| spaniel story |

COMMENTS ON "LETTERS FROM THE FIELD"
By Keith Erlandson, Gwibertnant Dogs, Llanggollen, Wales
( published in Spaniels In The Field - fall 1991 )


Spaniels In The Field continues to delight me. We have absolutely no publication in Great Britain which is its parallel, for any of our gundog breeds at all. I particularly like the democratic flavour. The little guy has just as much voice as the seasoned campaigner and I get the impression that nobody who writes in, has to look over their shoulder to make sure they are not offending any powerful individual or official body. In my country, things frequently are otherwise. This can be an inhibiting factor. Over here, far fewer people write in to whatever magazines include some gundog coverage, so we frequently lack your lively debate, which is always constructive, even when I don't agree with some points.

In the Summer issue, Delores McGifford raises the all important question of screening for physical soundness. I think it would be going overboard if your editorial policy was to impose an arbitrary condition that all pups advertised had to be from "eyes clear" parents. Retinal dysplasia is a recessive condition, so two clinically "clear" parents, don't guarantee clear pups. If both parents are hidden carriers (completely undetectable) there is a chance that 25% of the pups might be clinically affected, but even they could have almost perfect vision, as only one severely affected pup seems to be born in every several hundred. Conversely, some certified clear dogs have poor vision. Regarding hips, this is a subject I have monitored for 17 years. Of the total number of U.K. springers which have been officially hip tested, I have had 6.5% of that total tested myself. As well over half this total are show dogs it could well be that my percentage of field bred springers tested could be 15-20%. Our hip x-rays are submitted to a panel of experts for evaluation. They are scored on 9 sub-divisions and the worst score one can have is 106 points, the best, zero/zero. An interesting point is that whereas any vet can tell you if your dog has gross malformation, on the better hips, he can seldom predict how the panel will score them. He can look at a plate and say, "These are fine" and the panel could score them 20-plus, perfectly serviceable hips for the rest of the dog's life but not clinically perfect. He can look at another plate, give a few professional grunts and say rather glumly, "There will be a score on these," and the score may only be 7 or 8. A very small number of field bred pups in the U.K. show bad dysplasia at about 4 months, so can be euthanised before any time is wasted on them, or pinned, if the vet recommends it. The gradual onset of HD, so common in labradors, is virtually unknown over here, so this is why I found Kevin Byers' article so interesting, as he describes just such a case. I have sent a photocopy of Kevin's piece to Dr. Malcolm Willis, our top man in the hip sphere in the U.K. One point with which I expect Dr. Willis to disagree, is that hips (good hips, that is), can deteriorate between 3 and 5 years.

Ken Roebuck predictably has ruffled a few feathers in his condemnation of show springers in the hunting field. I have never been bitten by one because I won't have one anywhere near the place. I hardly knew Ken when he lived in this country and he doesn't trial in yours, but the bottom line is that he has made a good living in America training field bred hunting dogs and this puts him in a position to know what adds up.

There is some confusion in the otherwise excellent report on the Blue Mountain trial regarding the call name of Janet Christensen's double winner, Armadale Dan. He was not called "Dunny" because it is the Welsh pronunciation of "Danny", as I am not Welsh and called him plain, simple "Dan", as in Desperate Dan, or Dirty Dan, with a hard, flat "A"

Larry Michnevich's piece was controversial, thought provoking, very intelligent in content and well written, but did I sense a thread of bitterness running through the story? I would take issue with his statement that "Spaniel trials in America are more an expression of English field sport than American hunting". Your trialsKeith Erlandson are held on open ground where a dog can at all times show its quartering ability (or lack of it). Apart from some rabbit shooting which is conducted on open ground in Scotland and Northern England, most of our spaniel work, both rough shooting (which equates with your upland hunting) and field trials, is conducted in heavy cover of great variety, often with the dog completely out of sight for long periods. I agree that a National Master Hunting Test, such as Larry envisages, could fox a lot of National Champions on both sides of the water. Over 35 seasons of Nationals competition in this country, I can only imagine 6 of our winners which might conceivably have been up to Larry's task, Markdown Muffin, Saighton's Stinger, Sport of Roffey, Cortman Lane and Tops of Castlings. Another sure candidate would have been FTCH Shineradee, which took a second in both the British and American Nationals in the early 60's.

Darrell Reeves raises an interesting point regarding the difference in working methods of the different breeds. I got into a judicial situation last January regarding a Clumber spaniel. We had two dogs standing equal in the books for fourth place, a springer and the Clumber. The Clumber drew the left hand position on the woodland edge. The springer was well inside the wood on the right. The springer hunted with more eye appeal than the Clumber, but the birds were using the woodland edge and he had two finds, against the springer's no birds. He got the verdict on opportunity and game-finding. Some people didn't like it. It came back to me that it was "Just Erlandson trying to be controversial". They seemed to forget that I had a National winning co-judge operating with me and he also had a little bit to say.