If you can get past the hyperbole regarding the Nazis and Eugentics, if you can get past the obvious one sidedness of the entire series, I think they do make a valid point, but they drag breeders thru the mud by only showing a small section of breeder. If you want the "in a nutshell" version, you can skip to section 6.
 
I recommend however, to watch the whole thing. A lot of the working dog vs show dog conversation is illustrated here, but not in mastiffs.

Edit: I should add, it is more the "show circuit" and  some of those that breed for it that are underfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LyjlX4Mp8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcUbCvS0ZEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpR5su-PQ0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDKwbWA5Tdg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szl30xomLXo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFJffepQY3Y

Excellent videos #5 in particular.

Nice to see David Hancock (The Mastiffs - The Big Game Hunters)  sharing his views.

VHC , very highly recommeded . Thanks , Lynai .

You can ask yourself who is to blame for the exaggerations that take place in the dog world, the judges, the breeders or the buyers.
Buyers are the ones that complain the most but they very often are the ones that create a market for those exaggerations. Judges pave the path to this demand. Buyers want what they see win at a show. A lot of breeders produce what the market asks for. This never will change. When money is involved... the breed suffers.

Carl

If one listens to the videos, they do speak of changes to the standard, which should incorporate restrictions to just breeding........anything!

Either we become pro-active in advance of mandatory legislation, or we just do nothing, and hope that the wave just passes us by!

Wet heads, are just the tip of the iceberg!

We need sound mastiffs that can function under duress and not have a heart attack, or overheat during a mild excercise!

Until we address these issues, "others" will address them for us!

Tick, tick, tick,......................

Well said , Steve , and may I add , in respect to our breed , the States are privileged , as their judges emphasise on soundness which limits the chances of dogs which are clearly overdone in overall type . So maybe this British attempt for banning breed excesses is a step in the right direction for more health in their show dogs and others .

Note - Besides breeders for only money purpose , there are also quite a lot breeding their own breed ideas , ie for themselves and secondly in the 'silent' hope others like their breed styling annex consequences in selling .

[QUOTE]If one listens to the videos, they do speak of changes to the standard, which should incorporate restrictions to just breeding........anything![/QUOTE]

It's not the Standard that needs to be changed. The Standard followed as it is written will produce a sound and healthy Mastiff. It is the judges that don't apply the Standard. This brings me to the same conclusion as a couple of days ago....
Judges don't give a crap about the dog's health while judging. Only beauty, read exaggeration, counts. Avoiding breed characteristics is another discussion. Having a Mastiff with mass and bone is not equivalent to an unhealthy one.
There is a lot to do when it comes to health and those that think that the US is free of serious health problems.... think otherwise. This is a universal problem... all-rounders won't solve this, that's for sure, neither will restrictions in the Standard.
I'm quite sure that 90% of the breeders anywhere in the world don't even refer to the Standard when breeding. They don't need the Standard to sell their pups.
As long as the government doesn't put restriction in their laws on dog breeding nothing will happen. And the USA, as being a liberal country, is far from doing so.
Taking responsibility as a breeder is the only solution.

Carl

Thank you very much for putting this up Lynai, I wanted to see it after hearing about it.
I feel this is somewhat tied up with the breed changes to be bought in by the EU, I dont know what is going to happen yet.
I do know there is new wording on the CC certifcates in the UK now, I am hoping Lyn is out there and can put it up.
I found that show extremely sad, so many breeds and so many problems, many of which are just pushed under the carpet, and healthy pups being culled for cosmetic purpose, showed breeders in a very bad light, but if some good can come from it for the health of dogs in general I say well done.
After seeing Col Hancock on the dvd I have now Steve I do recommend you get this one for the preview comments.
Janine.

I had Col Hancock on the phone on several occasions in the past before he published his book. I never saw his DVD but I have his book.
He is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous men around, when it comes to the survival of our Mastiff. His ideas of what a Mastiff should be simply is not of this time anymore.
All the breeds he advocates in his book as being ideal, whether they are not recognized, or are banned in a lot of countries, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, Boerboel...
We certainly don't want our Mastiff banned because of being too dangerous for the general public.

Carl

Excellent documentary - thanks for sharing such a good find.

Hancock is not an exception to the rule. There have been many Mastiff fanciers who felt that a Mastiff should be athletic ( e.g. Ramsgate Job/ Charlotte Strong owner ) and even if undersized, should still be able to scale 6 ft walls with dead sheep in tow!

Unfortunately, Hancock has focused on a number of Mastiff specimens who were overdone and very clumsy. Nothing wrong in a wake up call from time to time, but I agree that Hancock favors the Boerboel type of Molosser over the traditional Mastiff, that we have come to embrace as "correct"!

I know his thoughts on the mastiff, and I think the article he did for the MA newsletter called "Can we have our mastiffs back" was very interesting.
Watching him and listening to him on the DVD I think this man truly loves mastiffs and has a lot of praise for them, he speaks about them with a real passion, I know he is not popular and I dont agree with some of what he has to say but I do find him knowledgeable, articulate and interesting.  I dont think he is dangerous though, just someone who speaks his mind, like many here on the forum, we all have our opinions and when shared others can take what they want from it.
One of the things on the BBC show which got to me a bit was the female vet, when she said that if she took a stick and beat a dog to cause it the same pain as the hereditary fault she would be put in jail, yet the breeders are still producing this and only a handful cared enough to want to do something.  That is very sad indeed.
Janine.

A standard is based on an ideal specimen - one that can still perform the function for which it was intended. In this breed, the intent becomes somewhat muddled since they have such a long and varied history.
Nonetheless, Mastiffs are a still working a breed - NOT couch potatoes!
Personally, I do not want a door stop, but rather a companion, and when breeding, I look for studs that have more than just conformation titles.
We do obedience as well as draft dog work here, and the dogs love it! And still win in the ring.
Take a look at the Heatherbelle dogs - good enough to kick start the British breeding program - considered very nearly ideal when compared to the standard.
The standard hasn't changed that much - but the dogs certainly have!
Talk about exaggerations! I cringe when I watch them hobble, exhausted, around the ring after just one turn!
How healthy is that? What horrors are we 'breeders' ultimately inflicting on them?
And the Heatherbelle dogs? Most people wouldn't want them.
JMHO
Yours,
Bev Molloy
Banda Mastiffs (Perm. Reg.)

Bev, nobody is saying the Mastiff should be like a couch potatoes. I love good moving Mastiffs and to be honest I don't understand your problem because here in the US exaggeration and bad movement is not really a point. Most Mastiffs move well, have nice temperaments and are excellent companions. They certainly aren't overdone.
The reason I call David Hancock "dangerous" is because he is literate and very fanatic about his view. He really called me at least 5 times to promote his view. Sent me scripts how he saw his strategy to "change" the Mastiff into a more agile and more active "guard dog". I'm sure I'm not the only one he called. When you would have lived in Europe where the Mastiff ended up on dozens of ban lists in different countries because politicians find it an easy target to gain popularity, and you had to go through a judicial fight to get our breed off of those lists, then you don't want to see people like David Hancock, promoting a "game hunter". The UK still has a ban on different dog breeds, like Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, Tosa Inu,... All very agile, and still having that "old-fashioned" type of temperaments. It's already hard enough as it is. A lot of countries still have banned all kind of breeds. One serious accident with one of the Mastiffs is enough to start the whole circus again. Politicians are waiting for this kind of stuff.

Carl

Since this summer When awarding CC's and RCC's in the UK you have to sign that the animal has no obvious health defects, this is the wording from the certificate.

Text on Challenge and Reserve Challenge Certificates
"Having assesed the dogs and penalised any features or exaggerations which I consider detramental to their soundness health or welfare.
I am clearly of the opinion that
Name of Dog ................................................
Owned By ......................................................
is of such outstanding merit as to be worthy of being awarded
(applies to either CC or RCC)

signed by Judge...............................................................

It is clear that judges, especially those awarding Challenge Certificates, are crucial to the success of this work.   The Kennel Club is therefore initiating a pilot scheme introducing the random observation of judges awarding Challenge Certificates in certain breeds. The focus of this observation will be on whether the judges are taking note of the specific concerns about the potentially damaging exaggerations found in that breed.

Kennel Club Chairman, Mr Ronnie Irving explained, “The Kennel Club’s Breed Health and Welfare Strategy Group has worked well with breed clubs in addressing health concerns in certain breeds.  The role that judges play in supporting the progress made is vital to ensure the continued healthy development of dogs.  This pilot scheme will hopefully demonstrate the beneficial impact of the work done. Health and welfare considerations are of paramount importance to all those who care about dogs.”

Hi Carl,
I hear what you say about temperament! LOL! I'm just in Ontario, where BSL is already in play. We were on the short list up here, and one bad incident and Mastiffs will likely be included, sadly. The law here means no more breeding; no more bringing any into the province to live; everything I own will have to be spayed/neutered; going out in public they will have to be muzzled. Once the last one in the province dies, then there would be no more Mastiffs in all of Ontario, and I couldn't even own one as a pet.
I hear the couch potato thing all the time! And while movement and rears have certainly improved over my 30 years in Mastiffs, I am still amazed at the number of times I see dogs with horrible movement and even limps get put up! Breeders and judges should all have to take courses on movement and basic anatomy - geesh!
No, today, I am seeing and talking about dogs that border on dwarfism due to the attempt to get a shorter, heavier boned leg to make the body appear deeper. This also makes for short dogs, quite often below the minimum in the standard. As well as the huge, overdone heads, with an ever shorter muzzle - almost bracycephalic. Or the bigger is better mentality, where the dogs are grossly overweight! (But you know what? A roll of fat at the whithers adds height to the dog! LOL!) Still see lots of all of this, both here and Stateside!

That is fabulous Lynn!
So glad to see a kennel club that is more concerned with the actual dogs than the almighty dollar!

Are there not some European countries who ask that the breed clubs submit a list of the most common health issues, and then you can only breed those dogs who pass the testing for those problems?

Starting to get lots of calls from people who have Mastiffs with heart trouble!! Not a very good trend. I check all my girls before breeding, and look for tested studs as well.

Yours,
Bev Molloy
Banda Mastiffs (PErm. Reg.)

Not all breeders admit to faults! The KC at present do not stop registering anything, I am afraid money does come in to it, but they are doing things slowly, after all if they penalised everything showing would cease. The breed clubs could do more if only the committees would all agree, but its the same in every breed.
I have always been against close breedings but if this hadn't been done after the war we wouldn't have our mastiffs now.
The UK are very bad about hip and elbow scoring I keep the database another 2 added for this quarter!

I find it ironic, that one can post about the benefits of the outcross and then be bashed for not recognizing the "tried & true" merits of the "linebreeding"!

Then, a short time later, the inbred issues raise their ugly heads and then everyone seems to abandon the linebreeding ship!

Not sure where you're headed with that Steve!?
There's a time and place for all three types of breedings - linebreeding, outcrossing and even in-breeding, The problem is, that too few 'breeders' understand the pros and cons to each of them.
In any case, we should all understand that even the best planned breeding on paper doesn't always work out. Marie Moore used to tell about her two English imports, Falcon and Raven of Blackroc. One was better looking than the other and she always had people wanting to use the better looking boy at stud - however, she always said that the other one produced the better puppies! Similar thing happened to me. I did this great linebreeding, and it was probably the worst litter I ever had! Next time around, same bitch, but a half brother to the stud I had used before, (still a linebreeding), and I ended up with a fabulous litter!
And the difference between a good breeder and a bad breeder? The good breeder stands behind the disasters, and supports their puppy buyers. There are lots of guarantees out there that are for 30 seconds or 30 feet, whichever comes first! LOL!
The problem is that far too many people have their egos on the end of the leash. They'll play the odds, taking short cuts, figuring that most puppies go to pet homes, so they can have the disasters, while the breeder keeps the one good dog out of 10. Instead they should be breeding slowly and patiently to produce 10 out of 10 good dogs!
Yours,
Bev Molloy
Banda Mastiffs (PErm. Reg.)

Steve, as with everything, there is nothing wrong with it when thought over. I had good results with both. I had some lousy results with both too. I remember my first outcross as being a real genetic disaster.
You're working with living material. A lot can go wrong.
The problem in the videos is not the fact that there is inbreeding or not. The problem is that those so called "breeders" use genetic junk to start with AND that they know it. That simply is unforgivable. This all with the excuse of beauty.
This being said I find it also absurd that some breeders try to use this argument in order NOT to have to breed heavy typey Mastiffs. The Mastiff has a Standard that gives one the opportunity to breed healthy dogs. The are no real extreme properties in the Mastiff Standard. The muzzle is moderated long, the body is long, there is space in the enormous rib case, even the wrinkle is moderated.
What I would love to see is a limited height. 31 1/2 inches or 80 cm is tall enough in my opinion. No reason to go bigger.

Carl

There's nothing wrong with guns either, but if used, or handled improperly things can go wrong!

Linebreeding one generation, provides little if anything to improve a breed long term.

Sometimes you get a nice litter and sometimes you don't!

Too many linebreedings lead to searching for pedigree compatibility with other people who have also done linebreedings, in the hope of solidifying type. I will use the word "indiscriminate linebreedings", because regardless of the quality of the breeder and their sincerity, they are in affect....... "indiscriminate"!

We can rarely "know" what is truly lurking in a line by only one linebreeding. Therefore, other than seeing a known important dog showing up in several places in a pedigree, most linebreedings are indiscriminate in scope and long term outcomes!

If it were otherwise, we wouldn't have such variability in the breed!

brachycephalic -> why?????????
http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_brachycephalic.html

Cephalic index in animal breeding

The cephalic index is used to in the categorisation of animals, especially breeds of dogs and cats.

[edit] Brachycephalic animals

Brachycephalic Pug

A brachycephalic skull is relatively broad and short (typically with the breadth at least 80% of the length). Dog breeds such as the Pug are sometimes classified as "Extreme Brachycephalic" since the muzzle practically disappears.

Brachycephalic dogs and cats are very sensitive to high temperatures, making the choice of a sleep or travel crate surface especially important.^{[citation needed]}

List of brachycephalic dogs:

• American Pit Bull Terrier
• Boston Terrier
• Boxer
• Brussels Griffon
• Bulldog
• Bull Mastiff
• Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
• Dogue de Bordeaux
• English Mastiff
• English Toy Spaniel
• French Bulldog
• Japanese Chin
• Lhasa Apso
• Neapolitan Mastiff
• Papillon sometimes
• Pekingese
• Pug
• Rottweiler
• Shih Tzu
• Shar-Pei

List of brachycephalic cats:

• Himalayan cat
• Persian cat
• Exotic Shorthair Cat

[edit] Mesocephalic animals

Mesocephalic Labrador Retriever

A mesocephalic skull is of intermediate length and width. Mesocephalic skulls are not markedly brachycephalic or dolichocephalic.

• Labrador Retriever
• Golden Retriever
• German Shepherd Dog
• Dobermann
• Dalmatian
• Beagle
• Norwich Terrier
• Norfolk Terrier
• Border Collie
• Collie
• Bearded Collie
• Pembroke Welsh Corgi
• Brittany
• Alaskan Malamute

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (June 2008)

[edit] Dolichocephalic animals

Dolichocephalic Borzoi

A dolichocephalic skull is relatively long skull (typically with the breadth less than 80% or 75% of the length).

List of dolicocephalic canines:

• Afghan Hound
• Azawakh
• Borzoi
• Chart Polski
• Greyhound
• Hortaya Borzaya
• Italian Greyhound
• Pharaoh Hound
• Saluki
• Scottish Deerhound
• Sloughi
• Whippet
• Great Dane

An interesting article about longevity and dog breeding.

Carl

that list of brachycephalic looks very wrong = just to be objective, Rottweiler???

So this term has a broader definition then I though!

[QUOTE]typically with the breadth at least 80% of the length)[/QUOTE]

The ideal breadth of a Mastiff head is, according to the UK standard, 66% of its length. Since they used the pug as an example and include the muzzle, I assume this goes for the Mastiff too.

The AKC Standard doesn't include the breadth of the skull in the Standard.

Carl

Angie,

The Rottie is a Molosser and does fit within the ratio, which would give it that designation.

Carl,
[QUOTE]  
 The look you want may be due to an inherently unstable combination of genes, particularly if the breed was established from dissimilar founders over a short period.

[/QUOTE]

Key excerpt!

Hi Carl,
I really find it hard to believe you think Col. Hancock's views on the
mastiff could place them in danger.
This is some of what he said on the DVD preview.

"Wonderful presence, statuesque grandeur".
"Bequest of nobility".
"Big hearted grand creatures"
"Temperament famous for its steadfastness, self confident and use of minimum force".
"Protect, not noisy and good thinking".
"Strength with self discipline and control".
"Never surrender the owner to danger".
"Most magnificent and famous heavy hound history has known".

That is a minor amount of what he had to say, not one word of that sounds like someone who would in any manner wish to place this breed in jeopardy. 
I have read much of what he has written in his books, magazine column and newsletters, like I said, I dont agree with some of it, but I enjoy what he writes, he certainly knows how to ruffle feathers.
Janine.

Thanks , Janine , for a slight unveiling of the Australian DVD’ content including Col Hancock’ brilliant breed assessment being a canine breed observer of the upper shelf . Based upon his book , one can easily state his profound ‘rainbow’ knowledge of the Molosser breeds is formidable , a/o proven by the unbelievable correct temperamental approach of that breed of ‘statuesque grandeur .

The down to earths may detract it as lyrical bombast language way from breed ‘reality show’ , but whether one likes it or , Col Hancock’ words are indeed a perfect résumé of all the literature re the Mastiff annex way of behaviour which I was able to digest . So either most historicals tracks are faked , iow not according to the then general trends of breed behavior , or otherwise he hits the nail .

If he hasn’t read the whole display of available breed information , he certainly must be a genuine ‘Mastiff whisperer’ reading its mind up to the most remote subtleties . Although not being a specialist or insider limited to just one breed , he’s utmost able to touch perfectly the genuine Nature of our breed . Truly amazing !

Should one be blinded by this splendid assessment re temperament ?

No , because for learning the complete breed picture , one needs to stand in a neutral inquiring position , ie each source of information needs to be weighed up in one’s own positively orientated critical mind . Baked chicks doesn’t fly around .

In respect to our breed , his well structured book ‘The Game Hunters’ refers to the game ‘heavy hound’ type which was considered by Reverend Malcolm Bush Wynn as being highly undesirable because of its ‘houndy appearance’ in the then Mastiff breeding , ie lankish skulls with obvious presence of conus which is detrimental to the square breed character , and the emphasis on ‘hound-like’ levels of endurance are rather way out of our breed context , being renowned as first-class guard instead of foxhound like performances . This doesn’t include the Mastiff shouldn’t possess a definite degree of sound endurance in order to possess an important tool for a happy and energetic life .

He also mentions the breed should be ‘short coupled’ which in my interpretation of ‘compactness’ is quite adequate for longitudinal strength in a draught horse but in opposition to the standard requirement of a long body , mainly by a long reach of ribcage complemented by a proportional short loin package . A long body instead of compact , being one of the elements of magnificient grandeur to be found in the natural radiation of a lioness’ contour .

Col Hancock refers also to historical ‘holding’ bite capacity vs muzzle length in our breed and their ability to seize and hold big game’ which is , taking into account the breed’ genuine non-biting temperament , rather contradictory . It could lead to faulty selective conclusions by fanciers who doesn’t have a broad footing in the authentic way of our breed’ behaviour .

He also definitely claims the level bite as the only correct one , which is quite limiting the chance for a full square muzzle end , radiating the breed’ strength & determination standing at guard .

His remark the Mastiff’ curl in tail should be debet at the input of Thibetan Mastiff’ blood is fairly not more than guess work . The innate Mastiff of the XXVIIIth Century drawn by Bewick & Co does all display the curl way over the back , so one cannot be sure about the Thibetan influence in times without any kind of written evidence re this matter , the more because the breed was so rare and unknown even in the XIX Century when Thibetan Mastiffs were almost only owned by the Court & Zoological Societies .

Under mixed bloods in Mastiffs Col Hancock also mentions Waterman’ Tiger being a Great Dane from Ireland . This WaterTON’ Tiger indeed participated in early Mastiff breeding , but Rev Wynn mentioned kirkless’ game keeper John Crabtree presumed Waterton’ Tiger was a descent of Lord Altamont’ stock of (boar?)hounds which contended two main varieties , one Greyhound-like the other Mastiff-like , the latter being short coated and marked with dark patches on white . He further on mentions that this Tiger was procured in Ireland with cropped ears and bobtailed , standing 34 inches at the shoulder and much of the Boarhound in appearance . So , if Col Hancock doesn’t possess any other source , it’s quite unclear the way deduct from this information Waterton’ Tiger being a Great Dane , a breed standard was only published half a century later and certainly not described in the same short-cut way as Waterton’ Tiger’ one . So , it’s fair to presume the Lord Altamont’ Mastiff-like (boar?)hound cannot be considered as the blueprint of the Great Dane , the former being bred almost wholy for function while the latter became shrinked within the breed standard going not only for function but also for an up tuned ‘show parade’ version of its ancestors .

The above side remarks doesn’t detract a single bit from Col Hancock’ merits as thé bellringer re soundness, also in our breed , as time is there to revise personal purposes , being contributors in our common goal re the Mastiff , its welfare .

Therefore , Lynn , your post re the new changes in the KC provisionally guarded approach re canine welfare at the highest show level must be ‘a belt under the heart’ of each Mastiff fancier who desires his breed as healthy as possible . Of course , you also shall have the perpetual sceptici who think it will have no result . Time is definitely changing in Britain and it’s a matter of a long-termed evolution of changing all minds involved re the relationship of re show dictates vs health & welfare .

[QUOTE]taking into account the breed’ genuine non-biting temperament , rather contradictory[/QUOTE]

I believe that they are not mutually exclusive!

Capacity & inhibition can coexist. 

[QUOTE]doesn’t detract a single bit from Col Hancock’ merits as thé bellringer re soundness[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that the general Mastiff breeder before 2000, the year his book is published, didn't care about soundness at all? We don't need a bell ringer to tell us that. Every serious breeder is aware of this fact.
Breeders all over the world are struggling very hard, on a daily basis, trying to breed a good moving typey Mastiff. This is not easy. You need to have sound typey Mastiffs to do so. These were or are not always available and when they are around... they don't always give you what you expect. That is the reality.

When "outsiders", especially Bullmastiff fanciers, try to tell you to "simplify" the breed because of soundness purposes and tell you they should be a bit more "sharp", like in the "old days", at a moment where I am sitting before a group of politicians in the senate in Belgium, trying to explain to them that the Mastiff doesn't belong on a list of banned dogs because of it's lovely temperament, then yes... I have problems with this guy and get pissed off because individuals like this will  damage the breed with their way of preaching.

But I guess this always will be the difference between academics and people in the field. It all looks good in writing. Unfortunately someone has to to it. Unfortunately that's the reality Mastiff breeders have to deal with. I wished I lived in the fairy tale world of the preachers but I don't.  I live in the real world with real issues affecting the breed. 

Carl

A sound temperament & disposition, incorporates the innate ability to guard & protect if necessary.

If that aspect in a mastiff has been removed, diminished, or repealed by legislatures, then the breed is not as it should in fact behave under a specific set of circumstances.

The police have "hot heads & trigger happy" officers among their ranks, but the few who are, do not interfere with the rest of the officers from carrying their guns!

In other words, if we decide to shape our breed physically & mentally, based on the whims of legislatures, or a few mastiffs that may be overly aggressive, then we lose track of what the breed is all about.

Let's not remove all the guns from the police, all because a rogue cop goes astray!

Steve...

Tell that to my son. He was attacked by a Mastiff at a rescue fundraiser. You've seen the pictures I had posted. That dog had a "sharp" temperament. All he did was walk past the dog going to his seat. The dog was laying on the ground, Tom walked past, the dog lunged and brought my son down. My son was raised with Mastiffs and knows how to behave with the dogs around. We differ here Steve.

So, when someone wants that 'Sharp' temperament, I'd be more than happy to put up those pictures once again.

There is a difference between a "Sharp' temperament and Guarding instincts.

Bes

Bes,

Where did I ever post that a mastiff should have a sharp temperament?

It is quite clear , Carl , you’re inclined to polarise other one’s opinion , ie bringing soundness aka health to the fore ground is not the same as considering the general breeder doesn’t care about soundness at ALL . I’m sure you can assess the ‘jump’ in your hasty conclusion .

I do believe there are breeders working hard for soundness annex difficulties in combining it with type , but this doesn’t remove the facts a lot of show dogs could be more sound in their phenotype & abilities , and thereby the breed’ incapacity to definitely play game in the working group ring , opposite to p ex a similar breed as the St Bernard .

Col Hancock isn’t not some of the individuals as this tendency for soundness gets more and more ground in the fancy , not only by Col Hancock but probably more by the boomerang effects of poor soundness , iow shooting in own legs .

There’s nothing wrong with academics in the fancy , as they can contribute at a different angle of view , ie not in the middle of the hard every-day kennel & kitchen problematics , but assessing the issue in a more global breed perspective based upon sound historical tracks .

Re sharpness in temperament , it’s again an over-reactive conclusion . I’ve read Col Hancock’ test print about the Mastiff tribe as also his Big Game Hunters and nowhere I came across wordings which could even suggest an aim for sharpness in the Mastiff breed of to-day , maybe except for those people who are inclined to make wrong ‘sensational’ jumps in their mind .

A claim for more activity/agility in the Mastiff doesn’t implement the breed should lose his innate way of behaviour re his environment . Have an nice eve .

Perhaps I misunderstood your post above. If I did, I apologize. This is a sore subject with me.

Bes

Col Hancock wants a hunting Mastiff with a sporting role, this to seize and hold big game, such as bison, boar and wild bulls. He wants a dog that is willing to investigate suspicious activity, is able to track, prepared to tackle quarry without hesitation but under control, possessing the instinct to seize and hold or "pin" its quarry.

It should be bold, confident and protective, without unwanted aggression, naturally inquisitive, physically and mentally reliable, possessing great stamina yet able to produce burst of dynamic energy, alert and eager to learn, devoted to its own family but suspicious of strangers, tolerant of other dogs, impressively magnanimous. Not noisy by nature.

This all sounds very much like Fila Brasileiro or Dogo Argentino. You could ask yourself... when you love this type of dog, why not just buy one instead of going after what is so wrong in the modern Mastiff ??

Oh yeah... he cannot buy them. There is a The Dangerous Dogs Act  since 1991 in the UK and those breeds are mentioned in that act.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a piece that was introduced in response to various incidents of serious injury or death resulting from attacks by aggressive and uncontrolled dogs, particularly on children.
Creating a dog as Col Hancock wants our Mastiff is a sure way to let it end up on that list.

I'm sure that there is a market for hunting Mastiffs but I doubt that this is the intention of the general Mastiff fancier.
For those who never saw a hunting Mastiff, here we go, nice for those who love the sport. Not my cup of tea though.

Carl

Carl, I imported a dog from the UK in 1993, I had to sign a stat dec declaring my dog was NOT a Pit Bull, American Pit Bull, a Tosa, Fila or Dogo.  They were banned here back then, so I would say it came in here in 91 as well.  Mind you, we have them here, people just have to sign the stat dec and say the dog is cross of some sort and the dogs get through, not recognised, not registered but here just the same.  And, like you I dont want to see the mastiff on that list under any circumstances.  I also have a lot of time for you Carl, I think we are on the same page but with different opinions on people.
I have files and files of letters about BSL, puppy farms, sales through pet stores, papers and markets, I have gone to meetings about the same, I have had verbal arguments with council rangers and their lack of knowledge in regards to breeds etc.  People like John C are the danger to us, and they are a very real danger because it is the mastiff who is going to have to wear the brunt of an attack by one of these crosses. 
Marcel, I find your knowledge again astounding, so much history between you and Steve is wonderful.  I wish I could retain it all like both of you, and Betty for that matter.  I like to read and hear what each person has to say, it is all invaluable.  Knowing where you come from can help in the direction you are going.
Janine.

Without any doubt , Janine , the breeding of Mastiffs in a consciously elaborated way re standard consistency gives alot of opportunities re empirical breed knowledge , otherwise the breed snoozer benefits the freedom of the ‘reality’ of own stock , iow lesser chance of being bias , so everyone has a place under the breed sun .

And yes , as a newbie , I had the opportunity to come into contact with a first class middle of breed experts , having cherished a really extensive correspondence with that Grande Dame in Mastiffs , Mrs Betty Baxter , during moreover than fifteen years and till present we now and then cross over letters . Never one singly smutty word , always straight and ahead in a respectful manner and sooo kind in providing unbelievable ‘damn old stuff’ , as she laughingly calls her treasures on breed history . We had the honour to house her and her late dear husband and co-expert in Mastiffs Dennis being abroad for appointments re judging , &c . We visited with them not only Carl & Rina’ Gwenstone kennels , but also the Joancy’s Mastiff kennels who bred the Dutch Number One all breeds of 1986 or was it 1987 , ch Joancy’ Graf Gotthard , we visited outstanding Bouvier de Flandres kennels , as Mrs Baxter in those days was also involved with that typical Flemish breed , a/o as breed correspondent for canine newspapers .

We debated lots of Mastiff related issues and it was also so fine to taste Dennis’ undercooled British humour . So , I could go on quite a while as I think to have made clear one of my darest Mastiff roots , and of course without forgetting that gentleman par excellence , the actual OEMC President , Graham Hicks , Esq and his parents . We also hosted him at our house for several days in the same way we did with the Baxter family , and he also was always so kind to procure immensely valuable backgrounds and interpretations and up till now we do have now and then correspondence . So I’m indebted quite a whole lot to those splendid stalwarts of our breed . One can understand my involvement wasn’t restricted to those people , but again I have to round up .

Re Carl , I must say he’s a genuine fancier of our breed and I think I can say we are still friends bound by the same fascination , but friendship doesn’t mean one cannot have hard but respectful confrontations because those momentums are usually the most fruitful in their final outcome . It has no sense to rub syrup around each others mouth , as it should be hypocritical when having definite diverting opinions . No , there only one way for ‘growing up’ in breed knowledge , ie the direction of open respectful culture of debate .

The only real point of distress in our engagement was the inability to bring together the Belgian breeders as a/o Mrs Mieke Cuypers of Erebor’ & Ine & Frank Schlichting of Joancy’ , the latter being my travel mate envers the OEMC Clubmatch & several prominent breeders . It was quite heartbreaking to ‘attend’ at that moment of time the painful lack of cooperation between the main players of Belgian Mastiff breeding , so I resigned as a club member & archivist being unable to bridge those gaps between lovers of the same breed within such a restricted area as ours . Later on things were settled up in some degree , being ‘purified’ by the past and the ‘newborn’ knowledge that it’s always more wise to cooperate than to divide . But all this is past , and it’s never sound to remain in old needless contraproductive thoughts . Past is past as it's any further productive to pull old cows out of the moat , so the future is winking without any superfluous luggage of past mishappenings .

That’s in a nutshell , the place were I come from , omitting a large number of other valuable contacts .

Hope all is well in Oz’ winter time , Janine and thanks for your really wise annex informative contributions to this forum .

I watched this programme in it's entirety, and I have to say it relied on the same old "rent-a-quote" providers that we see too often on British TV. It also got quotes from the crew of ancient breeders who don't want to change a thing from the way their parents operated. You can always count on these people to set themselves up for ridicule (like London Mayor Boris Johnson).

Does the KC need changing - absolutely. Has it made an effort to deal with heriditary problems - absolutely. My particular problem is the destruction of healthy puppies, where the KC provides lip-service, but no real solutions. What we don't want is the RSPCA getting even more powers, because quite frankly they are, at the upper level, a haven for purebred dog haters. A step in the right direction would be for each breeder to specify to the KC the cause of death for every pup who doesn't make it while in their care.

My perspective as a Mastiff judge is that I will never giver a first to an unsound dog or an untypical dog. I do not exclude dogs with colour faults, but penalise them proportionately. Size, in every dimension, is an essential part of the standard, and if I consider two dogs to be otherwise equal, I will give the first to the larger specimen. That said, I rarely give the first to the biggest specimen in the class. It's tough to produce a really good big one!