Bruce, a Clumber spaniel, circa 1880.
This image of Bruce comes from Stonehenge’s The Dogs of Great Britain, America, and Other Countries (circa 1880). His image is used to depict what an ideal specimen of his breed should look like, which is very similar to these modern working-type Clumbers in the UK. Imagine that!
The modern Clumber spaniel that one sees in the ring is result of breeding the exaggerated massive type. In essence, turning what is likely a derivative of the original red and white spaniel of England into a Molosser spaniel. The claim that these dogs came from some French nobleman sounds very dubious– a bit like the Russian circus dog theory that was so popular among golden retriever fancier. Red and white spaniels– even those of the old Clumber type– are rather common in the art work of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. One big reason to doubt the French origins theory is that France has no flushing spaniels. All of the dogs called “epagneul” from France would be better classified as HPR’s. They are not spaniels as we Anglo-Saxons know them.
Also of note in the Stonehenge piece is the discussion of the Clumber spaniel’s size:
The Clumber Spaniel, which for a long time was confined to the Newcastle family, but has lately become very fashionable, is a remarkably long, low, and somewhat heavy dog. In weight he is from 30 to 40 lbs. Height 18 to 20 inches (pg. 112-113). [Emphasis is the result of my editorial commentary].
If one peruses the AKC standard, the height hasn’t changed at all– still 18-20 inches at the shoulder.
But the weight goes from 55 to 70 pounds for bitches and from 65 to 85 pounds for dogs!
Do the math on that.
The height has remained the same, but the weight has more than doubled!
The show ring has selected for a much more massive dog than the original animals were, and it is very likely that this massive size never would have cut the mustard with the Dukes of Newcastle.
No other spaniel approaches this weight, though the heaviest Irish water spaniel dogs do approach 70 pounds. And the maximum height for an IWS is 24 inches at the shoulder, which is significantly taller than the Clumber, which could have him outclassed by 15 pounds or more.
The maximum weight for a Labrador in the AKC is 8o pounds, but their maximum height is 24.5 inches at the shoulder. And labs have that conformation– at least in part– so they can handle swimming in very cold water. Though they are often used as flushing dogs, that was not their primary purpose.
Unlike the Clumber spaniel.
There is no real reason for the massive size in Clumber spaniels– except for the vanities and caprices of the fancy. And as I noted earlier, the large size and heavy build are handicaps for a spaniel working on land. Allen’s rule and Bergmann’s rule have a corollaries we shouldn’t ignore in domestic dogs. A big dog that has shorter limbs and a more heavily built body is going to overheat much more easily than a more gracile one or a smaller one. Those are simple biological facts. Dogs overheat much more easily than humans do. 75 degrees Fahrenheit is a heatwave for many dogs– especially if they are running hard.
No one is saying the these dogs should be English springers.
But they shouldn’t be St. Bernards masquerading as spaniels.
Stop handicapping breeds with mythology. There is no evidence that these dogs are French or have St. Bernard in them, though both may have evolved from a Swiss spaniel breed. The Germans do have a tradition of a flushing spaniel, which currently manifests itself in the Wachtelhund breed. Perhaps the Swiss had a similar dog and when that was bred with the red and white Sennenhund-type, that became the St. Bernard as we know it today.
Believing that the Clumber spaniel is a St. Bernard derivative has resulted in the institutionalization of massiveness within the breed standard, and extreme conformation in the ring either leads to obsolescence, as is the case with the Sussex spaniel, or type variances, as we have seen in English springers and English cockers.
This is why breed history is important. One very hard to believe story about a breed’s origins can have great effects upon how the breed is developed.
Historical narratives give certain ideas about conformation more power than others.
And that’s why we have to get right. And the only way to get it right is to ask questions.
And in dogs, asking questions gets you in trouble!
We all know the Clumbers bred for the show ring are actually working dogs designed to aid the British in conquering Asia. Otherwise would they need such heavyset flushing spaniels?
I means… You know those dogs could had saved Roland Temblo and his people on Isla Sorna if they actually took those dogs with them on the expedition.
Yes, they could have used them as decoys while they ran away. “Look, slow moving snacks!”
First the Neapolitan, now the Clumber, have you no shame?
If it isn’t height it’s weight. Sometimes the national clubs stop, look and try their best to fix a problem. Other national clubs plough forward to extinction.
To be fair, the current ESS standard calls for 18-20 and 40-50lbs. The AWS is 15-18 and 30- 45. This is about the same for most medium dogs that require agility.
Bruce certainly looks more heavy set than than 20 inches and 40lbs. Maybe 60lbs. No, they should not be 85 pounds, but I doubt they came in under 40 either.
150 years ago, they probably were 18 inches and 35-40 pounds.
I think these are within that 18 inch and 40-45 pound range.
Judging from the photos I’ve seen, 20 inches is a bit of a stretch for height. I’d say they are more like 16 to 18 inches, 35 to 50 pounds.
A bassetish spaniel.
Most of the older books I looked through gave 65lbs as a top weight for males. Still, that added twenty pounds is a LOT of weight. If I added twenty pounds to one of my dogs, and I have large, big framed dogs, it would definitely affect their performance. Probably their heat tolerance, as well.
Thanks retrieverman for asking the questions and taking the heat. I love sporting dogs but the Clumber Spaniel has never made it onto my list because it just looks so “un-athletic” I don’t mean to offend any Clumber lovers but it seems to me that the show ring Clumber no longer fits under the category sporting breed.
I think that allot of breeders are just trying to meet demand and that there is more demand these days for lovely couch potatoes than for a hunting dog. Many people can’t handle the liveliness of a sporting dog but love their willing to please nature. I think that is why so many breeds now have a “teddy bear” factor going on. …meaning no offence here.
you see the same trend with Corgis as well (compare them to the less popular and less impacted valhund or the “Landcastershire heeler”. In fact, it’s always a bit surprising that it hasn’t happened to dachshunds.
I’ll note that my 25″ Belgian weighs 51 pounds (weighed at the vets on a calabrated scale). This is a dog in working weight and structured for working.
Peggy Richter
Could the increase in bone/heaviness of some breeds be a side effect for people selecting for younger and younger show dogs? A pup that looks more ‘adult’ at a younger age (and who grows into a more overdone adult) may be preferred by many rather than waiting 1-2 years for a more moderate/lighter individual to fill in. The result is that over time, the breed becomes very heavy and exagerrated at maturity, and only really looks the best when it’s young.
Yes.
I’ve thought that this was very much the case with goldens, which aren’t fully mature until they are three.
As one of the few people who actually owns, dare I say it, an actual working Clumber, or as near to one as you are likely to get, I have to say that no one single canine subject as more rubbish talked about it than The Clumber, and what makes it even more annoying, usually by people who have never seen one, let alone seen one working. I get asked about my “Cumberland Spaniel” at game fairs and the like and then told about all their weaknesses.
The usual top three are that they are slow, take ages to mature and are unathletic. They are slower than the mainstream spaniels but not slow. Tam retrieved his first woodcock one November and his first birthday wasn’t until 27th January, the next year, and I almost forgot he produced the bird as well to be shot. Waiting to be fed Tam can get his hind legs four foot off the ground. Yes four foot.
IF you value a dog by what it produces we started eating Tam’s (and Chris”)harvesting of natures bounty at the beginning of the last shooting season 1st October 2010. That season ended 31st January and I reckon we have another month’s supply left and we eat game maybe twice a week.
Tam’s party peace is to lift fallen trees, maybe a foot in diamiater, to flush pheasants. Maybe twice a season he does that. I’m impressed that he can work out the method to do this but I am estatic that he has the drive to do it as well.
What some folk seem to forget is that a lot of the criticism of the failure of pet/show dogs is really down to the owners. Not in a month of Sundays would the owner ever think about allowing their dog to hunt cover so surprise surprise they won’t hunt it a people blame it on the dog.
The comments about size and weight are right but you have to look at the whole ball of wax. Tam, slightly thinned down since the end of the season is 27 kgs today but he’s as fit as a flea and as strong as an ox.
At the end of the day breeding for form without worrying about the function will cause a decline in the effectiveness of the breed.
I’ll leave it for now but I’m willing to discuss this with anybody who is prepared to come to the table with an open mind.
Tam isn’t a saint by any means but he is a very effective gundog.