The Boerboel

The Boerboel was developed in South Africa as a working dog. He has evolved over a number of centuries, initially as a hunting dog and, more recently, as a farm and family dog, and protector. He is a mastiff-type, or mesocephalic (broad-mouthed, broad-headed) dog. The Boerboel is a muscular, athletic and well-boned dog breed, but he is, first and foremost, an active and alert animal. In recent years, much emphasis has been placed on his size and bulk. This preoccupation with stature, with the concomitant inattention to temperament, can only result in the loss of the essential physical and psychological qualities which set the boerboel apart. Boerboels should not be bred for size at the expense of soundness. They should, indeed, have size and substance, but also strength of character and an inclination to deter intruders. Excess size results in a decline in activity levels and enthusiasm for work. Many dog breeds are now bred for their physical appearance, rather than for their working ability. The result has been that they have lost the qualities they were originally bred for, and are now quite incapable of fulfilling the function for which they were once used.

In 2000, Colonel David Hancock published "The Mastiffs, the Big Game Hunters", a quite admirable treatise on the history of the mastiff-type breeds throughout the world, researched with meticulous attention to detail, and destined to become, without doubt, the most influential work of its kind. In it he relates the sorry decline of such dogs as show breeders have moved away from original working types towards specimens demonstrating the more fashionable show ring features. The boerboel is as vulnerable to such imprudence as any other breed. I enclose extracts from David's book with his full permission, to inform readers of the unique qualities which the boerboel offers and to counsel against unwise breeding.

"The Boerboel appears to feature all the best attributes of the mastiff breeds: immense power combined with great faithfulness, physical stature combined with admirable tolerance and a temperament capable of placidity or ferocity, if its family is threatened."

"The Boerboel looks to be a magnificent breed, developed in a hard school by tough farmers who were threatened by every kind of dangerous predator, in testing terrain and a challenging climate. hard-pressed pioneer farmers... had a need for brave powerful virile dogs and bred good dog to good dog until they obtained the desired result. It should be a matter of pride that the Boerboel was developed from the best mastiff-type dogs available in South Africa and brought there by soldiers, colonists and settlers from Europe."

"Perhaps the biggest threat to them in the long term is misuse once imported into Europe, misguidedness in their future design by show breeders and a closed gene pool, which they have managed well enough without in their whole history."

"The English Mastiff is now bred for bulk rather than activity. The admirable Boerboel devotees need to be alert and open-minded if their breed is to survive in the 21st century."

After attending a Boerboel Appraisal, in May 2009, David also sent to me the following article, which I reproduce below, with his kind permission.

SIZE MATTERS by David Hancock

In the past few months, I have attended dog shows in which dogs have been proudly presented by exhibitors when they were clearly just too big for their own well-being; this is not wise. Breeds like the Boerboel, the Dogue de Bordeaux, the Neapolitan Mastiff and the Mastiff were never intended to be admired and valued because of their size but for what they could do. The Boerboel is and was the South African 'farmer's bulldog', needed to drive wayward bulls, protect livestock from predators and lead an active life on a vast farmstead. It was not designed to pull carts or engage in weight-pulling contests of little consequence. It was always a working dog. Why breed away from function when it always creates problems and leads to a loss of true breed type?

A couple of years ago, I watched the Mastiff of England being exhibited by foreigners at a World Dog Show. I could have wept. The dogs were simply dreadful, sluggish, shambling, overweight specimens of a superb breed 'gone wrong'. Their movement was awful; their construction disastrous; their eyes sunken and sad; their flews exaggerated beyond comfort and their ultra- heavy bone a needless handicap. I was appalled. Any group of breed fanciers can lose their way, but when a dog of this size is ill-bred, indirect cruelty is involved. These dogs were heavier than any past function could ever justify; they appeared to be valued because of their extreme bulk.

Writing in 'The Book of the Dog' of 1948, edited by Brian Vesey-Fitzgerald and published by Nicholson and Watson, Arthur Croxton Smith gave this view:

"Breeders seem to have concentrated more and more upon getting immense size, and great bulk usually brings the evil of unsoundness in its train. I have seen plenty of perfectly sound mastiffs, such as could move well and were really active, but latterly the proportion of unsound ones has been alarmingly heavy, for it is extremely difficult for breeders to get soundness in alliance with bulk."

No breed can lead a healthy life if its whole design is at the mercy of human whim. Any breed no longer bred for a function, even if that function has lapsed, has a doubtful future.

If you then look at the health of the breed as summarised in an authoritative book such as 'Medical and Genetic Aspects of Purebred Dogs' by Clark and Stainer (1994), you can see some of the problems in the breed. It states:

"Many bitches experience uterine inertia after whelping one or two puppies, probably resulting from the breed's characteristic lethargy...Obesity is the curse of the Mastiff breed... many owners continue to overfeed their dogs in the mistaken belief that the heavy feeding increases the dog's size."

Lethargy and obesity from overfeeding, are these not the consequences of breeding for great size without accompanying soundness or quality? I groan when I read a judge's critique praising 'great bone'; are we breeding cart horses or heavy hounds? The seeking of massive bone in any breed of dog is not a rational act. Strong flat bone is admired by every racehorse owner, because it is the strongest, and who in all honesty wants a dog with thick ankles? Of what use and value are they to the dog? Did our distant ancestors, who actually used these dogs in the field, ever value a dog purely for its bulk? This magnificent breed developed because of its athleticism not its size; now a veterinary author refers to "the breed's characteristic lethargy". It is dishonest to boast of a breed's historic feats and then breed an animal that simply could not accomplish such a task.

In my working life, my shire horses displayed better movement than many Mastiffs in today's show rings. And they were designed with hauling strength mainly in mind. Great size without soundness and weight for weight's sake are pointless achievements in a dog. The late Natalka Czartoryska had an Anatolian Shepherd Dog, over 30 inches at the shoulder, which moved simply effortlessly. When working in Germany, I have seen Great Danes with movement of such power that it took your breath away. I have seen Caucasian Owtcharkas, as big as any Mastiff, with such strength on the move that they simply devoured the ground. Huge dogs don't have to be ponderous.

No breed of dog benefits from being too big, that is a human desire for dogs to suit their concept rather than the dog's best interests. Dogs are punished by over-heavy bone.

"The search for large bone is going to bring with it an obvious increase in growth rate which in turn renders the dog more liable to such problems as OCD, UAP or FCP..."

Those words by Malcom Willis in his authoritative 'Practical Genetics for Dog Breeders' (Witherby, 1992) don't seem to impress dog-breeders perhaps as much as they should. Some breeds are actually prized for the weight of their bone, with many judges seeking heavy bone in exhibits, if their critiques are anything to go by. A century ago, Foxhound breeders lost their way and sought hounds with heavy dense massive bone, claiming that this feature provided stamina. They themselves however, when riding to hounds, rode hunters not cart-horses--and still managed to keep up! Their folly was subsequently exposed by a hound-expert from America, the legendary 'Ikey' Bell.

Strength, power and endurance do not reside in heavy bone, as any dog-sledder will tell you. To breed dogs with bone heavier than nature intended is asking for trouble, as the statistics on hip and elbow dysplasia, cervical vertebral malformation and osteochondrosis sadly demonstrate. But if the prototypal Bullmastiffs didn't display heavy bone and the breed standard doesn't authorize it, in whose name are judges seeking it when judging the breed? The situation in some other big breeds is even worse. The Mastiff of today seems to be bred for beef not any previous canine function; a Mastiff exhibitor at Crufts once boasted to me of the heaviness of his dog's bone but heavy bone is not required in the Mastiff's standard.

Hip and elbow dysplasia are painful and potentially crippling malformations of the joints. Many elderly humans know only too well the appalling discomfort of arthritis. To breed dogs of such body weight and bone density that they suffer cruelly from such afflictions is hardly admirable. But if show judges are actually rewarding massive bone, then cruelty to dogs is seriously being encouraged. In his valuable book 'The Anatomy of Dog Breeding' (Popular Dogs 1962), exhibitor and vet RH Smythe writes:

"When a judge picks a dog out of a breed class for honours because he considers that it has better bone than its rivals, he is probably under the impression that the bones of its limbs (and he usually considers the fore limbs from elbow to knee) are thicker and stronger than those of other exhibits...it is only the mineral content of the outer casing which gives strength to bone...we must not delude ourselves into imagining that the increase of 'substance' implies extra thickness of bone."

The accomplished hound breeder Sir John Buchanan-Jardine once gave the view that 'Great weight of bone is unnecessary and rather a hindrance than the reverse...' It is of course the muscles which control the bones not the other way round; muscular development is far far more important than the thickness of the bone. It is a lazy response to state that 'what applies to Foxhounds doesn't apply to my breed'. The lessons learnt by any breeder in any field are worth heeding. To prize a dog mainly because of its weight is astonishingly shallow. To boast of an unsound dog's shoulder height and poundage is, to me, a sure sign of a limited personality. To be proud of a sound big dog is surely, in the larger breeds, every good breeder's aim; leave size-boasting to the socially inadequate.

Twenty years ago, one vet, Simon Wolfensohn, wrote on this subject in New Scientist magazine. He wrote:

"There is no simple explanation for the shorter life-span of the giant breeds...apart from those that are destroyed because of bone problems early in life (usually due to faulty development of the growth plates of the bones or defects in bone mineralization) or because of severe arthritis. ..it may be that the hormonal mechanisations or other factors responsible for the giant size and heavy bone development of these breeds are intimately related to the ageing process."

He took the view that St Bernards and Bloodhounds have a strong inherited tendency to acromegaly, a condition caused by excess production of growth hormone in the adult, which leads to heavier than normal bone structure, especially in the feet. Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, at last receiving some official attention here, takes account 'of the anatomical characteristics which are likely to put at risk the health and welfare of the animals.' Before we reject as unwarrantable interference from Brussels such an Article, we surely need to remind ourselves of the times we live in. Animal welfare attracts a higher priority in contemporary life than hitherto. Do we really want unseemly scenes over dogs bred for harmful features, such as 'great bone' and massive size, in breeds which never originally displayed it and are penalised by it? Boerboel breeders need to look at the Mastiff and think again about size; it matters!