IconJPG

The Working Bouvier Movement in America: Insufficient in Courage and Hardness

Jim Engel 1996


Those of us who train Bouviers share a common experience:  all of our fellow trainers wonder why we don’t just buy a good European Schutzhund III and get competitive in the sport.  Although I don’t necessarily expect you to believe this, the answer is that there are virtually none available.   In the entire world there are almost certainly not 20 working championship level Bouviers, dogs which would not be out of place at the USA nationals.  Virtually none of these dogs are for sale, and to my knowledge we have never had a competitive level  Schutzhund III or IPO III import.  About a dozen Bouviers receive the KNPV certificate each year in the Netherlands, and a few of these have been imported and converted to Schutzhund.  (There have been claims of larger numbers, but when I sat down with an entire years worth of  the KNPV magazine about three years ago I came up with about a dozen Bouvier titles.  If anyone can cite larger numbers with sufficient verification

The Shepherd fanciers naturally tend to equate European lines with true working breeding, and in spite of the fact that there are major differences between German show and working lines virtually every German Shepherd pup has a Schutzhund III sire and at least a Schutzhund I dam.  Although many Americans cling to the myth of European working breeding, the fact is that the vast majority of European Bouviers are bred with no more concern about working character than AKC shepherds.  There are absolutely no working or character requirements for breeding in the Netherlands, and very limited  and ineffective requirements in Belgium and France.  The only really good dogs today are increasingly dependent on the Dutch Police blood, which is small in quantity and narrow as a gene pool.

Looking for working Bouviers among American (or European) show lines is about as effective as looking for dogs in American Shepherd lines; you might just as well go down to the pound and take your chances on a mixed breed. It is true that years ago a few good dogs came out of Belgian lines, but this is getting to be twenty years in the past and recent developments have not been encouraging.  (A lot of these dogs went back to  the same Chastel lines that had produced the two French working champions and some of the other French lines which produced some Championship level Ring dogs.  But again, this is a quarter century and more ago.)

So why am I telling you all of this?  Are we looking for  sympathy?  Maybe on some level some of  us are,  but we certainly  don’t deserve any.  No, the fact that the Bouvier working movement is dead in the water is entirely our own fault, for over the past twenty years we have had the dogs and the resources to really build something, and we have squandered all of it.

Obviously, it is painful for me to admit this, for I have held leadership positions in various organizations for most of this era.  Starting about eighteen months ago I began strenuous efforts to make truly fundamental changes in our direction; but unfortunately I have not been eloquent or convincing enough for the NAWBA board, some of which are most comfortable with their heads in the nice warm sand.

A few words about the situation in the Belgian homeland will perhaps lend some insight into the situation here in America.  The Bouvier and, indeed, all of Belgium did suffer grievously during both world wars, which created enormous economic hardship that lasted well into the fifties.  For some five years in the early fifties fewer than 100 Bouviers per year were registered in Belgium;  the breed did indeed very nearly flicker out.  (Numbers were similar in the Netherlands, lower in France.)  In subsequent years, financed to some extent by purchases by American show breeders, the breed did to some degree recover, but unfortunately with emphasis primarily on conformation competition.  (You must remember that although American importers of German Shepherds were active in this era, it was strictly the show breeders who were involved.  One could perhaps speculate that nice looking dogs with character problems might in certain circumstances have very little value except as an American export, which would explain much of what we see in American Shepherd breeding today.)

Under the leadership of Justin Chastel, Belgian Club president, efforts were made to rectify this situation.  Chastel himself  made great efforts to improve the character of his lines and the fact is that he produced two French working champions in this era.  Chastel, who was also vice President of the principle national Belgian canine organization, also was involved in the establishment of the CQN as a working requirement for the Belgian conformation championship, necessary for all of the protective heritage working breeds.  Under his leadership, character tests were introduced and emphasized in the Belgian “selection” process conducted to identify the young dogs most suitable for breeding. 

Although this did apparently have some positive effect, by the time I witnessed the test at Meerhout, Belgium in 1989 the standards had sunk to a very low level.  Part of the problem is that most of the judges were primarily conformation judges and/or Bouvier breeders rather than serious working trainers.  (The evaluation was for conformation and character by the same judges, in retrospect a serious mistake.)  What I saw, and several other Americans were present, was dogs pass who would not even think of engaging the helper, let alone taking a firm and sincere bite.  (Apparently there is some technicality in the rules requiring the dog to touch the helper, so if all else failed the dog was more or less drug into contact.)

Shortly thereafter Justin Chastel, after more than half a century as a member, and two decades as president, had resigned from the Belgian Bouvier club.  I heard second hand that, among other things, he was embarrassed by what had gone on at Meerhout and especially by the fact that many foreigners had been present. 

In the fall of 1993,  I made the pilgrimage to the village of  Thuin in Belgium where he had bred the Bouvier des Flandres for sixty years, crossed the river Sambre and spent an early afternoon in conversation with Mr. Chastel. My purpose was of course to pay respect to the senior figure of the breed, and indeed this was to be the last time I would see him alive.  But I also wanted to ask him about what I had been told,  needed to hear it from the man himself.

He told me that his resignation was because the Belgian club had abandoned real concern for the working character of the breed.  Specifically, he openly expressed the belief that the Belgian selections, the character and conformation evaluations intended to designate the best breeding stock, are virtually without credibility, in his own words "a scandal.”

Most men would have avoided this issue, been too tired to create conflict, pretended that they just didn’t see.  But even as the end of his own life was a lengthening shadow on the horizon he acted according to his convictions, regardless of the consequences or the influence of his friends and associates. 

This episode had a profound emotional effect on me, for the sadness in the voice of that  great old man over what was being done to his breed will echo in my mind until the day I die.  A significant factor in my own painful decision to resign from the NAWBA presidency was the example of Chastel’s actions in a remarkably similar situation, for I also am becoming increasingly embarrassed at what is being done by  NAWBA in the name of the Bouvier des Flandres.

Our primary and most fundamental error has been pandering to the show breeders and pet owners.  The North American Working Bouvier Association, NAWBA, had fundamental flaws at its inception and has perhaps, on balance, done more harm than good  for the working Bouvier movement.  In the beginning we sought to be inclusive, welcomed everyone in with open arms.  We thought that of course we could combine great working and show Bouviers, that we were on the verge of a new era where we were going to have it all. 

We brought over European judges for conformation, had big turn outs with large conformation entries and grand social events.  But most of the time just showing up and passing at the Schutzhund III level has been enough to be Working Champion.  The past two years, we have had no passing Schutzhund III and thus no champion.  

About five years ago, realizing that we were on the wrong track, the board began cautions corrective action.  After much discussion, and repeatedly requesting membership comment, we unanimously voted to require the “B”, an elementary obedience, temperament and stability test, as a prerequisite to the Select conformation designation, that is, the top placements.  In a way it was surreal.  We set the inception day a year or so out and life went on as usual  Then, as the last big show before the “B” requirement approached, the California whining began.  Apparently some of our elite show breeders had a go at training their dogs and found out there were some problems.  Did they ascertain that what they had was crap and that they needed to improve their breeding stock?  Not quite, for as one of them explained at the California membership meeting  “I have a lot of dogs to show, and besides, spending all of that time in their runs makes them a little hard to deal with.”

You would think that the board of directors of a “working dog” organization would be most concerned about the quality of our working entry and the fact that there had been no champion because no dog had qualified.  You might further believe such a board would have very little difficulty in standing up for such a simple test as the “B.”  But you would be wrong, for immediately after the California championships there began incessant agitation on the board and from others to back down on the “B” because the show people, most of whom have never even been NAWBA members, were “upset!”

An interesting illustration of the state of the association is that we just voted to hand the fall championship event over to a group of elite California show breeders and enthusiasts.  Not one of these people, with one exception:

         is a NAWBA member

         was present at last year’s championship in Lansing.

         has ever shown the slightest interest in working dogs.

What is more interesting is that there are a number of hard working, NAWBA member Schutzhund trainers in the area, three of which were present in Lansing competing in the working championships.  Why were these people excluded from the organization of this event?  Are the elite breeders afraid that the lower class working trainers would sully their image?  What is going on here?  What is the real agenda?

If their agenda is to bring in another European show breeder judge - known primarily for producing false “champions” without working credentials - then this event will be as appropriate for a working dog association as a black mass in the Vatican.

This all came to a head recently when it was proposed that we institute a “temperament test” for the show dogs who can not pass the “B,” so that they could win their trophies without any work on the part of the elite show breeders, most of whom are not even NAWBA members.  There was no description of what this test was to consist of, we could deal with that “latter.”  Finally, after some serious pressure from yours truly, Frank McEniry let the cat out of the bag: their secret temperament test was the very same Belgian test which has had such a negative effect on the breed in that nation! 

When Mr. McEniry first proposed this in the NAWBA journal I quite naturally assumed that as he became more mature and experienced he would be embarrassed by his indiscretion and the whole silly idea would just fade away.  The problem is of course that the dog comes out on the field and is taken up to a blind with an agitator where the judge just renders an opinion on whether he is showing working character.  Unlike a Schutzhund trial, where the dog must do specific things in order to pass, the judge is to be free to see whatever (or who ever) he wants to see.  In Belgium I watched handlers screw around an incredibly long time trying to get the dog to do something that the judge could accept, which was not much,  and apparently just being dragged into contact with the agitator was sufficient if nothing else could be produced.  We have all seen this kind of nonsense before, and I assumed that no one would take it seriously. 

When it finally came down to a vote, it was the aforementioned Mr. McEniry, David Evans and  Charlie Price in favor with David Regier, Kathy Heilenman and yours truly opposed.  Since Charlie Porter was out of town dog training, it was squarely up to our president, Martha Hochstein.

This of course was a very interesting situation.  It is perhaps no secret that Martha and I have never gotten along especially well, and the sad thing is that I can’t really remember what it was all about in the beginning.  Over the years I have come to have great admiration for Martha’s perseverance and dedication, for no other person in the breed has made the personal sacrifices to advance the working  Bouvier which she has.  Banjo was truly one of the great dogs, and other Redwinds Bouviers have brought honor to her breeding program.  And win or lose, there is never any bragging or complaining from Martha Hochstein.  Perhaps you will not believe this, but if indeed the Bouvier slides over the abyss as a working dog - and we are on the brink - then one of the saddest things for me personally will be to see her enormous effort and sacrifice go for nothing.

Upon my resignation about a year ago, our vice president being on some sort of sabbatical, both the presidency and vice presidency became vacant.  Martha truly did not want the job, but when she nominated Mr. McEniry for the office there was dead silence for well over forty seconds before the motion died for the lack of a second. ( She kind of threw him a bone and designated him AWDF delegate, which is pointless since she does not hold an AWDF office.) 

Martha was nominated and elected with my support, for she was clearly the correct choice.  I promised my support and to refrain from comment for at least six months, and said or wrote virtually nothing for the better part of a year, until it became evident that members of the board, specifically McEniry and Evans,  were going to push hard for caving in on the “B.”  (They of course take exception, claim that they are not caving in, just offering an alternative for the poor beleaguered show breeding elite who just don’t have time to train all those show dogs.)

So what did Martha do?  She voted no but explained that it was because she could not support an incomplete proposal and bounced it to the working events committee.  Under the circumstances it would be a cheap shot for me to criticize her for straddling the fence, for a couple of months will allow everyone the opportunity of some serious rethinking.  For another thing, it will allow me to get this out to the membership so they can see for themselves what is going down.

It is interesting that by and large the “B” is being very well accepted by the membership.  Eight or nine dogs passed the “B” at the working championships in Lansing and went on to show in the conformation event.  We had a good entry and took in more than enough money to cover the cost of bringing in a Belgian conformation judge. 

My question for David Evans is why he did not bring this up at the annual membership meeting in Lansing?  My suspicion is that they assumed that nobody would train their dogs, nobody would show up and the conformation would be a bust.  When it not only succeeded but prospered they were kind of in a bind, for how could they tell those people that they were kind of stupid for spending the time to train their dogs?  I think they expected a big complaint at the annual meeting, which they would have oh so reluctantly given in to.  But there was not one complaint and a lot of positive comment, and they apparently deferred action until they could attempt the dirty deed with the privacy of a telephone conference call where they would be spared even the embarrassment of  trying to look you in the eye. 

So what next?  My expectation is that the committee is going to labor and groan and produce a majority proposal looking very much like a watered down ATTS test, kind of a walk on, go “woof, woof” and walk off as a  “NAWBA certified working dog.”  This is of course going to be most interesting, for what are our fellow working dog enthusiasts going to think when they see that the Bouvier people who can’t even produce a passing working dog at their own championships are nevertheless certifying dogs to be of working character?

I doubt that the vote is going to change very much, and Martha will face her moment of truth.  Will she stand up and be counted for the kind of Bouvier she has always believed in, or will she wimp out and come up with some lame rationalization for backing down on the “B” ?

The big question of course is how these three men - McEniry, Evans and Price - could bring themselves into such foolish and stupid circumstances.  We are desperately struggling to rise above a Mickey Mouse image and earn some credibility in the working dog world and they are blindly seeking to appease these mythical dissatisfied show breeders.  If we do this we will be laughed at, and we will deserve to be laughed at.  The tragedy is that, apparently, they just don’t get it, just don’t grasp the fundamental facts of life in the American working dog world.

As a Schutzhund trial draws to a close, every dog must face the test of courage.  Sometimes we see an impressive dog with a good score go down the field and fail to engage the helper.  Then the Judge - and I am sure it is very difficult - must declare the dog insufficient in courage and hardness. 

NAWBA faces a similar test of courage.  In the near future the NAWBA Officers and Board Members will face our individual moment of truth, for we will vote on whether to maintain our standards or to back down so as to appease the show breeders.  I believe from the very depths of my soul that those who abandon the Bouvier in his hour of greatest need will forever carry the mark of Cain, will bear personal responsibility for the loss of our Breed as a working dog. 

And what is to become of the working Bouvier?  I had a terrible dream last night, for I was at the NAWBA championships for the year 2007.  Clair McLean had been elected as President for Life after the merger of NAWBA and the IBBO.  The working champion was going to be the winner of the dress up contest held the evening of the grand banquet and the combined organization had won AKC blessing by pledging never to allow a dog to bite, which was no problem in that it had been three years since the last sighting of a Bouvier biting anything at all.

The simple truth of the matter is that the working Bouvier is on the course to extinction and that those of us who claim to be his advocates are the primary  cause, accelerating rather than slowing the process.

We are failing because we have no fire in our bellies, because we are satisfied with mediocrity, because we are unwilling to do what we know we must do.

We are failing because we pay homage to false gods, honor dogs with false “championships” - championships obtained without a working requirement.

At a time when we can’t even produce a passing dog to be working champion we are pandering to the show breeders and handing over our championship event to a group of elite showpeople, not even NAWBA members, to turn it into an event that promotes the Bouvier only as a show dog, promotes the AKC vision of our future.  Our enemies have no need to defeat us, all they have to do is accept our surrender!

We are failing because Jim Engel just truly did not understand for too long, and when he did he denied the truth to himself, and when he was finally forced to accept the truth he failed to act.

We are failing because Martha Hochstein, who knew the truth long before the rest of us, is forever walking the fence.

We are failing because we have on our board men who will be satisfied to someday get a Schutzhund I on one of their show dogs.

We are failing because our Journal is a pet owner’s magazine projecting show and pet owner values.  In our Journal work is whatever feels good, therapy dog is just as valid as police service, and the policy is to seek and justify the lowest common denominator rather than to truly advocate the Bouvier as a serious protective heritage working breed.

We are failing because at a time when we can not produce a working champion we are fighting among ourselves over whether to lower our standards so that the show breeders can more effectively pretend to have real Bouviers des Flandres.

My friends,  the time has come to tell you the truth:  we are failing because we are insufficient in courage and hardness.

Jim Engel, Marengo    © Copyright 1999