repeated that we've changed them so much so recently. It's not true. They have been very, very exaggerated for a century and a half and honestly the breed is in a LOT better shape than plenty of the others. Goldens and Flatcoats have an average lifespan FAR shorter than a bulldog, MUCH more disease, but nobody is taking aim at them.

Oh, and that gorgeous Stubbs portrait was actually known as being incredibly true to life in its day. It got him a LOT of commissions. That was an early Thoroughbred and his grandfather was an Arab, so you get the muscling and the dish face. Compare to this

photo portrait. There's some stylizing but not that much.

Permalink Reply by Beth on January 28, 2010 at 9:08am

Joanna, please check out Wind Dial's post. Her mom breeds show bulldogs and apparently does well with them, so despite your insistence that they can free-breed and free-whelp, that is certainly not backed up by what bulldog breeders are saying. Wind Dial says about 20% can free whelp, though they normally don't. Another source, from a bulldog site, said about 10% can free whelp. In this case, what you are saying is not at all matched by what I'm hearing from bulldog people on the internet, who also show.

Permalink Reply by Cindi on January 28, 2010 at 9:13am

True. With bulldogs and other large head breeds, most vets will do c-sections. The large heads make it very difficult for them to free-whelp.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page