670 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[June 10, 1892. 



RETRIEVING AT FIELD TRIALS. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



It has been truly said that "It is the unexpected that hap- 

 pens." I was never more surprised than of late while read- 

 ing the man v articles that have appeared in Forest and 

 Stream and American Field on the above subject. I had 

 thought no cl tss of men was more practical than American 

 sportsmen. I bad been taught to define evolution as a pas- 

 sage from lower to higher and more complex forms; a dof- 

 fing of useless appendages; a survival of the fittest. I had 

 not dreamed that we were to revert. Truly we are progres- 

 sing backward. The best information at present obtainable 

 tends to show that the grand body of American sportsmen 

 are in a. chrysalis state; they neither know their wants or 

 what it takes to constitute them. To thoroughly appreciate 

 the requisites of a high class dog a man must be the recipi- 

 ent of a "special blessing," and that the gods have been 

 rather parsimonious in dealing them out. There is an idea 

 prevalent, too, among this unregenerate mass that we are 

 developing speed and range to the exclusion of other and 

 equally as important factors, viz., brains, endurance and 

 vitality. Some very practical sportsmen are advocating the 

 admixture of colder strains with our blue-bloods in order to 

 avoid the defects incident to inbred dogs, and endow them : 

 with those qualities they deem most desirable. How such 

 a fad could ever prevail in this country I can't see. To this 

 host who are following after false gods we would say, "Seek 

 the old paths which are the good ways, and walk therein, 

 and ye shall find rest for your souls." To those gentlemen 

 who see no use in dogs retrieving and who would have it 

 knocked out of public contests, I would like to propound a 

 few plain, practical, straightforward questions, and as 

 brothers Jones and Murnan say to each other, "No dodging 

 the question." 



First— For what were field trials originated? 



Second— What are the essentials of a high class dog? 



Third— What do sportsmen want with bird dogs? 



Fourth— Is it desirable that a dog should retrieve? 



Fifth— Does the act of retrieving per se injure a dog? 



Sixth— is a dog more or less valuable because he retrieves? 



Seventh — If a dog can't be taught to retrieve without in- 

 jury at three years old, at what age can he be taught? 



Eighth— Cau you intensify the disposition to retrieve 

 through ancestry? 



Ninth — How is the way to perpetuate those qualities in 

 our dogs we deem most essential t 



Tenth— Is it possible to make a practical test of retrieving 

 at our trials? 



Interrogatory first— For what were field trials originated? 



There were two objects in view, (a) That we might im- 

 prove our dogs in those qualities that make a day afield one 

 of pleasure rather than annoyance. That we might render 

 them more valuable both practically and financially. (Z>) 

 That the dogs might be brought into competition under 

 some system so that the public might judge of their merits, 

 and further that we might have some data to which we 

 could refer when occasion required, as public and private 

 statements in regard to dogs had been found inaccurate and 

 misleading. 



Interrogatory second— What are the essentials of a high 

 class dog? 



(a) He should point, (b) He should have speed, (c) He 

 should have range, (d) He should have endurance, (c) He 

 should retrieve, (f) He should back, (g) He should be in- 

 telligent, obedient and well disposed. (7i) He should be 

 quick, positive, accurate and stylish in his work, (i) He 

 snould be handsome. 



(a) He should point. I regard nose as of the most vital 

 consequence in a shooting dog. Of what avail are all other 

 qualities in a dog if he never points? Conversely, if he 

 never points he is quite sure to flush, and the greater his 

 speed, range and endurance the more frequent will he per- 

 form the act. Why do we use pointers and setters as shoot- 

 ing dogs to the exclusion of other breeds? Is it not because 

 they are more liable to point. I never owned but one dog I 

 could not get to point; he filled an untimely grave. The 

 character of the performance I will admit is a factor, but 

 when I want game I must confess I incline to the frequency 

 of the occurrence by a large majority. I doubt whether one 

 of the "elect"— one of the four hundred— could tell from the 

 eating whether a quail was killed over Clinker or Potterer. 

 I have seen Old Ponto make draws that would have de- 

 lighted Edward Laverack, points that would have sent the 

 hot blood tingling through honest Dave Sanborn's veins. I 

 have seen him rigid as the marble gods of Greece, and in 

 poses that would have gladdened the hearts of a Raphael or 

 Michael Angelo, and not a bird in a mile of him. 



What if Gladstone or Count Noble had never pointed? 



(b) He should have speed, (c) He should have range, {d) 

 He should have endurance. These three are clearly co- 

 related, about equal in value, and without either of which 

 a dog, when thoroughly tested, returns to the level of a com- 

 mon plug. Of what value is speed if a dog runs around on 

 an acre of ground all day? Of what value is range if a dog 

 is totally devoid of speed? Of what value are speed and 

 range if he has no endurance? Who wants to cart around a 

 dozen dogs to get a day's shooting? 1 am inclined to think 

 where speed and endurance are highly developed, that range 

 applied in its highest forms stands next to pointing. To 

 have a really high-class dog he should have all three, and 

 they highly developed. 



(e) He should retrieve. The reasons why are many. First, 

 because he can do it easier, quicker and more effectively than 

 the shooter; second, the bird may have fallen in grass or 

 weeds where the powers of scent are necessary to its recov- 

 ery; third, I shall insist upon the dog's retrieving until I 

 learn to smell as well as him; fourth , it is nonsensical to 

 talk of the average sportsman in this country keeping a 

 special dog to do the retrieving; and last, but not least, the 

 authorities on this subject all hold that retrieving is an 

 essential. 



B. Waters, that prince of good fellows and bundle of 

 humor, has written a work entitled, "Modern Training, 

 Handling and Kennel Management," which the public have 

 been pleased to adopt as the standard in this country. Now, 

 there is a legal maxim that the record imports absolute 

 verity on its face, and that you cannot go behind it. The 

 record: "Notwithstanding its indispensable value in suc- 

 cessful field work, it at times in the first or perhaps also in 

 part of the second season is the source of objectionable traits 

 in relation to other parts of field work, which are more or 

 less associated with it." We are willing to stand by the 

 record. We think it correct. 



(/) He should back. Now, I have never heard of an au- 

 thority on dogs who did not consider backing an essential. 

 In Europe a dog that refuses to back is thrown out of the 

 trials. Will some one of theeUite please tell us why a dog 

 should back ? Is it not a pot-hunter's quality, wholly in 

 the interest of the bag ? I have seen dogs that would hunt 

 an hour for another dog just to get in a real aesthetic back, 

 and when they could not find anything else to back would 

 back the gunner upon the slightest change of his gun. Is it 

 not because if a dog refuses to back he is liable to go in and 

 flush, and if he flushes it is to the detriment of the bags ? 

 If you don't want birds there is no earthly use for a dog to 

 back. Let us suppose a case. You and I start out shooting. 

 You one way, I another. You have a dog that backs on the 

 slightest provocation, but does not retrieve. I have one that 

 retrieves but does not back. Which do you think will have 

 the more pleasant trip or the better bag ? 



Which would you prefer your dog do, back or retrieve? 

 Backing is a quality no dog needs except when worked in 

 company. Retrieving is a quality necessary and desirable 

 at all times and under all circumstances. Why not knock 



out backing? because, like pointing and retrieving, it is one 

 of the essentials in a high-class shooting dog. 



(g) He should be intelligent, obedient and well disposed. 

 The same may be said for these that are said for backing, 

 pointing and retrieving, they make the dog's field work 

 more effective. 



These are qualities that render him more companionable, 

 more pleasant, and more desirable; these are the qualities 

 that make a dog handle nicely, make him more valuable, 

 but they are not held in as great esteem as they should be. 

 Intelligence is a quality that can hardly be over-estimated 

 in any animal. It is a characteristic that marks the highest 

 types of mankind. Intelligence is the cantilever that 

 bridges the chasm between the cave-dweller and Charles 

 Robert Darwin, Herbert Spencer or William E. Gladstone. 

 It is a long way from the pipe of Pan to the phonograph. 

 Obedience to and veneration for law separates civilization 

 from barbarism. Disposition makes a man god-like or a 

 d emon. They are essentials in the Can idce family just as in 

 man. 



(7i) He should be quick, positive, accurate, and stylish in 

 his work. These are a few of the qualities that distinguish 

 a high-class dog from a potterer. They are essentials in the 

 make up of an ideal dog. They make a dog more pleasant, 

 more effective, more valuable. They are essentials in a field 

 trial dog. 



He should be handsome. F:om the earliest period of his- 

 tory mankind has been in love with the beautiful. The sar- 

 cophagi in the catacombs along the Nile attest with endur- 

 ing fidelity a love of the sculptor's art. Rome has its arch 

 to Titus, its column to Trojan, Paris has its arch to Tri- 

 umph, its Eifel Tower; Washington its stately shaft to the 

 Father of his Country. The beauties of Homer, the rip- 

 pling cadences of the blind bard of Scia's rock-ribbed isle, 

 will live when cold and callous years have ceased to make 

 their footprints on the sands of time. Men have always 

 been in love with the beautiful. This is purely an aesthetic 

 quality in the dog, but it is safe to say that mankind will 

 never cease to demand it in animal life. It makes an ani- 

 mal more valuable, therefore more desirable. 



Interrogatory third— What do sportsmen want with dogs? 



I want mine to shoot birds over. "I can conceive of nothing 

 more worthless than a dog whose only value lies in his 

 bench show qualities. — B. M. S." Give the gentleman credit 

 for a dead center on that statement, will you? 



Interrogatory fourth— Is it desirable for a dog to retrieve? 

 No one denies it, but some seem to think it should not be 

 required in our field trials. Why not knock out backing in 

 field trials also? The great body of practical sportsmen in- 

 sist on their dogs retrieving. I take it for granted they 

 know what they want. 



Interrogatory fifth— Does the act of retrieving per se injure 

 a dog ? 1 say emphatically no. The best dogs I ever saw 

 were the best retrievers. Physically it entails no injury. 

 Now a dog is not required to retrieve in the Derby Stakes 

 of any of the clubs, and he is eligible to these until he is 

 two years old. 



Interrogatory sixth— Is a dog more or less valuable because 

 he retrieves? You answer. 



Interrogatory seventh— If a dog can't be taught to retrieve 

 at three years old, at what age can he be taught with safety? 

 Don't everybody answer at once; please be specific, as to 

 date, hours and minutes included. 



Interrogatory eighth— Can you intensify the disposition 

 to retrieve through ancestry? 



I say without the slightest hesitation, yes. We control 

 the disposition to kill rats, to fight, to herd sheep, etc. 

 There have been some pointers in this State through three 

 generations and I never heard of one of them that did not 

 retrieve naturally. You can intensify any trait in a dog 

 you want. It can be seen at a glance, if biblical history is 

 to be trusted, into what varied forms and disDositions the 

 Canida? family can be transformed, and that by starting 

 from a single pair. 



Interrogatory ninth— How is the way to perpetuate those 

 qualities in our dogs we deem most desirable? 



We thought by field trials, but it appears that we were 

 mistaken. 



Interrogatory tenth — Is it possible to make a practical 

 test of retrieving at our trials? 



We say without the slightest hesitation, yes. You ask 

 how ? I will answer this question for you if you will answer 

 mine that have preceded it. Now, this is the very rock on 

 which we are stranding. If we do not mean to test the dogs, 

 and it cannot be done practically and fairly, by all means do 

 away with it. Now, 3ome one is afraid that if he kills a 

 bird'it will not fall in the open where he can show it to the 

 dog; another one is afraid the bird will fall in a thicket or in a 

 pond. If birds always fell in nice open places where we could 

 see them we would then be in a fair condition to do away 

 with retrieving. When all the dogs have been spotted out 

 down to six or eight, give these a thorough test in all those 

 essentials that go to make up a high-class dog. Hunt for 

 the weak spots in them, test them thoroughly if it takes a 

 week; know which is the best. It should not be a 

 matter of guesswork; it should be one ample and com- 

 plete test. If I belonged to a club and thought it 

 did not mean to place the best dogs regardless of 

 strains or ownership, I would resign before breakfast. Now 

 as to the practical part of retrieving at our tiials. Why 

 can you not have retrieving just the same in field trials that 

 you do in field work? I have shot over the grounds of the 

 Southern Field .Trials Club for twenty years, I never saw 

 any trouble in having birds retrieved on these grounds; I 

 have shot from Pennsylvania to Mexico, and they are about 

 as good grounds as I ever saw. It is safe to say there will 

 be 1 000 quail on the grounds in February, '93. If you can't 

 make a practical test of a dog as a retriever on grounds that 

 are faultless and with 3,000 birds to work on in a radius of 

 two miles, in the name of all that is holy, what do you 

 want? If the handlers won't kill the birds to the dog's 

 points (they can if they want to) let the judges get down and 

 kill them themselves, I will agree to replace, without cost 

 to the club, every bird killed over a point on the grounds of 

 the Southern Club in the Derby and All- Age stakes, and 

 think a bird should be killed to every point, if possible. 

 Make a rule to read about this way: "No dog shall win 

 that does not retrieve;" that will go a long way toward set- 

 tling the question. Knock out retrieving and you have hit 

 the most vital blow to the dog interests that has struck 

 them in two years; an injury to grow with years; we may 

 not feel its effects now, but they are as sure to come as that 

 night follows day. We have virtually done away with 

 training, for now a thoroughly trained dog does not stand 

 as good a chance to win as his less accomplished brother. 

 Do away with retrieving, in a few years do away with back- 

 ing, then say that pointing is not an essential; then ring 

 down the curtain. TARQTJIN. 



Helen Seller has a Mastiff Again. 



H uxton, Pa.— Editor Forest and Stream: The misfortunes 

 of Helen Keller with her mistiffs have been singular. First 

 Lioness was shot by a stupid policeman; next poor Erie, that 

 replaced her youneer sister, contracted rabies in defense of 

 Helen's little' sister from the attack of a rabid cur. With 

 the numerousness of the darky down South, a .big dog is a 

 prime necessity to a child down there, and our beloved 

 "Uncle Dick" has come to the rescue by presenting Helen 

 with the mastiff dog Earner, litter brother of the dam of his 

 two unfortunate predeeessois.— W. Wade. 



THE BEAGLE STANDARD. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



In entering on this much discussed question of the beagle 

 standard I feel that I can add but little, if anything, to those 

 who have gone before, but to show how two men may use 

 the same facts for a basis and draw very different conclu- 

 sions, I will devote myself principally to the very able article 

 of Mr. F. C. Phoebus in the Forest and Stream of June 2, 

 and while my experience does not cover a period of years 

 equal in number to that of Mr. Phoebus, still I have owned 

 and bred several hundreds, and have either owned or seen 

 almost all of the best dogs of the day, both large and small. 



Let us take the first|point in Mr/Phcebus's letter, i e , that 

 the committee who drafted the present standard, viz., Dr. L 

 H. Twaddell, Gen. R. Rowett and Mr. N. Elmore, established 

 the fact that there should be 3in. between the large and the 

 small beagle. I have before me a copy of the standard now 

 under dispute, and under Height, I find the following: "The 

 meaning of the term 'beagle' (a word of celtic origin, and in 

 old English beagle) is small, little. The dog was so named 

 from his diminutive size. Your committee, therefore, for 

 the sake of consistency, and that the beagle shall be in fact 

 what his name implies, strongly recommends that the height 

 line be sharply drawn at lain., and that all dogs exceeding 

 that height shall be disqualified as overgrown and outside 

 the pale of recognition." Does any one find any Sin. clause 

 in that? or do they find any provision at all, other than that 

 a beagle to deserve the name shall not exceed that outside 

 limit of 15in.? Manifestly not. No, and had the National 

 Beagle Club decided to divide the beagle into 10, 11, 12, 13,. 

 14 and 15in. classes, they could have done so and still not 

 have made the dog other than a beagle as the committee de- 

 fined it. 



So we come to the second point in this letter and find there 

 is no precedent, there being no clause in the standard (as 

 regards height) other than the 15in. one. I fail to see where 

 the National Beagle Club has swerved a hairsbreadth from 

 the designs of the original committee as exemplified in the 

 standard, therefore must mark the assertion made by Mr. 

 Phoabus that the change has already taken place, as in- 

 correct. 



The next point Mr. Phoebus desires to make in connection 

 with this reasoning is that dogs that could not win in the 

 loin, class are now prominent winners in the 13in. class since 

 that class was raised from 12in. Cite us an instance, Mr. 

 Phoebus. Perhaps what appears to me to be the best argu- 

 ment for leaving the present standard alone was the state- 

 ment that there was a limit to which a beagle will grow, a 

 sort of invisible line, as it were, to which one may reach, but 

 may by no means pass beyond, and the accompanying 

 instance of the constantly increasing size of dog, from 

 Damper to Ralph W. I suppose Mr. Phoebus is aware of the 

 fact that this same J. Crane had at one time a pack of Sin. 

 beagles; these were found to be too small for the purpose for 

 which they were designed, and the progeny were allowed to 

 increase to such a size as would enable them to do good work 

 afield, and yet be small enough to be followed by fleet-footed 

 runners. These beagles were not used by horsemen, but by 

 college men, and were called the "basket" or foot beagles. 

 Now, as Mr. Phoebus has shown conclusively that without 

 the most careful breeding for small ones the beagle tends to 

 increase in size, will he also kindly give his reasons for 

 believing that when they reach that invisible but arbitrarv 

 line of 16in., set by him, they will refuse to go beyond? He 

 says that he will guarantee that the progeny of Ralph W. 

 will not increase, as he has shown his five ancestors have 

 done before him. We will admit there is a limit, but why 

 16in. ? Why not 26in. ? 



If a beagle can, by successive breedings, be reduced in 

 size from the gigantic foxhound (to which size he is con- 

 stantly reverting when left to himself), even as savages- 

 brought within the bounds of civilization by the untiring 

 labors of some mission return to their old ways as soon as 

 that influence is removed, why will he not, as each restric- 

 tion (in the shape of an extra inch) is removed, claim his 

 vantage ground and encroach as before on the domain of his 

 forefathers ? 



That the beagle does exceed this 16-inch limit even in this 

 country, where the 15 inch limit prevails, it is useless to 

 deny, for I know of at least half a dozen which equal or 

 exceed that limit, and I believe it is owing to our present 

 standard entirely that there are not many more. I have in 

 mind now a dog by a son of Gen. Rowett's Old Lee. out of 

 a half-sister to Frank Forest, that measured full 18ih. high. 

 Further, let us turn to England, where we find beagles from 

 16 to 19in. high, and one has only to turn to the pages of the 

 English Stock-Keeper to find such specimens advertised in 

 its columns. Will any one tell me now that the beagle in 

 America will refuse to equal his English brother in height, 

 if once given the opportunity ? 



"Stonehenge" tells us the harrier varies in height from W 

 to20in., and his description'of the harrier and the beagle are 

 so manifestly alike that it leads one to conclude that the 

 only difference must be the size. What, then, is to prevent 

 a Win. beagle from being entered and winning as a harrier, 

 or a 16in. harrier showing as a beagle, if beagles be allowed 

 this extra inch? I think the whole question hinges on the 

 work to be done. Evidently those desirous of the 16in. dog 

 do not want, if they did but know it, a beagle at all, appar- 

 ently. What they want is a dog 16 to 20in. high to run 

 hares, they to follow on horseback. They want from ten to 

 twenty couples of these dogs and expect them to catch their 

 game without the gun. This is no doubt sport but it is 

 nevertheless sport that not one out of a hundred who own 

 beagles in America can indulge in, because, perhaps unfor- 

 tunately, field sport in this country is not confined entirely 

 to the wealthy classes, but is open to all who can raise the 

 purchase price of a single beagle. Every old sportsman 

 knows that the rabbit, "grey bob" or "cottontail," etc., as 

 he is called in different places, will, when hard pushed by a 

 fast dog, go to cover. With the hare it is different: but 

 still, even a 12in. dog will sometimes drive one out of hear- 

 ing, and the larger and faster your dog the larger the circle 

 and more difficult your chances of getting a shot, to say 

 nothing of losing the chief pleasure, i. e., listening to the 

 cry of your hounds. 



Why then do not those who enjoy the run on horseback 

 and can afford it, add an extra inch or two to their present 

 stock (the type of the majority of which much resembles 

 the harrier), ask the bench show people for a harrier class, 

 enter and win with their dogs as harriers? When so emi- 

 nent an authority as "Stonehenge" finds the matter of size to 

 be the principal difference between the breeds, it ought not 

 to be very difficult to entirely eliminate any other slight 

 difference which may exist. 



This seems to me to be the only way out of the dilemna, 

 as I think to-day that the beagle men outnumber the 16in. 

 men five to one (to put a moderate estimate) , even as the 

 poor or comfortably off outnumber the rich. In conclusion 

 I would say this is not, in my opinion, a case of the large 

 dog vs. the small dog, but of the large dog vs. the still 

 larger dog; or, in other words, beagle vs. harriers, the very 

 thing the original committee spoke of as wishing to avoid 

 in making their report to the club. F. W. Chapman. 



Melrose, Mass., June 9. 



Editor Forest and Stream; 



In your issue of June 2 appears an article by Mr. F. C. 

 Phoebus on the beagle standard. It looks as if he desired 

 to jump on me for saying I believed he was interested in 

 the I6in. beagles as the reason he asked for that limit. I 

 am still of that opinion. I would refer him to Mr. A. C. 

 Krueger's ably written article in the Forest and Stream 



