The protective heritage working breeds, such as the German Shepherd, Bouvier des Flandres and Malinois, are rooted in a shared culture based on the working trial as the operational definition of the breed. These trials, such as Belgian and French Ring, KNPV and IPO / Schutzhund, have for a century been the foundation of this heritage and these breeds.
Those breeding populations which have prospered have done so on the basis of an unambiguous trial system as the unifying factor. It is true that the Malinois prospers on the basis of the Belgian Ring in Belgium and in the Dutch Police (KNPV) in the Netherlands. It is also true that there are differences between these sports. But the key point is that in the individual communities there is unity, that is, no ambiguity in the test that determines merit and breeding suitability.
It is fundamental that each of these sports requires, in it's own way, a demonstration of control and working willingness, and an olfactory capability, as well as the fighting instinct to engage in an effective attack on a determined human adversary.
But let us not beat around the bush. Every trainer, every advocate and every breeder within these communities, at the very depth of his or her soul, is motivated by the deep satisfaction of working with a truly good protection dog, a cooperating partner who can bring the power of canine aggression to the trial field and the police man's encounter with the criminal advisory.
This shared belief in the protective functionality and consequent deeply emotional commitment to it is the very foundation, the defining element, of the protective heritage working dog culture.
There are of course those who do not share this culture and these values. The English have never had any affinity for good dogs, and their canine establishment is deeply pacifist and in opposition to the heritage. The AKC in America and the canine communities in other English speaking countries, such as Australia, have always stood in opposition, not only to the protective heritage, but in fact to any real working functionality as a basis for breeding certification.
Those protective heritage communities which have arisen in America and elsewhere have done so on the basis of their own organizations, which have adapted the European working dog culture and it's values and trial systems.
This split is so deep and so fundamental that there is no middle ground. Nor should there be, for these are philosophical systems in such deep opposition that compromise can only be in principle and at the cost of abandonment of fundamental values. Any such compromise preordains those participating to failure.
The North American Working Bouvier Association (NAWBA) was conceived as an entity to bring this protective heritage to North America for the Bouvier. But in seeking to gain membership and support from existing populations of show breeders and pet owners it has so fundamentally compromised the heritage that it has become a causative factor insuring the decline of the Bouvier as a protection dog in .
The fundamental principle can be stated as:
"In the ideal, as a long term goal, it is necessary for every Bouvier des Flandres to demonstrate an effective attack on a determined human adversary in a trial field situation in order to be considered a correct representative of the breed and to be eligible to propagate the heritage through breeding."
This is a simple, direct statement of the heritage. It is something that you either believe in and endorse or you do not; there is simply no rational basis for a middle ground.
Yet Kathy Heilenman, current NAWBA president, has persistently refused to endorse this principle. Her problem, regardless of her personal convictions, if any, is that the current NAWBA leadership is made up of and committed to play trainers and dilatants, and to the appeasement of pet owners and casual breeders who want to believe that their dogs are at heart still the fearless defenders of the Flemish plaine. By pandering to every segment of the population, including those fundamentally opposed to the protective heritage, they have emasculated the association.
This is of course the Heilenman dilemma, for to endorse the fundamental beliefs of the serious working community at large would belie the anthem of the play trainers, that is, that their dogs could do it too but that there is no need to demonstrate it, and no need to value the strong dogs.
But of course this is destined for failure, for as the young trainer is exposed to working dog values at his Schutzhund or Ring club he comes to understand that the Bouvier des Flandres in America is not and can not be a viable choice because the heritage is in the hands of those who do not share these values.