It's always good to know. . . . . that you don't need to breed worker x worker to get good dogs. We can all sleep easy now. . . . . The pens are spread around a small farm. Half of the farm is a separate car salvage / repair yard, which is slightly intimidating and presents a poor image on first entry. The Buildings are not new and certainly had the ‘well used farm’ look about them but they seemed reasonably maintained with good power, light, water etc. David had their own pet dogs around the farm. They were all very friendly, healthy and nice, indeed the temperament of their pets was one of the 'selling points' for us. It would be good to see appropriate recognition for the hunting mastiffs, whether described as seizers, holding dogs, pinning dogs, perro de presas, filas, bullenbeissers or leibhunde. They should at least be respected for their past bravery and bred to the design of their ancestors. A big game hunting breed like the Mastiff of England is prized nowadays solely on its bulk. It is possible that in the boar-hunting field in Central Europe in the period 1500 to 1800 more catch-dogs were killed than the boars being hunted. In those days there was a saying in what is now Germany that if you wanted boars' heads you had to sacrifice dogs' heads. Between 1611 and 1680, gamebooks reveal that around 40,000 wild boar, sows and young boars were killed in Saxony. In 1737, King Augustus II himself killed more than 400 wild boar in the course of a single hunt in Saxony. John George II, killed over 22,000 wild boar in 24 years. In the Bialowieza Forest in 1890, in a fortnight's hunting, 42 bison, thirty-six elk and 138 wild boar were killed. This is the frame in which to picture the Great Dane type as a bison hound, auroch hound, staghound and boarhound. Perhaps because of the wholly arbitrary division of hounds today into scent or sighthounds, multi-purpose hounds which hunted 'at force', using scent and sight to best effect, have been neglected.

In his 'Hunting Big Game in Africa with Dogs' of 1924, the American Er M Shelley describes how the catch-dogs were not allowed to run with the trailing hounds but held by natives until they were needed. This was the role of the hunting mastiffs in medieval Europe. This is why I believe the term 'bandogs' referred to leashed catch-dogs and not to chained yard dogs as many writers record. The risks to the dogs in hunting big game are described by Shelley: "Dogs are very fond of hunting them (i.e. warthogs), but it usually proves disastrous for the dog, for these hogs have two long tusks that protrude far out from the lower jaw, and they use them with deadly effect. Dogs can be maimed or killed much more readily by hunting these hogs than by hunting lions."But whatever their size it is possible to judge these admirable dogs more effectively. If we are going to judge them, let's do it properly. A hound which hunts using its speed must have the anatomy to do so. Immense keenness for work will always come first but the physique to exploit that mental asset comes close second. A lurcher must have a long strong muzzle with powerful jaws and a level bite. How else can it catch and retrieve its quarry? The nose should be good-sized with well-opened nostrils, for, despite some old-fashioned theories, sighthounds hunt using scent as well as sight. I did not realise that not having ear tattoos was an option otherwise I would have asked for my dog not to get tattooed. But the best physique is squandered without keenness in the chase and immense determination, an alert eager expression in the eye indicates this and is essential. A judge has to ask himself: will this dog hunt? Can this dog hunt with this anatomy? Better judging, based on a more measured assessment, should lead to the production of better dogs. Fieldsports folk have too much sense to allow such a concept to degenerate into a judgement based purely on cosmetic appeal, mere handsomeness and not ability to function in its designed role. Lurcher shows are a bit of fun; the only real test for such a dog is in the chase. But that 'bit of fun' can raise standards too if the judges' criteria are sound. Who wants to win with an unworthy dog?

In these conservation-minded days, tales of derring-do in hunting big game, whether in Africa or Asia, Central Europe or South America, are no longer considered worthy of admiration. And, whilst I welcome our more compassionate contemporary approach towards such hunting, we must be careful not to condemn such past activities by viewing them solely through 21st century eyes. Big game hunters were once regarded as heroes by their contemporaries. They usually endured great hardship, were vulnerable to a wide range of often life-threatening diseases and were equipped with less reliable firearms and ammunition than today. Most shooting of big game nowadays is more safely conducted through the camera than the carbine. widge my hancok lurcher who is also sat next to me i bought and he is the only dog i have that was not mistreated he has no behavirily (sic) problems he was a 10 week old puppy i brought home he had no confidence issues he will be with me forever. The office is not a selling point (to put it mildly). I am sure David knows where everything is but it looks as though it had its last clear out in the mid 80’s and does not give the impression of a professional efficient business. I have to say that I found their knowledge, approach and management to be much better than I first expected when I entered the office. Hounds that hunted boar were often killed in the hunt and boar hunting in Central Europe down the ages was massively conducted. In 802AD Charlemagne hunted wild boar in the Ardennes, aurochs in the Hercynian Forest and later had his trousers and boots torn to pieces by a bison; all three quarry were formidable adversaries and were hunted by the same huge hounds. The sheer scale of hunting is illustrated by these 'bags': in 1656, 44 stags and 250 wild boar were killed on Dresden Heath; in 1730 in Moritzburg, 221 antlered stags and 614 wild boar were killed and in Bebenhausen in 1812, wild boar were pursued by 350 'strong hounds', clad in armour like knights of old. Hunting big game in Western Europe in the Middle Ages was more an obsession than a pastime - so often a demonstration of manliness. But the best physique is squandered without keenness in the chase and immense determination, an alert eager expression in the eye indicates this and is essential. A judge has to ask himself: will this dog hunt? Can this dog hunt with this anatomy? Better judging, based on a more measured assessment, should lead to the production of better dogs. Fieldsports folk have too much sense to allow such a concept to degenerate into the pretty polly state prevalent in the pedigree dog show rings. Lurcher shows are a bit of fun; the only real test for such a dog is in the chase. But that 'bit of fun' can raise standards too if the judges' criteria are sound. Who wants to win with an unworthy dog?Whilst they spoke about the many working dogs that they produce they do also have significant numbers of buyers who are after a pet (me included). if the demand for his dogs is such he will keep breeding dogs to sell for profit to any 1 that turns up.when you go to his premises he is a polite person who is very hard not to like.the problem is with his business any 1 can buy a dog from him. i am absolutly 100% happy with the dog i bought and i will comment on his premises are not up to scratch. For perhaps the best part of a thousand years in Britain the humblest of hunters have had their very own hound, with pride in its performance never in its pure-breeding, yet purpose-bred in the pursuit of hunting excellence just as shrewdly as any Foxhound, setter or spaniel. Forever associated with gypsies, poachers and country characters, the lowly lurcher has survived the campaigns of rural police forces, watchful gamekeepers and wary landowners and to this day still fills the pot of many a working class household. Yet nowadays the lurcher fancier is truly classless, sometimes even being owned by its traditional opponents. The phenomenal spread of lurcher shows in Britain in the last three decades has indicated the level of interest in these extraordinary hunting dogs of mixed heritage. But it has also brought at times a tendency to breed a type that will win at shows rather than a "chase, catch and kill" champion. It is common to find the less diligent researchers linking the 'tumbler', quaintly described by a number of sixteenth century writers, with the lurcher. Correspondents contributing to country sports magazines on the subject of lurchers often sign themselves 'tumbler'. But the tumbler was the decoy dog, a very different animal altogether. The much-quoted Dr. Caius, for all his learning, knew little about dogs and yet has, over the years become known as some kind of authority. But even he mentioned the 'thevishe dog or stealer, that is the poaching dog'. His lengthy and hyperbolical description of the tumbler is a graphic account of the antics of a decoy dog and valuable for just that. I know of no lurcher which hunts by 'dissembling friendship and pretending favour', as he described the hunting technique of the tumbler. In the United States, they are conducting such tests, ranging from 'Introduction to Quarry' and 'Junior Earthdog' to 'Senior Earthdog' and 'Master Earthdog'. To date I know of no master earthdog tests being held but just under ten dogs hold the senior earthdog title. In the introduction test, the terrier (or working Dachshund) has two minutes to enter a ten-foot tunnel, negotiate a 90 degree turn and 'work' the quarry for 30 seconds. The American enthusiasts say that "you put a dog down the hole but you get a terrier out of it". In the master earthdog test, acting in a brace, a dog has to follow a 100 foot scent trail to a hole, which is intentionally a false one, investigate the false den without giving tongue, then navigate 30 feet of tunnel, three 90 degree turns, a false exit, a constriction point and an obstacle.