Come alcuni di voi già sanno, ho ereditato l’archivio del Dr. Ridella, veterinario e allevatore di setter con l’affisso Ticinensis. Mi sento onorata di essere stata scelta come custode di questi materiali, ma mi rincresce ammettere che ne ho ripulito e ordinato solo metà delle riviste. Tuttavia, circa 50 anni di editoria cino-venatoria, sono oggi ben archiviati e leggibili. Sapendo ciò, un amico mi ha chiesto di trovargli due articoli di Solaro del 1938 e del 1954 che, ovviamente, non sono riuscita ad individuare. Non dandomi per vinta, ho controllato anche gli anni limitrofi, niente da fare, ma ho trovato qualcosa di estremamente affascinante ed inatteso. Nel numero del secondo trimestre di Rassegna Cinofila (è l’antenato dei Nostri Cani) del 1956, c’è un bell’articolo di Giulio Colombo (1886-1966). Per chi non lo conoscesse, Colombo era allevatore con affisso della Baita, nonché un noto giudice. Aveva sempre cercato di tenere vivi i legami tra Italia e Gran Bretagna e l’Italia importando, tra gli altri i setter: Lingfield Mystic (vincitore del Derby inglese); Lingfield Ila, Lingfield Puma e Bratton Vanity. Grazie all’articolo, ho scoperto che nel 1956, Colombo è andato a giudicare a Sutton Scotney (Hampshire – UK) e ha raccontato laesperienza. L’articolo è leggibile per intero nel PDF che potete scaricare qui o nella photogallery qui linkata. Ne riporterò però qui alcuni pezzi salienti.

Colombo comincia pensando a Laverack, Llewellin e Lady Auckland (che giudicava con lui) e con un excursus storico che spiega come mai setter e pointer siano stati selezionati in questa maniera. “Credo aver, inteso i due Grandi sussurrare a un dipresso così: Competizioni di giganti le nostre, quando ancora si credeva alla necessità del cane da ferma sul terreno della caccia, quando pointers e setters rispondevano al gusti venatori del cacciatore, quando non si codificava un bel niente a priori, teoricamente, per estetismi o postulati da tavolino senza aver vissuta o sofferta mai la, passione incontenibile dello sport codaiolo, fra le più strenue ed inebrianti passioni, quando pointers e setters, cani da Grande Cerca, si imposero selezionati perfezionati, secondo suggeriva la pratica diuturna di lunghe stagioni venatorie con l’esperienza del terreno e dei selvatico, a servizio del fucile vagante, e si stabilì la macchina animale perfetta, collaudata con formula aderente alla realtà per quel terreno e quel selvatico, e conquistò il mondo intero quella macchina intelligente, tanto che nati Inghilterra pointers e setters furon poi cittadini di ogni Paese.”

Non credo ci sia molto da aggiungere, poi continua con la descrizione dettagliata del lavoro che essi sono chiamati a fare: “II cacciatore ragionò così: di fronte a me la pianura sconfinata, ondeggiante di mammelloni di grani, di stoppie, di prati, di eriche, faticosa, lenta da per correre tutta scarpinando da coltivo a coltivo, da piaggia a piaggia in traccia delle compagnie di starne e grouses discoste le une dalle altre in famiglia ciascuna col proprio pascolo, e le lunghe pause senza incontri e senza sparare scoraggiano anche il cacciatore più caparbio: a me occorre un ausiliare speciale anzi una pariglia di tali, dall’olfatto possente, cerca indefessa. dalla ferma statica, dalla guidata corta, che a galoppo spinto per accorciare le distanze, nel tempo breve per la nostra passione da crepuscolo a crepuscolo, risparmiando a me ciechi e fortunosi passi, concludano spicci su grouses e su starne e magari su lepre sorniona; e perché io possa sparare a visuale libera senza tema, giù, a terra proni a frullo e schizzo. Drake e Dash, ed é il più bel momento della vita di cacciatore; e perché quel selvatico che non possono raggiungere né se vola né se galoppa, non induca in tentazione, proni testa fra gli arti ari in segno di rinuncia, voi cavalieri dei moors e praterie, per riporto e recupero i ho apparecchiato io stesso un valletto che non falla. il retriever, vi risparmi di strusciare il tartufo pistando, voi Signori », Torto o ragione, ragionavano cosi e così fu sempre categoricamente a quei tempi. Proscritti falsi allarmi di ferme senza presenza di selvatico, non si tolleravano inganni ed indugi oziosi, se Drake e Dash fermano ci sta il selvatico e non lo mollano più, e si raziocinava così: « Perchè noi si possa usufruire del lavoro di due cani, ed uno non costituisca il doppione dell’altro galoppandogli al fianco appaiato, li sguinzaglio nel bel mezzo dell’area da esplorare e partano essi uno verso destra e l’altro verso sinistra in senso opposto, e giunti a un centinaio di metri, anche di più a seconda del terreno vasto e sgombro, virino essi e ritornìno in direzione l’uno dell’altro, sempre nella scia dei vento, ma più oltre verso la meta lontana, in maniera da esplorare il terreno anche nel senso della direttiva di marcia, e si incontrino a metà cammino scambiandosi il lato come nella quadriglia dama e cavaliere, a ritmo cadenzato, con astuta sincronia e… nacque la cerca incrociata, non eleganza, ma accorgimento pratico.

E affinché l’intesa fra i due ausiliari fosse concorde, con rispetto della fatica e della autorità di ciascuno e l’uno approfittasse dei risultati concreti dell’altro, ecco che mentre l’uno dei cani bloccava col rito della ferma l’altro non persisteva ad esplorare, ma sostava immobile simulando a sua volta la ferma per mimetismo conscio e istintivo, per collaborazione atavica fra gli animali ida preda, e il segugio accorre scagnando all’indicazione sonora e Drake rispetta la ferma non sua ed ecco codificata la pratica del consenso, indispensabile con ausiliari che trescano veloci e lontani.

E siccome il selvatico tiene udito sensibilissimo, abolito ogni richiamo a voce o col fischio, cenni della mano al cane che di tanto in tanto sbircia al padrone per interpretarne le intenzioni, quindi tacita intesa fra cacciatore ed ausiliare, l’uno per l’altro. E quando s’ha da interrompere l’azione, un sibilo e i cani al terra, docili al guinzaglio e si inaugurò il drop e il down, non accademia da recinto, ma freno in terreno libero. Col tempo per emulazione fra scuderie, per sane rivalità sportive fra amatori di razze affini a chi tiene i l miglior cane con olfatto più potente a corsa più veloce e reazioni più pronte, nacque in un paese di scommesse, il cane da gara, il Trialler, via col vento, cane da Sport, ma riproduttore che rifornisca i ranghi per cacciare starne e grouses e non lepri e conigli, in terreno vasto e non negli scampoli di grano.”

Qui viene espresso in dettaglio il lavoro “ideale” dei cani inglesi e le motivazioni pratiche che stanno dietro a queste pretese. Leggendo questi paragrafi sento ancora più la mancanza delle mie esperienze britanniche, perché da loro le cose sono rimaste all’incirca come descritte qui. Se non avessi prima visto, e poi partecipato ai loro trials, sarei un cinofilo diverso, avrei un cane diverso ma… devo ammettere che sono contenta di quello che sono! Segue qualche notizia sulle regole del gioco, con riflessioni sui pro e sui contro delle diverse regole:“In Inghilterra non si redige relazione alcuna, non si concede qualifica, si comunica l’ordine di classifica dal primo ai quarto con una riserva, e stop, i concorrenti tanto intelligenti da valutare da sé gli errori dei propri allievi senza sentirseli ricordare per iscritto postumo dal Giudice e talmente sportivi da comprendere che se il Giudice ha creduto di disporre i cani in un dato ordine progressivo è ozioso recriminare e voler sostituire tante altre classifiche quanti concorrenti e spettatori, ognuna diversa dall’altra, ma tutte quante più oculate, più cognite, più probanti, più sapute, più pettegole di quella ufficiale!”

Non ci sta minuto di tolleranza, assurda nostrana indulgenza che consente al cane di dimostrare le proprie attitudini a far frullare, a rifiutare il consenso, a rincorrere, a beffare il conduttore, senza che il Giudice possa prenderne atto, coll’eventualità magari di non aver mai più durante il turno il cane occasione di ripetere quanto é suo costume perpetrare dì norma, e frodare magari un premio con relativa qualifica bugiarda.

Nemmeno si tiene conto di un lasso di tempo prestabilito per la prova: allorché il Giudice opina di essersi fatto un concetto probante del lavoro dei cani taglia corto, e su questo si potrebbe discutere, perché un minimo di percorso è più equo a garanzia delle probabilità comuni, eccetto per gli errori da squalifica. Vige il sistema dei richiami protratti con confronti ripetuti, con pericolo di dover sul finire della gara modificare da capo una classifica già plausibile”

Se volete saperne di più sulle differenze tra le prove italiane e quelle britanniche, potete andare a leggerle qui. Faccio una breve riflessione sull’abitudine inglese di non avere relazioni a fine prova: Colombo dice che il pubblico spesso tende a saperne di più del giudice. Persone che, pur stando a centinaia di metri dal cane, vedono e prevedono errori che sfuggono (secondo loro) ai giudici! Credevo che negli anni ’50 il pubblico fosse più , come dire, sobrio ma apparentemente l’arte di attribuire errori inesistenti ai cani degli altri ha radici antiche. Colombo poi racconta del Derby (non so se fosse identico all’attuale Puppy Derby, per soggetti sotto ai 2 anni) e non ho capito se i cani correvano a singolo o in coppia, siccome menziona poi le Brace Stakes (in coppia). “Nel complesso del lavoro nel Derby constatai qualche fase di dettaglio, insistenze su orme, qualche consenso stentato a comando, senza partecipazione né formale né conscia all’azione; Nota del Concorso presente in alcuni esemplari, ma frenata da frequenti incontri di fagiano, lepri e conigli, scarse le starne, e deplorevole il coniglio soprattutto, che conta é la starna, per fagiani basta il cocker. Punte in profondità. ritorni all’interno come in Coppa Europa, qualche intemperanza di richiami come da noi. Soggetti a corto di preparazione per il maltempo, alcuni veramente di classe, ma non superiore nel complesso alla nostra attuale. Primo Lenwade Wizard, pointer di Mr. Arthur Rank, di 15 mesi, stilista, corretto, galoppo sciolto, risolutivo sull’incontro. Secondo Lenwade Whisper, pointer di Messrs P. P. Wayre’s e G. F. Jolly’s, di 15 mesi, con buon percorso, benché lacets troppo compatti e qualche incertezza nell’indicazione.”

Seguono accenni alla Brace Stake: “Le Brace Stakes videro presenti due Setters, irlandesi, Sulhamstead Bey d’Or e F. T. Sulhamstead Basil d’Or. Basil soggetto rimarchevole, con reazioni pronte e buon olfatto, impegno e buon galoppo, qualche incertezza e ritorni all’interno, ferma e guida con espressione, consente, bene in mano, ben condotto, surclassa il compagno Bey e si aggiudica per proprio esclusivo merito il secondo premio, trattenuto il primo, della pariglia.”

Alla All Aged Stake era stato iscritto anche un weimaraner che poi non si è presentato. Colombo disquisisce sul far correre un continentale insieme a degli inglesi: “non avendo visto il Weimaraner sul lavoro non posso affermare se fosse o no nera Nota del Concorso dl Setters e Pointers, superflua qualsiasi meraviglia dal momento che corrono da noi diversi Kurzhaar ed Epagneuls perfettamente nella Nota della Grande Cerca assai più di qualche esponente di razza inglese; gli inglesi, con meno ipocrisia e più raziocinio, dal momento che alcuni continentali filano all’inglese, li fanno correre con gli inglesi; la Grande Cerca non è questione di coda lunga o corta, ma di garretti, olfatto reagendo, e non è escluso che un giorno i Continentali, italiani compresi, corrano a Grande Cerca, e pointers e setters a Cerca ristretta.”

Dopodiché tira le somme su quanto visto nel corso delle prove: “in Inghilterra la Grande Cerca non è più professata e sentita come un tempo, in un ambiente dove il cane da ferma è in crisi gravissima di impiego eccetto che alcuni pochi attivissimi Sportsmen fedeli alla formula antica; che è la prassi impiegata per correre la Grande Cerca che si allontana oggi in Inghilterra, o quantomeno a Sutton Scotney, non dal modello continentale ma da quello stesso descritto e commentato dagli Autori inglesi, praticato per il passato e introdotto poi sul continente: turni a singhiozzo, interruzioni di percorso per battere porzioni limitate, della pur vasta area, sfruttamento di appezzamenti, di scampoli di terreno percorribili in qualche minuto, assolutamente inidonei allo sviluppo della cerca in grande e anzi in contrasto con la cerca dinamica e veloce pertanto che nota personalità inglese ebbe a definire alcuni: turni da Springers; si tollerano dai conduttori troppe fasi di dettaglio e si ammettono lunghe guidate inespressive con schizzo finale di lepre e coniglio considerate valide, e niente sta ad attestare la possibilità di pistaggio che il Trialler naso al vento deve trascurare non essendo suo compito preoccuparsene; si dimentica spesso che il consenso è attivo, partecipante, solidale con il cane in ferma e non rinunciatario e passivo per obbedienza; non si reprimono sempre i ritorni all’interno e si tarpa talora l’azione del cane di lato costringendolo a percorso inadeguato allo scopo stesso della velocità.”

Il cane da ferma era in decadenza in Gran Bretagna nel 1956? Non lo so, non c’ero, quello che posso intuire da letture passate ed esperienze presenti è che la realtà venatoria britannica era (ed è) completamente diversa dalla nostra come potete leggere cliccando qui. La loro gestione faunistica-venatoria ha indubbiamente favorito spaniels e retrievers, a scapito dei cani da ferma. Probabilmente, nel 1956, i cani da ferma erano comunque cani di nicchia e in stagnazione, mentre da noi si assisteva ad una sorta di ascesa della caccia con il cane da ferma, gli inglesi in particolare. Innanzitutto la Grande Cerca intesa da Colombo nel 1956 era molto diversa dalla Grande Cerca attuale ma… gli inglesi hanno mai avuto una vera e propria Grande Cerca? Non ricordo nulla di specifico ad opera di autori inglesi. Non dico che non sia mai stata descritta, dico che non ne ho mai letto e mi piacerebbe leggerne su uno dei testi a cui fa riferimento Colombo, senza però indicarne i nomi. Mi piacerebbe poter conversare con lui e capire, capire cosa intendessero gli inglesi – secondo lui- per Grande Cerca e capire la sua visione. La sua visione, in fondo la conosciamo, non possiamo certo dimenticare che il cane ideale per Colombo era velocissimo, dalla cerca estrema, dal naso superlativo. Lo chiamava “il puro”, il “folle” e in “Trialer! Saggio di Cinofilia Venatoria” (1950) lo definiva: “Il Riproduttore, Il Capolavoro, il quadro d’Autore, il brillante di cinquanta grani, l’oro zecchino. E’ il Capodanno, non gli altri 364 giorni.” La cinofilia italiana è stata profondamente influenzata dalla visione di Colombo, ma non quella britannica e, come dicevo sopra, non sono nemmeno certa che inizialmente fosse indirizzata in quella direzione. [In ogni caso mi sono rimessa a leggere Arkwright a piccoli passi].

Turni da spaniel. Interruzioni di percorsi, terreni questionabili, lunghe fasi di dettaglio, lunghe guidate eccetera, le ho viste?Ni. Ho seguito e partecipato ad almeno 20 trials, forse di più, e ho visto alcune delle cose di cui racconta Colombo ma andava sempre così. Molto andava a discrezione dei giudici e dei guardiacaccia (è il guardiacaccia che ti dice dove puoi fare il turno!) e il livello dei cani era variegato. Non so come fosse la situazione a Sutton Stockney ma, in certi trials a grouse si corrono in mezzo a densità di selvatici impressionanti. Non è che si possano fare chissà quali percorsi. I consensi a comando? Li chiedono ancora anche se un consenso naturale è molto apprezzato e si sta lavorando in questo senso. Tirando le somme, comunque, credo che Giulio Colombo si aspettasse di assistere a qualcosa di diverso e sia rimasto un po’ spiazzato. Ciò nonostante, Colombo non era uno stupido e ammette egli stesso che anche un giudice britannico potrebbe non essere colpito sempre in positivo dai trials italiani: “Benchè una sola prova controllata da me non possa fornirmi indice probante del complesso di un materiale setter e pointer, esiguo come numero nei confronti dell’italiano e francese, da quella sola gara di Sutton Scotney (dovrei dedurne una netta decadenza rispetto alla nostra; mi guardo dal farlo: probabilmente un Giudice inglese avrebbe la stessa impressione da alcuni turni nostrani alla Cattanea, a Borgo d’Ale ed Alice Castello.”

Il nostro inviato ammette altresì di aver visto, oltre a cani meno buoni, anche cani buoni: “Se alcuni concorrenti si palesarono tassativamente negativi al compito del Trialler, altri al limite quattro pointers almeno, due setters inglesi e un irlandese furono in tal classe da doverli rammaricare dal non poterli rivedere mai più. Fra i premiati Seguntium Niblick, pointer di Mr. J. Alun Roberts, di due anni, primo, velocissimo, sicuro sull’incontro, senso del selvatico. Scotney Gary, pointer di Mr. Arthur Rank, due anni, velocissimo, stilista, senso del selvatico, olfatto, secondo; Scotney Solitaire, pointer di Mr. Arthur Rank, di non ancora due anni, tutto nella Nota, testa alta, corretto, olfatto, reazioni, terzo; Sulhamstead Basil d’Or, irlandese, impegno, testa alta, corretto, quarto; Ch. Downsmans Bracken, setter inglese, dalle reazioni rapide, le ferme schiacciate slittando, lunghe e significative, infortunato su starne durante un rispetto di lepre, quinto. E lo indiavolato Sulhamstead Nina d’Or, setter irlandese di Mrs. Nagle’s e Miss M. Clarcks’s, di non ancora l’anno, partito su lepre, e quello inglesino blu belton dalla cerca ampia, avida, Flashaway Eve, del Col. A. S. Dalding’s, di non ancora due anni, che tende al fuori mano sul fianco, ma possiede tanta avidità e stile setter e galoppo radente da presagirne un Campione, se ben condotto.” Condivido appieno, la mia esperienza è identica alla sua: accanto a cani poco stilisti e lenti, ci sono soggetti che non sfigurerebbero anche alle nostre prove: in 60 anni è cambiato poco.

L’articolo di Colombo si chiude così: “Ma da Oltre Manica si importarono pointers e setters eccelsi, ma oltre Manica vige ancora sangue di Dero 4° del Trasimeno di Vignoli, sangue ricordato, vantato, e scorre nelle vene del secondo classificato, Scotney Gary, sangue che emigrò anche in America per ritornare in Inghilterra; e Blakfield Gide di Waldemar Marr, sorellastra di Fast, e Galf di S. Patrick di Nasturzio, sono citati in Inghilterra, paese per niente sciovinista, fra i migliori e più validi riproduttori, ed esponenti dei Pointer in quegli allevamenti: ricordiamolo anche noi.

Da “Rassegna “ ringrazio Mr. e Mrs Bank, Lady Auckland, il Segretario Generale del Kennel Club Inglese Mr. Buckley, Mr. Binney, Mr. e Mrs. Mac Donald Daly, Mr. e Mrs. William Wiley, Mr. Lovel Clifford mio valido interprete, che mi furon prodighi di ospitalità ed attenzioni durante il breve, ma denso soggiorno in- Inghilterra. Formulo il voto che la passione del Trialler non venga mai meno nella Patria Augusta del Signore l’Aria!” [Chi volesse leggerlo per intero può scaricarlo qui].

Ho deciso di parlare di questo articolo perché ritengo contenga dei punti chiave utili anche al lettore contemporaneo. Quali sono? Mi piace innanzitutto che apra con un excursus storico che spiega come si siano evolute le razze da ferma inglesi. Sono il frutto di particolari selvatici e di particolari terreni. Sono il frutto della caccia in quelle circostanze, circostanze che ne hanno plasmato il temperamento e codificato il metodo di lavoro. Prima che esistessero le prove, esisteva la caccia, esisteva il cacciatore che, a fronte di situazioni di caccia complesse, volevano tornare a casa con qualcosa nella cacciatora. Le circostanze hanno subito reso chiari quali fossero i tratti da selezionare e i comportamenti graditi, nonché tutto ciò che doveva essere considerato difetto. I cani andavano a caccia e poi, se bravi, venivano presentati anche alle prove. Un tempo era così anche in Italia e… vorrei fosse rimasto tale. Oggi abbiamo Campioni di Lavoro che non sono mai stati a caccia, che sono di proprietà (o persino condotti ed addestrati) da gente che non pratica attivamente la caccia con il cane da ferma, o che la pratica in contesti e su selvatici che si discostano da condizioni ideali e probanti. Questo porta anche a non comprendere alcuni regolamenti nati tanti anni fa, e a fare confusione su quali siano i comportamenti corretti da parte del cane, eppure costoro spesso si ritengono “esperti”. Se rileggete le parole di Colombo vedrete quanto stima il fermo al frullo, il down e il drop, definendoli “non accademia da recinto, ma freno in terreno libero”, beh nella nostra penisola sono ancora abbastanza fraintesi. Non so se Colombo sia stato anche a trials su grouse ma la sottoscritta ha impiegato pochi minuti sul moor a capire che lì, questi insegnamenti sono indispensabili. Colombo ricorda anche l’importanza del percorso, del saper stare sul vento e del lavoro in coppia. Lavoro in coppia che deve essere armonico, di squadra facendo capo a caratteristiche che devono essere nella genetica del cane. I cani devono anche essere facili da condurre, collegati e disponibili a collaborare con la minima necessità di ordini sonori, o i selvatici sarebbero disturbati troppo. Questi appunti mancano in tanti libri di cinofilia venatoria moderna, hanno forse questi tratti perso importanza?

Credo ora abbiate capito perché io ritenga il resoconto di Colombo su Sutton Scotney affascinante ed intrigante. Poi si aggiunge qualcosa di personale: proprio come lui, ho avuto modo di assistere (e prendere parte) ai British Trial e essi significano molto per me. Mi hanno trasformato in un cinofilo “diverso” e mi hanno consentito di avere un cane “diverso”.

Per saperne di più sulla cinofilia britannica cliccate qui.

As some of you know, I inherited part of Dr. Ridella library and archive. Dr. Ridella was a veterinarian and an important English Setter breeder, his kennel name was Ticinensis. I feel really honoured to have been chosen as a custodian, but I hate to admit… I dusted and cleaned only half of the materials I have been given. Fifty  years of canine magazines (1900-1950), however, are now readable and carefully stored. Knowing about  this collection, a friend asked me to look for two peculiar articles written respectively in 1938 and in 1954. I could not find them but, while checking out nearby years, I found something absolutely unexpected, beautiful and fascinating. In the 1956 spring issue of the Rassegna Cinofila (the official name of the Italian Kennel Club Bulletin at the time), I found an article by judge Giulio Colombo (1886-1966).The man was a well known breeder (kennel della Baita) and judge for Setters and Pointers, he also imported some dogs from the UK and tried to keep the connection between Italy and Great Britain alive. Among his imports we shall remember Lingfield Mystic (who won the Derby); Lingfield Ila, Lingfield Puma and Bratton Vanity.

I discovered that, in 1956, he was asked to judge a partridge trial in Sutton Scotney (Hampshire – UK) and wrote about his experience. I am not going to translate the full article, I am just summarizing the most important points. (Those interested can see large  pictures of the article here and download the .pdf file– which can be translated with google translator).

He opens his piece mentioning Laverack, Llewellin and Lady Auckland (with whom he was judging), and then explains how and why Setters and Pointers were created. He underlines that the game (grouse and grey partridges) and the waste, open and rough grounds forged these superlative breeds  so that they could better suit the hunter. He tells us things I still see in the UK: Setters and Pointers are not expected to retrieve; Setters and Pointers must be very trainable and biddable,  and that down and drop are fundamental teachings. Dogs must honour  the bracemate and must quarter properly: Colombo explains the practical reasons behind all these expectations,  this part occupies almost half of the article. His words make me miss what I saw, experienced and learnt during my time in the UK. As I often say, my dog would be very different if I had not seen their trials,  and I would also be a much different trainer and handler. But I really like what I am now!!!

He then informs the reader about the differences  (rules) between Italian and British trials: in  Britain there is no “minute” (here  all mistakes made during the first minute are forgiven); there is no established running time (here is 15 minutes) and good dogs are asked to run a second (and maybe a third round). He also lists the pros and cons of these choices. You can read more about the differences between Italian and UK trials in my older articles.  It is interesting that he points out that judges, in the UK, do not comment on the dog’s work (on the contrary, they are expected to so here) and that explaining what the dog did, in public… often leads the public to believe they know more than the judges.  This proved to be true in my limited experience, watchers (Italian and foreign), despite being several hundred metres away from the dog, see – and foresee- mistakes that handlers and judges, despite being right above the dog “miss”!  I thought, that people in the fifties were more considerate, but, apparently, the art of attributing inexistent faults to other handlers’ dogs has a long standing tradition.

Colombo then describes what he saw during the “Derby”.  I do not know if that Derby is like the current Puppy Derby (for dogs under 2 years, running in a brace) as I cannot understand whether the dogs were running alone or in a brace.  He says he saw some back castings, some dogs who needed more training and some dogs who sniffed on the ground/detailed around the quarry too much. Rabbits, hare and pheasant further complicated things. First prize went to Lenwade Wizard, Pointer dog owned by Mr. Arthur Rank, 15 months old described as stylish,  good gallop, good at handling birds; second  prize Lenwade Whisper, Pointer dog owned by Messrs P. P. Wayre’s  G. F. Jolly, aged 15 months. In the Brace Stake he noticed two Irish Setters Sulhamstead Bey d’Or and F. T. Sulhamstead Basil d’Or who eventually got second prize. As for the All Aged stake (which should be like the modern Open Stake), a Weimaraner was supposed to run with setters and pointers but was eventually withdrawn. Colombo was asked by Lady Hove  to express his opinion:  he seems to have had mixed feelings about what he saw. Let’s not forget that he later writes that pointing dogs are no longer common and popular in the UK,  that people prefer spaniels and retrievers and Setters and Pointers are decaying. How are things now? Spaniels and retrievers still outnumber pointing dogs and this sounds a bit weird to Italians, being the average Italian hunter/shooter the owner of a pointing dog, most of often of an English Setter. But… the two realities are very different.

He writes that the  “search” in the UK is no longer how it should be,  and how it used to be.  He states that, previously, the British wanted the dogs to run wider and faster. He says that that was the “ancient” way of interpreting the Grande Cerca.  Whereas I read both Laverack and Arkwright, I do not recall anything like that and I am not familiar with other British authors advocating this working style. Also, I have not witnessed the Setter & Pointer early years, so I cannot say if what Colombo claims is true. I would like to remember, however, that Giulio Colombo, besides breeding and judging,  in 1950 published the book “ Trialer! An Essay on Gundogs” on Setters and Pointers. The book became a bestseller, it is still a bestseller indeed, and deeply influenced Italian breeders, judges and fanciers. Giulio Colombo ideal dog was a fast and furious super dog made of speed, deep castings and excellent nose. He called him “the pure”, “the fool”, then described him with these words: “The Trialer is the producer, the Masterpiece, the famous Artist’s painting, the fifty carats diamond, the pure gold”. He is New Year’s Day, not the remaining 364 days.”

So, I really wonder whether any British authors had ever outlined such a dog, or whether Colombo just believed an hypothetical British author did or, again, whether he misunderstood some writings (he did not read English, as far as I know).  So, basically, I think he was expecting something different and he did not entirely like what he saw. He complains about “interrupted” runs, short castings, slow runs,  small parcels of ground to be explored, searches that gets “limited” by the judges and dogs forced to back on command. He writes that a British sportman defined some of the runs  “Springer Spaniel work”. Some of these things still happens and might be even more noticeable if you come from Italy, where dogs are asked to run as much, as fast and as wide as they can (the pure, the fool…) and dogs usually back naturally but, our trials have other faults and he admits that, maybe, a British judge attending one of our trials, on a particular unlucky day, would not be impressed by what we show him. Giulio Colombo, however, was skilled enough to see recognize good things at British trials, he admits, for instance, having seen some dogs he really  liked.  Yes, he says some dogs were “low quality”, but equally admits others were outstanding. I share his opinion: some British dogs lack of class, style and pace to compete successfully here but others… are absolutely not inferior to some Made in Italy dogs. I really, really liked some dogs I saw in Britain, and I am sure they would make our judges smile. Colombo mentions Seguntium Niblick, Pointer owned Mr. J. Alun Roberts who got first prize in All Aged Stake; Scotney Gary, Pointer owned by Mr. Arthur Rank, second prize; Scotney Solitaire, Pointer owned by Mr. Arthur Rank, third prize; Sulhamstead Basil d’Or Irish Setter, fourth prize; Ch. Downsmans Bracken, English Setter, fifth prize; Sulhamstead Nina d’Or, Irish Setter owned by Mrs. Nagle e Miss M. Clarcks and Flashaway Eve, English Setter owned by Col. A. S. Dalding. I think he really liked the Flashaway Eve as he describes him as very avid, stylish and very a typical low set gallop, he thinks he has all the features a dog needs to become a FT. Ch. He concludes with a note on Dero 4° del Trasimeno who was exported to the UK and is ones of the ancestors of Scotney Gary  (and of some American dogs) and  Blakfield Gide stepsister of the Italian  Fast and Galf di S. Patrick.  Author tanks those who made his experience possible: Mr. and Mrs Bank, Lady Auckland, Mr. Buckley, Mr. Binney, Mr. and Mrs. Mac Donald Daly, Mr. and Mrs. William Wiley, Mr. Lovel Clifford

So which are the key points for contemporary readers? Giulio Colombo outlines the Setter and Pointer history and explains why these dogs should work in a given manner. It is a matter of grounds and of birds: before trials ever existed, these dogs were hunting dogs and had to work all day long for the hunter  who wanted to go home with a bag filled with birds. Setters and Pointers  were tested in difficult and real hunting situations and it soon became clear which behaviours and attitudes were useful  and which were not.  The most sought after traits and behaviours were later coded and field trials were born, not viceversa. Dogs used to be tested during real shooting days and then, the best of them, were trialed. Things were like this during the early Pointer and Setter days and, in my opinion, they should not have changed. Nowadays, there are, at least in Italy, FT.Ch. who have never been shot over and, most of all, are trained, handled or owned by people who had never hunted, and never hunted on grounds and birds suitable for these breeds. People therefore do not understand some of field trial rules, nor how the dogs should behave but they consider themselves “experts”. Colombo mentions steadiness to flush and the commands down and drop, some of the most misunderstood things in my country. People think (and probably thought, already in 1956), that these commands are taught “just to show off”. On the contrary they can make shooting safer (a steady dog is not likely to be shot)  and the drop and the down are extremely useful on open grounds.  I am not sure whether  Colombo attended grouse trials and, if so, how abundant grouse were but I took me only a couple of minutes to realize the importance of these teachings on a grouse moor. He then remembers why Setters and Pointers are supposed to work in a brace and to quarter in “good” wind while crossing their paths. Dogs should work in a brace to better explore the waste ground and, in doing so, they should work together, in harmony, like a team. Teamwork is very important, yet a dog must work independently from his brace mate and, at the same time, support his job and honour his points, these things shall be written in the genes.  Dogs shall also be easy to handle so that they could be handled silently (not to disturb the quarry too much) and always be willing to cooperate with the handler. I don’t think I ever read these last two recommendations on any modern books on Setters and Pointers, have these traits lost importance?

I think you can now understand why I find Giulio Colombo’s report on Sutton Scotney intriguing and fascinating, but there is more, something personal: like the author, I had the privilege to watch and to take part in British trials, they mean a lot to me, I came back as a different “dog person” and they made me have a “different dog”.

You can read more on British trials here.

La scorsa settimana il server si è crashato dopo la pubblicazione di un articolo sulla tirosina e per dieci giorni non ho osato pubblicare nulla, ma oggi è venuto il momento di considerare un altro amminoacido. Un’allevatrice di setter americana, infatti, ha di recente pubblicato su Facebook la storia del suo cane a cui è stata diagnosticata un’insufficienza cardiaca congestizia. A questa situazione si era arrivati a causa di una DCM (cardiomiopatia dilatativa) e il cardiologo ha consigliato di controllare i livelli ematici di taurina. Lei ha controllato il cane e tutti gli altri setter di sua proprietà e, sorpresona, i livelli di taurina erano bassi in tutti quelli che alimentava con un mangime grain free ritenuto ottimo, mentre erano normali in quelli che mangiavano crocchette che potremmo definire “normali”.

La taurina ha moltissime funzioni e le potete leggere qui ma, può davvero una carenza di taurina provocare una cardiomiopatia dilatativa? Sappiamo che questo succede nel gatto che non può sintetizzarla (amminoacido essenziale) e che quindi deve assumerla con la dieta. Per i cani, al contrario, la taurina non è considerata essenziale e si ritiene la producano da sé sintetizzandola dagli amminoacidi solforati metionina e cisteina.

Così, per fugare ogni dubbio, ho contattato di nuovo Lucia Casini, Professoressa di Nutrizione Veterinaria all’Università di Pisa, e mi ha confermato quanto appena scritto, sottolineando che, comunque, bassi livelli di cisteina e metionina nella dieta potrebbero causare una deficienza di taurina. Quindi, questo significa che i mangimi contengono livelli inadeguati di tali amminoacidi? Può darsi, ma va ricordato che alcune razze sono meno efficienti nel trasformarli in taurina. Quali sono le razze? Cocker (americano e inglese), setter inglese, retrievers (golden e labrador), terranova e San Bernardo ma, onestamente, non mi sento di escludere che il problema possa essere presente in altre razze ad esse affini , o in razze in cui sono presenti casi di DCM. Per questi animali, l’integrazione di taurina potrebbe avere un ruolo preventivo e non curativo.

Cosa fare quindi? Credo servano ulteriori ricerche per poterlo affermare con esattezza ma, in quanto proprietaria di un setter inglese, mi sto informando su quali laboratori effettuano questo esame e su quali siano i costi. In attesa di nuove scoperte, sento di consigliare la stessa cosa a chi possiede esemplari delle razze menzionate, di razze affini e di razze ritenute a rischio DCM.

Aggiornamento, ho trovato almeno tre laboratori che testano: Idexx, Laboklin e San Marco. I prezzi sono attorno ai 60-70 euro. (Aggiornamento qui)

Inoltre, siccome la maggior parte dei miei lettori si occupa di cani da lavoro (date un’occhiata al Gundog Research Project!), lasciate che aggiunga che gli atleti possono avere un fabbisogno di taurina più elevato. Se desiderate approfondire, il web è ricchissimo di articoli dedicati alla taurina e alla cardiomiopatia dilatativa nel cane, lo scopo del mio articolo è semplicemente quello di far conoscere questo problema.

Last week the server crashed after I published an article on tyrosine and dark coats. I stayed away from the admin panel for ten days because I was afraid I could crash it again, but now I am back discussing another amino acid. A couple of days ago, an English Setter owner living in the USA posted on FB about her dog’s being diagnosed with congestive heart failure. The dog had developed DCM (dilated cardiomiopathy) and the cardiologist suggested testing his taurine blood levels. She tested him and her other dogs and the tests confirmed that some of them had indeed very low levels of taurine. Curiously, those with lower levels were fed a grain free, high protein, trendy dog food while the other ones, eating what would be considered an “average” dog food, were doing better.

Taurine has multiple functions, as you can read here, but can taurine deficiency in the diet lead to DCM? We know this can happen in cats: taurine is, for cats, an essential amino acid which means they cannot synthesize it and that it must be introduced with the diet. When it comes to dogs, instead, taurine is not considered essential as they can produce it by themselves. But… to do so, they need to convert dietary sulfur amino acids (SAA, methionine and cysteine) to taurine.

I decided to speak again with Lucia Casini, Veterinary Nutrition Professor at the University of Pisa, and she confirmed what I just wrote above, adding that a lack of methionine and cysteine could, however, cause taurine deficiency. So, are some dog foods lacking of methionine and cysteine? Maybe, or it could also be that some animals are less efficient when it comes to transforming them into taurine. There are several breeds of dogs that have a lower than normal ability to convert SAA: American Cocker Spaniels, Cocker Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, St Bernard, English Setters and Newfoundlands (and probably more we still do not know about). In their cases, taurine supplementation could have a preventive, rather than curative role.

So… What should we do? I think further research is needed but, personally, owning an English Setter, I am investigating on laboratories which can assess taurine levels and trying to collect information about the cost of this service. Would I advise you to do the same? Probably, and I am also wondering if other breeds, especially those related to the aforementioned breeds and those prone to DCM, should be tested: more research is certainly needed!

Update: in Europe at least 3 labs test for taurine in dogs: Idexx, Laboklin and San Marco. Prices are around 40-50 euros. Update on my test here.

Considering that most of my readers own working dogs (read about the Gundog Research Project!), let me also add that these athletes might need more taurine than the average dog. The web is full of articles on taurine and DCM in dogs, go and read them if you want to know more, I am just here to spread the word and raise some awareness.

Italy won the European Cup for British Pointing Breeds (Grande Quete),  the European Championship for English Setters and the European Championship for English Pointers (other results are still pending at the moment).  Everybody is happy, but many rumours started and the social media went crazy. I read every sort of rumors, polemics, attacks and accuses, which I do not want to spread further, but two topics deserve a deeper analysis, especially the second one. People complain about dogs whose nationality changes to make them able to enter the competition. Right? Wrong? I think this is a grey area. Italy has a huge number of dogs whose natural qualities make them suitable to these high level competitions. There are dozens, or more likely hundreds, of Italian English Setters and English Pointers that, potentially, could do very well. No other country can claim the same but… Some dogs have been seen and campaigned more than others because there are big fishes and small fishes. If you are a sardine, forced to swim among tuna, you will soon realize you cannot afford the trendiest trainer, nor the amazingly expensive travels all over Europe to stay on the top the circuit. Your dog will not have the same opportunities of a “richer” dog, you are perfectly aware he is unlikely to be asked to represent Italy. Maybe it is a good dog but, to compete at certain levels, being good is only part of the package.

So, let’s imagine you gave up any hope to compete in the European Cup but, let’s say, Transilvania proposes you a place in its team, would you accept? And if you, Mr. Sardine, accept, are we entitled to persecute you? I don’t think so and, let’s be honest, what would any of us do, if offered such an opportunity? What would I do? I do not know, but I might say yes to a country I feel connected to ( I am not very patriotic, I know…), whereas I would probably decline the offer if  it were coming from a country I don’t know anything about, nor I speak the language. This said, I do not think I have any rights to be judgmental about other people choices.

The second, more important, topic I am going to discuss still relates to foreign countries, but in another way. When I published the article on training problems in Italy and on the scarcity of game at Italian trials, someone suggested me writing something on Italians going abroad for hunting, training and trialing. Well, the truth is that, as far as small game, Italy is in a bad place. These animals are poorly, if ever, managed, and if you want to hunt or train your dog, going abroad can be a good choice. Can you train a dog in Italy? Of course you can, but it is going to be way harder, and your risk to pay in fines the same amount you will spend for a nice training holiday abroad. There is nothing wrong in going abroad to offer a dog more opportunity. If you have the time and you can afford it, why not? Serbia, nowadays is very popular, but before Serbia, Italian hunters and trainers had colonized other countries. I am not concerned about going abroad, I am perplexed about being dependent on “abroad”.

Many important Italian field trias (with CAC valid for the Italian Championship) are now run in Serbia. If you ask why, you hear different answers and some, the most convincing ones, pertains grounds, game and laws/local realities. Let’s start from grounds. Giacomo Lugari (an Italian famous hunter and video maker) , answering a post on Facebook remembered the European Cup run in 1999 in Tollara, Piedmont, Northern Italy. So the grounds… we have some suitable ones! I think so, but what about the game? The answer, this time , sadly is a no. I have never been to Serbia, but many, many Italians routinely go there and come back with happy tales about grey partridge. You cannot imagine how many partridges are there! You cannot believe! This is what they tell me and, yes I can believe them. I know what happens with grouse in the UK and I know that good wildlife management can produce tremendous results. Proper wildlife management is demanding, time consuming, costly and forces farmers, hunters, wildlife experts, gamekeepers and politicians to work together. Something must be sacrificed and people must learn to negotiate good meeting points, this is difficult but not impossible.

Someone justify Italy stating that Serbian agricultural techniques are 50 years older than ours and that this is a good thing for greys. Probably but… If we truly are 50 years ahead, we should be able to use our more advanced knowledge to recreate an habitat that might suit greys. I refuse to believe this cannot be done: do you remember Reinaissance? Italy gave birth to Leonardo da Vinci and other geniuses and now, their descendents, cannot successfully manage four birds?

And what about the money? In Serbia up to 500 dogs run in a day. Each entry costs 30 euros, multiply them for 500 and subtract something for “expenses”. Accessing training grounds costs about 100 euros a day (regarldess of the number of dogs you have with you), so remember about these money as well. I am a terrible accountant, but I came to the conclusion that Serbian grey partridge are producing quite an income. The Serbians have been smart in recognizing this and I think that grey partridge are improving the lives of those living there. There are the training grounds money, the field trials entries, people staying in hotels, people dining in restaurants… The Serbians are doing the right thing, and the Italians? What shall we do, besides thanking them for the opportunities they provide us? I think that maybe we shall get inspired and consider the grey partridge an excellent business partner: some more determined people would resuscitate dinosaurs for similar amounts of money!

The laws, adds someone else, we have more bureocracy and more rules than Serbia. We have animal right activist and an outdated law on wildlife management and hunting. This law must be changed , says someone else, but in Italy is hard to be proactive, each time you try, obstacles get thrown in the way. This is true, but is this enough to give up the hope in a better countryside, for better fieldsports? I truly don’t know.

People keep asking me which are the differences between Italian and British trials. I already wrote something but, the more I compete in Italian trials, the more differences I notice, they cannot be contained in an article alone. I wrote “compete” because I am not new to Italian trials: I began watching them in 2004, but I am fairly new to competing in them, furthermore many things changed in these 13 years. My initial role was the one of the journalist/photographer, who sometimes helped judges writing down their notes. I was a neutral observer and  it was a valuable experience as it allowed me to see things closely, yet from the outside. Getting into the competition surprised those used to see me in my “other” role, but allows me to understand things more deeply. My opinions, my feelings, my impressions and concerns have not changed but, I can see things more clearly and this is an ongoing process!

I often stated that obedience and control are more important in British trials and not so important in our trials. The reasons behind this approach are many, and some are probably more socio-economical than dog related, game presence, however,  is certainly one of the key points. I came to the conclusion (not much smartness needed here!) that birds, or rather their abundance or absence, are the culprits. Those familiar with Italian trials know that you have to be incredibly lucky to find a bird. On average, I think about, 25-30% of the dogs competing have a chance to point and properly work out a bird. Maybe 30-35% have a chance to “see” the bird but something prevents (a bracemate, a roebuck, a meteorite…) them to actually work it out, as required by the rules. Sometimes things are even worse: during a trial I ran in October no birds were seen, my stake was made up of 22 dogs, if I am not wrong, for a total of 11 braces. Some dogs, including mine, were also allowed to run a second round in the hope to find anything: well the only bird we saw during the whole trial was a (one) pigeon. As you can imagine no awards were given. In the UK, instead, almost all the dogs have the opportunity to at least “see” a bird”: then many things can happen, but competitors are surely not so concerned about a living feathered being on the ground.

To find a bird at Italian trials you need a smart dog carrying on his shoulders a tremendous amount of luck: this  is true, I will discuss the “why” in other articles. Besides being true, this is also very sad: I love pointing dogs and this would be frustrating for any person sharing this passion. Imagine what happens: you wake up at 3 AM (because trials start very early), you drive 200 miles, your dog has a nice run with a nice bracemate, and the dogs cannot find anything. The judge maybe likes him and gives him a second chance, but again no birds show up and the trial ends. Imagine this happening for most of the trials then you get the whole picture.

Years ago,  I was chatting with a judge about the tremendous emphasis some breeders were giving to their dogs galloping style. There were (and there are) brainless dogs with no bird sense who ”move very nicely”. Do you want to know his reply? It was a short and smart one: breeders focus on movement because, 99% of the time, the dog is going to be seen by judges while running, being pointing a rare happening. Judges are more likely to remember how he runs and how he searches, it makes sense and, again, it makes me sad. Weren’t trials created to evaluate pointing dogs and make sure they were suitable to hunters? So we have a nice gallop here and, anything else?
I think that what our trials are focused on is “finding” (that damn bird) , and it is better do it nicely with deep and wide castings.  It is so hard to find a bird that everything that comes later is, somehow, less important. I am not here minimizing the importance of a proper pointing style (Italians are suckers for this) but, basically, once the dog has found and pointed the bird, everything is going to be fine. This is probably why handlers get so excited and run anxiously towards the dog on point. What if the dog is a bit sticky? What if he is not super steady to flush or to gunshot? These errors are likely to be forgiven, given the aforementioned lack of game.

In Britain the opposite happens, dogs run in places where birds are present, sometimes too present, and this makes control vital. It is not difficult to find a grouse, on some moors you do not even need a dog to find one so… bird presence is taken for granted. Of course the dogs are expected to find,a bird, but there are usually plenty of opportunities to find one. If you attend a British field trials you will see many dogs on point, points are not such an unsual sight. After all, field trials were created to evaluate pointing breeds and you cannot really assess a pointer without a point! When the dog is on point, the British handler paces quietly to him. I am not sure whether pacing (vs running) is required by some rules, but I think it is more a matter of culture and awareness. The handler, in fact, besides being used to “keep calm”, is well aware that the toughest part of the trial has yet to come. After the point, the dog must work out the bird properly, demonstrate perfect steadiness to wing and shot, and perform equally well the “clear the ground”, all seasoned with a good amount of obedience.  British trials are not easy!

So… during an Italian trial the dog’s ability to FIND a bird (hopefully in a stylish manner) is under the spotlight, whereas in Britain the dog is carefully assessed on “how he handles the birds”. Italians do mind about how the dog points and works out the bird, but they unfortunately have much less chances to verify this. Environment and game management make the difference. If I go through my memories, the thing I remember most  clearly about specific dogs running in British trials is, the way they roaded and worked out birds, as well as their obedience. Of course I remember a few, exceptional finds and runs but they occupy less of my memory. When thinking about Italian trials, things are reversed.

What is better? We have no winner here. To be successful at an Italian trial the dog needs an incredible amount of determination, good bird sense (and/or a tremendous amount of luck), a stylish movement, some boldness and, sometimes even too much independence. When you get everything in the proper amount you have a great dog but, unfortunately, miscalculating the ingredients might produce dogs who run for the sake of running or are just too wild to be tamed by the average human being. The British system, instead, tests carefully how the dog handles birds and forces handlers to keep an eye on trainability, on the other hand, in Britain, finding a bird can sometimes be “too easy”. If only a dog could be assessed through both the systems we will be close to perfection.

Still curious about British trials? Check the section A Month on the Moor or click here.

British Field Trials: What’s Inside – Originally Published in Sentieri di Caccia December 2016

Disclaimer: This is the second of a series of articles I wrote for the Italian press. I wrote this article for Italian readers, this means that British people are not going to learn anything new from these pages and, whereas I did my best to be accurate, they may even find some inaccuracies. If so, please notify me. The first article of the series can be found here.

Italy breeds the best English Setters in the world, so presumably Italy also organizes the best field trials in the world, if so… why go to compete in Great Britain?

What you just read above is the widespread Italians opinion on the matter. Are they right? Are they wrong? This is an “opinion”, hence I do not think it can be right or wrong, it is simply an opinion. The true, or presumed,  supremacy of the Italian English Setter is rooted in our culture, our believes and our tradition about hunting and shooting. Is my choice to compete in the UK an expression of dissent? No, or rather not completely, as I firmly believe that experiencing different methods and traditions can enrich dogs, hunting and trials.

But why the UK? For a whole bag of reason, some objective and some subjective; some widely accepted and some widely ridiculed. Some accused me of taking a shortcut,t as if British trials were much easier than ours. Wrong assumption! British field trials are NOT easier than Italian ones! I first met this reality in 2015 when I had the opportunity to watch the Champions Stake for Setters and Pointers. This was an awakening, James Joyce would have called it an epiphany, it was one of a kind experience which opened my eyes about field trials and training. Some of my readers probably remember what I wrote at the time, underlining that despite the lack of “professional” handlers, everybody was very “professional”.

A few hints

The first problem you have to face, if you want to compete in the UK, is entering a trial. Before you can even send your application, you have to get an ATC (Authorization to Compete) number from the Kennel Club. Then you have to understand when the trials take place: in Great Britain, trials take place only in specific period s of the year. There are two weeks of grouse trials in March; one on partridge in April; four on grouse in July/August and, finally, one more week on partridge in September. This is how things are organized for British Pointing Dogs, HPRs (Continental Pointing Dogs) follow a different calendar. Being the number of trials fairly limited (at least if compared to the hundreds of trials taking place in Italy each year), it often happens that there are more perspective competitors than available places. Each trial features only one stake (in Italy many stakes can take place simultaneously, on nearby grounds) and it is judged by two judges who can evaluate up to 40 dogs. As you can imagine, waiting lists are common and so are dogs put on “reserve”, ready to run if a another competitor retires. To enter a trial, competitors must contact the organizing club before the deadline and send the entry form together with the money (prices can range between 10 and 30 pounds). The club secretary will take care of everything and create a list giving priority to the club’s members and to dogs who had already had placement in British trials. As you may see, it is not easy for a foreign newcomer to get a run. In my limited experience, however, I learnt that usually Scottish trials are less popular and that the Novice Class is sometimes easier to access. When possible, moreover, is always good to show up at the trial venue because some competitors might retire their dogs right before the trial. As for becoming a member of the clubs, it can be done but it might take up to a year the formal sponsorship by two former members and meeting you face to face. Each club usually organizes two days of trials, one for the Open Stake and one for the Novice or for the Puppy Stake. The latter is open to dogs under 2 years of age. Dogs who had never placed 1^st or 2^nd but are older than 2 years can run in the Novice Stake. The Open Stake, instead, is open to any dogs (and compulsory for dogs who placed 1^st or 2^nd ) but dogs who had previously been graded are more likely to get a run. I managed to compete both in Novice and in Open and I watched some Puppy Stakes: rules are identical for any of these stakes but judges can be “kinder” towards dogs competing in Novice and Puppy.

I liked almost all the dogs competing in the Open Stakes: most of them were good and well trained specimen, the overall level was high. As for the Novice Stakes, I saw good and perfectly trained dogs but also some dogs who still needed more experience and more training, some of these dogs, nevertheless, possessed the natural qualities to do very well in a Open Stake. As for the Puppy Stakes, they were quite unpredictable but I really loved seeing people being brave enough to run young pups, some of them were not even one year old: I really enjoyed watching these stakes.

Obedience is extremely important

To compete in British trials (even in the Novice and Puppy Stakes), it is vital to have a good control on your dog. Dogs who ran away and disobey are not appreciated, they might make organizers and other competitors unhappy but, most of all, they will alarm gamekeepers. Dogs must be very steady to flush and shot and drop on command. Judges can also ask you to drop your dog while his bracemate is on point: some British dogs are not naturally backers, so the judge can ask competitors to drop dogs on command. These skills are not negotiable and it is not easy to obtain these behaviour when a dog is surrounded by grouse. Game density can be incredibly high, the dog must be under control and have quite an amount of self control. If we want to compare these trials to the Italian ones, judges pay much more attention on obedience: steadiness to flush means not moving at all, a dog cannot even attempt to step forward or jump on himself; turn left means turn left and so on. The same is true for steadiness to shot, I have been eliminated a couple of times because Briony moved or jumped on herself after the shot, excitement can lead to this, but does not make it more tolerated. During a trial you are not allowed to yell, nor you can touch the dog. You can moderately use the whistle to direct or drop the dog, but you cannot touch him unless and until the judge orders you to put the lead on. You cannot encourage your dog to road and produce the bird by touching him: this behaviour would lead to an elimination. The judge tells you how to interact with the dog: you have to wait for him to tell you that you can let your dog produce the bird; that you can pick him up or that you have to drop him. The biggest difference between our trials and British trials, however, is likely to be the behaviour judges expect after the dog has been shot over. In our trials we usually put the lead on and then maybe cast the dog again, if there is still time (our runs last 15 minutes), in Britain, after the birds have been flushed and a shot fired, the dog is supposed to “clear the ground” making sure there are no grouse left. Given the amount of game (you can read more about this here), it is unlikely that the dog pointed only one, or a few grouse, more grouse, maybe part of the same covey, might still be there and the dog has to work them properly. He should road and flush them, keeping his enthusiasm at bay but, most of all, without hesitation. This is not easy, many birds sitting tight together can produce a strong scent which can confuse the less experienced dogs, at the same time they might be incredibly tempting. Clearing the ground is not always easy, it happened to me to find several grouse during a clear the ground some of which were bold enough to fly straight into the dog’s face, a tough way to test for steadiness.

Each stake is judged by two judges and a dog, in order to be graded, must run twice: this, together with the clear the ground (that does not exists in our trials), increases the likelihood of mistakes being made. If you are still thinking that British trials are “easy”, let me tell you that the mistakes made during the run’s first minute – which are not taken in account in our trials – can lead to an elimination in the country ruled by Queen Elizabeth II. Hare and rabbit shall not be forgotten and, together with the abundance of grouse, make obedience incredibly important. The Italians main focus are the dog’s natural abilities and, therefore, they might be shocked by seeing so much importance given to obedience. Some of my countrymen think that focusing so much on these kind of details you risk to forget the whole picture. It can happen, indeed, but at the same time, obedience and trainability shall never been undervalued. While discussing the Italian version of this article with a British handler told me that, whereas he understood and partly agrees with the Italian point of view, “not selecting for a trait, in the long run, leads to a selection against this trait”. These were his exact words and I agree on them, my ideal evaluation, indeed would be something in between the two systems.

Let’s now talk about practicalities: you are expected to reach the venue ON TIME and drive a proper off road 4×4 car. Nobody has a huge van, it will not be of any use; people with many dogs have a pick up truck and a dog trailer. You might have to cross streams or drive on rocks, a normal car cannot do that. Lunch is eaten on the moor and you have to bring your own lunch (in Italy the venue is usually a restaurant and you go to eat there after the trial). Once the stake starts, people are allowed to follow on foot with the dogs kept on lead. As you can end up walking for hours in a mutable – and often windy- weather, it is advisable to carry with you all the clothes you might need. High heather, cracks and quicksand make the grounds demanding for the dogs and for you as well. All competitors are expected to remain until the end of the trials, when the awards are given. If, for a valid reason, you need to leave the ground in advance, you have to ask permission to the organizers and let them know when you are leaving. A steward of the beat coordinates what happens on the ground supported by one or more gamekeepers and a gun (the person who shoots the produced bird – without killing it). The gamekeepers present at the trials are the same people who take care of the moor all year round, hence they want to be sure that dogs and people do not harm the wildlife they protect. Trials are run in private estates which are generously lent to the clubs, competitors must respect the grounds and the wildlife: dogs out of control are not welcome and can put you under a bad light as well as put organizers in a bad position.

More on the differences between Italian and British trials can be read here.

The Puppy Derby and the Champion Stake 2016

In the summer of 2016 I watched and ran in many field trials that took place in Northern England (Durham County and North Yorkshire) and Scotland (Highlands & The Borders), here I am telling you about the Puppy Derby and about the Champion Stake only. Those who want to know more about dogs and grouse can follow my blog www.dogsandcountry.it , the section “A Month on the Moor” is entirely dedicated to my month among heather.  In 2016, the Puppy Derby and the Champion Stake were organized by the SFTA (Scottish Field Trials Association), a big club whose president is Wilson Young and whose secretary is Jon Kean. Jon is a journalist as well and writes on dogs and shooting, he trusted my skills enough to let me follow both the trials closely, I am grateful for that. The Puppy Derby took place on 9th August at Tollishill Estate, owned by the Duke of Northumberland, and located near Lauder (a small village not too far from Edinburgh, on the Borders between Scotland and England). Whereas the catalogue listed 30 dogs, only 9 actually ran in the Puppy Derby. This trial is open to dogs under 2 years old: I do not know why the numbers dropped so dramatically, it might have been caused by a kennel cough epidemic or by the fact that some pups were still not ready to compete. Many of the competitors were about one year old and certainly paid a high price for their lack of experience; hare coming from every direction further complicated things. Billy Darragh and Colin Forde (Ireland), who judged the trial, could only grade one dog,  Ballyellen Tango, English Setter dog aged almost two, owned by Billy Connelly (Ireland) and handled by Gerry Devine (Ireland), Gerry is one of the few professional handlers. Whereas only one dog could be graded, I saw some interesting specimen as far as natural qualities, I especially liked two English Setters and I hope to have a chance to see them at work again when they will be more experienced.

On 10th and 11th August, we moved to Byrecleugh Estate, still close to Lauder, kindly offered by the Duke of Roxeburghe. The Champion Stake is a special trial that takes places every year: only the dogs who had gained a 1st or a2nd placement in previous trials (Open Stake) are allowed to run. This year something new was going to happen: the trial would have been judged by three judges, no longer by two. The chosen ones were Meryl Asbury, Shaun McCormack and Michael Houston, the latter two were from Ireland. They were going to see 37 dogs, less than expected due, again, to the kennel cough epidemics. On the morning of the 10th, many dogs made mistakes which lead to their elimination. The first braces ran in very high heather, grouse were well hidden and walking away from them, flying from a distance; later in the morning grouse density decreased and things became slightly easier. In the afternoon we had a torrential rain, but many dogs did extremely well in those conditions (Photogallery for the day here). Only 14 dogs “survived” day 1st and 7 of them, I allow myself to be partial sometimes, were English Setters! On the 11th, all the survivors exhibited outstanding performances, confirming to the judges that they had made wise choices (Photogallery for the day here). I really appreciated how the judges directed the trial, they worked together in harmony and always sided with the dogs, never against them. They were incredibly supportive and really did their best to give the same opportunities to all the dogs and sometimes closed an eye on minor details. Having three judges (one on the left, one on the right and one in the centre) made this trial slightly different. The dogs were allowed to run further and wider and what happened was not much different from what I am used to see here in Italy. When allowed some more freedom, these dogs were still doing very well and were not inferior to most of the Italian dogs I routinely see at our trials.

Once back at the venue, Allan Neill, a very reputable trainer and handler from Ireland, asked me to tell him which dog was going to win in my opinion. You were close to the dogs, he added, so you should have seen everything well and have an opinion. Without hesitation, I made a name, Allan agreed upon the fact the winner was going to be an English Setter, yet he was not sure it was going to be the dog I named. But… I was right! FT.Ch. Ballyellen Cara (mother of Ballyellen Tango, who won the Puppy Derby) placed first: her run was unforgettable and she surely possesses some great qualities, I remembered (and liked) her from Champion Stake 2015, at the time she was eliminated but given awarded as the most stylish dog on the ground.

Champion Stake 2016

I° FT. Ch. Ballyellen Cara English Setter bitch owned by Billy Connelly (Ireland), handled by Gerry Devine (Ireland)

II° Frosted Elfin at Fleetstalk English Pointer dog, owned by Steve e Sharon Lound and handled by Steve Lound

III° Hunshigo Donard Irish Setter bitch owned and handled by Mark Adams (Ireland)

IV° Bownard Cherry Cherry Irish Setter dog owned by Donna Clark and handled Colin Forde (Ireland)

Certificates of Merit: Upperwood Clover and FT Ch. Upperwood Hera English Setter bitches owned and handled by Dom Goutorbe and Upperwood Ash Alert English Setter bitch owned and handled by David Hall

The organizers would like to thank the sponsor Red Mills.

Slideshow below

Oggi parliamo di cani unicorni. Ho scelto gli unicorni perché posso dire le stesse cose che direi sui cani senza che la gente si metta sulla difensiva. Perché… Quando tiri in ballo argomenti caldi, ci sono un sacco di persone diventano agressive assertive. È cominciato tutto qualche giorno fa, in un segretissimo gruppo Facebook, fatto da persone che si conoscono da più di vent’anni. Ci sono allevatori, giudici, addestratori, ciascuno portabandiera della sua razza. Ci sono anche un sacco di veterinari, e chiunque si renda conto di cosa sia la facoltà di medicina veterinaria sa quanto queste persone debbano essere determinate per laurearsi. Quindi, mettine un po’ insieme e avrai i fuochi d’artificio.

La miccia l’ha accesa un appassionato di genetica canina (che nella vita vera lavora nel marketing). Ha iniziato a pubblicare una serie di fotografie volte a dimostrare come le razze siano cambiate nel tempo. Prende una razza, quasi ogni giorno, e poi ne pubblica i cambiamenti affinché li si possano discutere. È filato tutto liscio fino alla pubblicazione dell’Unicorn Spaniel, quando io me ne sono uscita a chiedere come mai gli esemplari da lavoro di una razza assomiglino di più ai loro antenati di quanto non accada ai soggetti da show. Ho detto questo per l’Unicorn Spaniel, ma le mie perplessità riguardavano tutte le razze da lavoro che erano andate dividendosi in due ceppi. Avrei potuto dirlo per l’Unicorn Setter, per l’Unicorn Collie, per il Siberian Unicorn, per il Pastore di Urnicornlandia… Prendete una razza a scelta, tra quelle da lavoro, meglio se una di quelle che lavorano ancora, controllate vecchie stampe e vecchie fotografie e traete le vostre conclusioni.

Tornando al singolo episodio, è successo che uno dei vet (amico e gran prava persona!), appassionato di Unicorn Spaniel da bellezza, si è messo sulla difensiva accusandomi di essermi impuntata e voler avere ragione a tutti  i costi. Ok, ogni tanto mi capita, ma non in questo caso. Gli ho mostrato alcune fotografie di Unicorn Spaniel da lavoro ne è rimasto sconvolto: erano tutti sbagliati, le orecchie non andavano inserite, lì le teste non parliamone, le zampe erano sbagliate eccetera. Nel frattempo, un’altra vet ed amica, allevatrice di Unicorn Retriever è passata di lì e ha commentato: “Oh, ma è la stessa diatriba che c’è per gli Unicorn Retriever”.  Io capisco entrambi, davvero, e a modo mio simpatizzo con il loro punto di vista, ammetto persino che gli Unicorn Spaniel da show siano animali esteticamente molto gradevoli ma… allo stesso tempo, ritengo che si siano allontanati dal modello originale, altrimenti detto “giurassico”. Non sto dicendo che siano peggiori, solo che siano diversi!

Ammetto candidamente di essere appassionata  unicorni da lavoro, ma non intendevo affatto dare torto a nessuno, né riattivare la solita, per quanto sempre saggia,  discussione su linee da lavoro e linee da expo’. Intendevo, e intendo, capire PERCHE’ gli unicorni da lavoro sono ritenuti “sbagliati” dalla maggior parte delle persone, in special modo da chi frequenta le expo’. Sono la prima ad affermare che ci siano soggetti da lavoro ORRENDI, che non sembrano nemmeno più unicorni, ma sono anche pronta a ribadire che ce ne sono alcuni molto bellini. Il mio unicorno ideale è un bell’unicorno da lavoro. Non sarei felice con un unicorno brutto, ma allo stesso tempo, il mio unicorno, deve essere bravo in campo. Siffatti animali, sono la più pura espressione della bellezza: armonici e sobri, sono un piacere a vedersi, sia al guinzaglio che mentre lavorano. E, guarda caso, assomigliano anche ai loro antenati, soggetti creati per funzionare.

Durante la mia prima lezione di istologia (lo studio dei tessuti del corpo) all’università, il professore, introducendo la cellula, ha messo in chiaro che la forma è conseguenza della funzione e che questo era vero per una cellula, per un tessuto e per un organismo. Credo debba essere vero anche per gli unicorni, allora. Quindi, perché gli animali funzionali sembrano sbagliati? E perché lo sembrano anche se riflettono quanto scritto nello standard? Se leggete gli standard di razza con cura, noterete che molti di loro non promuovono, né tutelano, la maggior parte delle esagerazioni morfologiche che oggi fanno vincere un cane in ring.

Quindi, perché oggi vengono ricercate esagerazioni come mantelli super lunghi, orecchie esagerate, pelo da pecora, gambe extra corte e adipe in abbondante eccesso? Perché queste caratteristiche sono ritenute piacevoli? Dove è andato il buongusto? Il nostro senso estetico è stato contaminato dalla modernità (TV spazzatura, fast food, cineserie…)? Se è così, forse dovrei tornare nel passato mentre la questione, piuttosto filosofica, resta senza risposta

Forse ne scriverò ancora.

Today we are going to talk about dogs unicorns. I choose unicorns because I can say the same things I would write about dogs and, at the same time,  avoid people getting defensive. Because… When you discuss some hot topics, plenty of people can turn aggressive assertive.

It all started a few days ago, in a super secret Facebook group, made of people who have been knowing each other for about 20 years. There are plenty of breeders, judges, trainers, scholars, involved with different breeds.  In such a diversity, there are also plenty of vets and… anyone familiar with Italian Vet Schools knows how strong willed these people need to be, in order to graduate!  So, put some of them together and you will get fireworks!

The fire point’s of origin was caused by a scholar of canine genetics (who in real life is a marketing specialist) who started to publish pictures showing how some breeds have changed through years. He picks a breed, almost daily, and publishes the changes for us to discuss. It all went quiet until we came to the Unicorn Spaniel: at this point, I came out questioning why the current working specimen of a breed are much closer to their ancestors than their show counterparts. I said this in the Unicorn Spaniel discussion but I deemed it valid for most of the “working” breeds that have gone through a split. It could have been the Unicorn Setter, the Unicorn Collie, the Siberian Unicorn, the Unicorn Shepherd… Pick any breeds created for a specific purpose, better If it is performing its job, go through old prints and pictures and draw your own conclusion.

What happened is that a vet (and very good friend)  involved in the show type Unicorn Spaniel, got defensive and accused me of being strongly opinionated, which I can sometimes be, but not in this case. I showed him some Working Unicorn Spaniel pictures and he was literally horrified by them stating that those dogs had wrongly set ears, wrong heads, wrong paws, they were all wrong. At the same time, another vet (and good friend as well) who breeds Show Unicorn Retrieves stopped by and commented that “Oh well, it is the same story with Unicorn Retrievers”. While I can understand their viewpoints, and agree upon the fact that the show type Unicorn Spaniel is still a nicely built animal, I am also firmly convinced that it diverged from the original model and became something else. Not better, not worse, just different.

I admit being a supporter of  the working unicorns cause,  but I was not trying to prove anybody wrong, nor to end up in the same old (yet always important) discussion on show unicorns vs working unicorns. I was, and I am, trying to understand WHY working type unicorns are perceived as being “wrong” by the majority of people, and especially by show people. Whereas I am ready to declare that some working type unicorns are incredibly UGLY and do not resemble unicorns at all, I am also ready to point out that there are also some very pretty (or handsome, depending on the sex) ones. My ideal unicorn is a good looking, nicely built, working unicorn: I won’t be happy to own a ugly unicorn, but at the same time, my unicorn should perform well in the field. These animals are the purest expression of beauty: harmonic and sober, they are a pleasure to look at either when they are on lead or when they are performing their job. Needless to say, they resemble their ancestors, models of unicorns which were created for function.

During my first histology (the study of body tissues) lesson at the university, while introducing the cell, the professor pointed out that form follows function, and that this was true for a cell, for a tissue, for an organism. I guess it should be true for unicorns as well. So why do functional specimen look wrong? And why do they look wrong if they still incarnate what is written in their breed standard? If you go through breed standards carefully, you will notice that most of them are not promoting, nor advocating, most of the exaggerated features we now see winning in the show ring. I was almost forgetting… that they still do the job they were created for!

So why do people perceive exaggerations such as extra long coats, extra long ears, super fluffy coats, super short legs and extra pounds as correct and aesthetically pleasant? Let’s forget functionality – for a moment, where has good taste gone? Has our aesthetic sense being contaminated by modernity (rubbish on tv, fast food, short lived made in China goods…)? If so, I think I should have born in another century,  but the question, a pretty philosophical one, remains unanswered.

More later, maybe.

Questo articolo nasce dalla passeggiata in campagna di stamattina, le mie camminate in campagna sono sempre buona fonte di ispirazione!

Oggi ho pensato che, quando esci con un setter inglese, tutti i tuoi sensi devono essere attivi al fine di localizzare il cane che, come la razza comanda, appare e scompare. Lo puoi sentire quando è dietro agli alberi, o quando sta uscendo da un cespuglio; lo puoi vedere quando corre libero si terreni aperti. A volte, quando si rotola in “qualcosa”, ne puoi perfino sentire l’odore. No, non puoi sentirne il sapore, né toccarlo ma, negli anni, hai sicuramente sviluppato un sesto senso capace di dirti dove si trova il cane, cosa sta facendo e da che parte lo vedrai ritornare.

Mentre tenevo le antenne accese, ho incontrato un uomo con una golden retriever. Gli trotterellava accanto, mansueta, tenendo in bocca un grosso ceppo. Mi chiedo se sarei felice con un cane simile o se, al contrario, mi annoierebbe. Poi, quando Briony correva a tutta velocità in una risaia, abbiamo incontrato un runner con un cane corso e con un cane primitivo, più grande di uno shiba e più piccolo di un akita. È rimasto impressionato dal richiamo ma, ancora di più, dalla velocità e dall’ampiezza di cerca. I cani da ferma inglesi, fatta eccezione per il gordon – ogni tanto, sono i cani da ferma più estremi. È difficile per un proprietario di cani da compagnia riuscire a capirli. Restano perplessi quando il proprietario di un setter (o di un pointer) rifiuta di sguinzagliare il cane su un piccolo appezzamento di terreno circondato da strade, spiegando che è troppo piccolo e quindi non sicuro.

Non riescono a capire che quegli spazi sono piccoli: lasciate libero un pastore tedesco o un border collie, saranno sempre attenti, pronti ad obbedire agli ordini, nascono per questo; un dobermann o un rottweiler terranno sempre d’occhio il proprietario, perché il loro istinto gli chiede di proteggerli. Con un setter inglese le cose vanno diversamente: il regalo migliore che possiate fare a un setter è la libertà. Certo, a loro piace anche russare su superfici morbide, gli piace mangiare bene ma, se vuoi davvero far felice il tuo setter…  lascialo libero! Il suo muso simpatico diventerà un felice muso simpatico e lui inizierà ad esplorare. Un setter inglese libero non starà a preoccuparsi del padrone. Sono cani che guardano Discovery Channel, sanno benissimo che noi possiamo cavarcela da soli mentre loro sono impegnati a esplorare il mondo, trovare selvatici… ci sono un sacco di cose interessanti in campagna! Dare libertà a un setter inglese è un po’ come portare un maiale in un ristorante all you can eat, o regalare a una donna la carta di credito di qualcun altro! Così tanto entusiasmo mette a dura prova il controllo!

Un setter inglese libero può prestarvi più attenzione se portate un fucile: i cani usati a caccia sanno fare gioco di squadra e la maggior parte di loro è felice di andare a recuperare un selvatico abbattuto. È così che la maggior parte dei cacciatori controlla il proprio setter. Le cose diventano più complicare se non avete armi con voi: il setter (o il pointer), non trae beneficio dalla vostra presenza… ed è questa la parte che mi piace di più! Perché qui entrano in gioco la relazione, l’addestramento e la fiducia RECIPROCA.

Relazione: beh, è elementare, devi avere una relazione con il tuo cane! Lui deve avere fiducia in te (fiducia reciproca, vedi sotto), perché sa che non limiterai la sua libertà, per lo meno non troppo. Lui tornerà da te, o eseguirà i tuoi ordini, e poi sarà di nuovo libero.

Addestramento: l’importanza dell’addestramento non deve mai essere sottostimata. Insegnare a uno spirito libero un richiamo efficace non è facile. Ma sono la prova vivente che l’essere umano modello base può farcela.

Fiducia: sta alla base di tutto. È quello che ti permette di lasciare libero il tuo cane sapendo che tornerà. Devi davvero credere al tuo setter: alcune persone vanno in panico quando vedono quanto forte e lontano questi cani possano andare. Ma se davvero vuoi bene a “qualcuno”, e specialmente se “qualcuno” vive per la libertà… lascialo libero!