RUSTIC CANE
CORSO:
~Rural worker - Farmer's friend~
The following is a letter I had written to the
Scandinavian publisher of a canine website specific
to the Molosser group after I found that he had been
posting articles in his Cane Corso pages that were
aimed at damaging the reputation and credibility of
probably the largest Cane Corso club in the world
-the International Cane Corso Federation- which had
been organized in North America with the advice,
help, and assistance of Michael Sottile, the man who
1st brought the Cane Corso to the Americas, and whose
family had formerly emigrated from Italy.
From: TheColosseum@webtv.net (Randall C. Todd)
Date: Fri, May 8, 1998, 1:08pm
To: Kare Konradsen
Subject: Fwd: Rustic Cane Corso: rural worker,
farmer's friend
Kare,
Below, you will find two sections. Don't miss
either one. They concern the TRUE ITALIAN FARM
Cane Corso.
I have read so much hearsay, so much
assumptive musings by people "in the know" (Doctors
-whom everyone assumes to be infalliable because of
their title... 'dog show people' who automatically
know it all and have 'set the standard' for many a
good, sound working breed-- and have bred the work
right out of them (and the negative traits right
in)... breeders with a poor competitive spirit, $$$
signs in their heads, and misrepresentations &
falsehoods on their breath. ALL OF THE ABOVE have had
their negative impact on the best of breeds-- yeah,
we can name them... German Shepherd, Rottweiler, etc.
...The Cane Corso is next.
I read the Corso section of your Molosser site, along
with the accompanying article you posted by the
"anonymous" (I wonder why??) "new-to-the-breed" Cane
Corso "puppy shopper" who was just a tad-bit
suspiciously over-educated about the recent history
of the breed as he attempted to slander and
misrepresent the Cane Corso lines being bred here in
America. C'mon Kare, it's obvious to anyone who knows
anything of the history of the rivalry started by
the Italian club when they saw the popularity of
the Cane Corso really start to balloon in America (we
all know the market for this breed is weak in it's
homeland and practically non-existant everywhere
else, but has been growing astoundingly fast here in
the United States)... and the Italian club watched
with envy as it was the American breeders who were
the ones supplying the growing demand for
THEIR breed... While we Americans have watched
as the Italians have so desperately and vainly
attempted to discredit the American lines so as to
gain a share of what they consider to be their
market for their dogs... Yeah, it's obvious to
anyone who is aware of all this and has seen
first-hand and with their own eyes some of the nasty
poor-spirited attempts by those who claim allegience
to the Italian club to debase the American lines,
that this "new-to-the-breed" American Cane Corso
"puppy shopper" who submitted that slanderous article
that you posted is undoubtedly someone who is in some
way affiliated with the Italian club with an agenda
to badmouth the American club's dogs in the vain hope
of convincing the unknowledgable American public that
there are no "good" Cane Corsos in the United States.
They've already attempted to convince us that there
are no "pure" Corsos in America. This is obviously
just another slanderous attempt. But nothing
surprises me
anymore... where money is involved ANYTHING can
happen (or better said-- where money is involved
ANYTHING GOES- particularly if you fly the Italian
club flag!).
WHO AM I??
I don't have "Dr." in front of my name (but neither
do the REAL experts of the breed-- rural Italian
farmers and country folk who developed, owned,
hunted, and worked the Corso for centuries)...
I'm not a 'dog show person' in search of the perfect
'COOKIE-CUTTER' physical specimin (neither were the
rural Italian country folk-- they were looking for
Corsos that could WORK- small,medium, or large-
pretty or not)... I don't even consider myself a real
'breeder' as I have only one pair -two of the
soundest, most stable Corsos in the world- who are
companions to me and my kids first and foremost. ...I
am just a regular guy... a lover of the true
rustic Italian Cane Corso... with an
ability to read and research and to go a step
beyond: to THINK and REASON with just alot of
plain old COMMON SENSE. More people ought to try it-
especially those dog show types who think they know
it all (even if they have "Dr." in front of their
name)... we'd save more breeds from inevitable ruin
if they could. Ah, but alas, they've probably been
too narrowly selectively bred themselves...
Read on if you are truly interested in the real
Cane Corso- rural worker, farmer's friend...
From: TheColosseum@webtv.net (Randall C. Todd)
Date: Sun, Apr 26, 1998, 11:45am
To: TheColosseum@webtv.net
Subject: Fwd: Rustic Cane Corso: rural worker,
farmer's friend
Just a note I would like to add to the following
treatise/expose'...
When Michael Sottile first introduced the Cane Corso
to the American public back
in 1988, they took the shows by storm... As the
author states in his book 'A Celebration of Rare
Breeds, Vol.II': "...the breed is fast becoming the
dog to beat at rare breed shows."
We would do well to keep in mind that the very dogs
winning those shows -the Sottile's first Corsos in
America- had come DIRECTLY from the rural Italian
farm... NO NARROW SELECTIVE BREEDING NEEDED... NO
IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY!!
This breed is so good, so sound, because they are yet
a pure and undefiled working breed... developed and
perfected over the centuries by farmers (NOT SHOW
PEOPLE) who kept the gene pool strong & healthy by
breeding for temperament and physical soundness
rather than any particular size or physical
characteristics. ALL SIZES (small males 100-114-lbs,
medium males 115-129-lbs, AND large 130-140+) AND ALL
PHYSICAL TYPES were utilized and bred on the farms of
rural Italy- SO LONG AS THEY WERE SOUND- SO LONG AS
THEY COULD PERFORM THEIR DUTIES! This breed is as
strong, healthy, and sound as it is because of the
VARIETY of genetics allowed to propogate & mix within
the breed. THIS IS CHANGING...
As the breed has now been "discovered", there are
some now involved with
the breed (yet relatively few in number) who are
intent on 'forcing' the breed into a VERY NARROW
standard for "show" purposes. This treatise is
written as a "WORD OF WARNING" and "a voice of
reason"...
LET THE BREED ALONE!!!!!!!!
This breed is sound and beautiful- of spirit AND
body. They have come to us that way from the Italian
farm thru the refinement of centuries of use. Any
attempt at correction by excessive selective breeding
for ANY specific size -large, medium, OR SMALL- is
nothing less than Tampering!
Sincerely,
Randall C. Todd
COLOSSEUM SHADOWS
---CANE CORSO----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tucson, Arizona
From: TheColosseum@webtv.net (Randall C. Todd)
Date: Sun, Apr 26, 1998, 1:58am
To: TheColosseum@webtv.net
Subject: Rustic Cane Corso: rural worker, farmer's
friend
Will the REAL Cane Corso please stand
up! ! !
In response to the confusion and questions generated
by a second, smaller, narrower, and much more
restrictive physical conformation standard for the
Cane Corso... and the further muddying of the issue
caused by the intentional misrepresentation of one of
the club's standards by a breeder from "the other
club" intent on tearing it down...
First of all, BOTH of the standards are based on
true, rural, working Italian farm dogs. The question
is probably best asked, "which of the two most
accurately represents that which is found working
beside the Italian farmer- the developer and sole
owner of the breed for centuries?"
Thru all those centuries there was never a physical
conformation standard for the breed (until 1988-89).
Farmers don't show their dogs- they work them... and
that's the ONLY thing they bred for- Temperament &
Intelligence, workability & ability to learn. The
average farmer (and that includes nearly ALL of them)
doesn't have the time nor the inclination to "show".
I suppose that might have a LITTLE something to do
with why there was never a standard for them until
ten years ago.
So! when you breed ONLY for the NONVISUAL traits and
characteristics of temperament & intelligence and for
the ability to accomplish the task, WHAT HAPPENS?...
You end up with a breed that is VERY stable of
temperament and is workable and pliable (common to
all unspoiled true working dogs),, AND IS IN
POSSESSION OF A WIDE VARIETY OF PHYSICAL TYPES,
CHARACTERISTICS,
AND SIZES!!! It is ONLY when a breed is FORCED into a
narrower physical conformation (for SHOW purposes-
for aesthetics) through the selective breeding of
FEWER, more SPECIFIC physical types and traits that
we spoil or ruin good working breeds (and it is show
people that are responsible for narrowing physical
conformation, NOT farmers). Not only are there more
problems with temperament & workability that can crop
up thru narrow selective breeding for specific
physical traits, but ALSO, upon narrowing a physical
standard, we must reckon with any of the negative
genetic problems that tend to piggyback along with
the condensed gene pool of that narrowed physical
standard.
The first standard- the ORIGINAL standard (the
standard adopted by the ICCF) for this rustic, rural,
working Italian farm animal incorporated the broader
range of physical type common to the breed (and
indeed, common to ALL true working farmer's dogs).
Probably the most obvious example of this would be
the WIDE RANGE of size found in the breed on the
Italian farm and reflected in the original standard
that is embraced by the ICCF which states: "MALE DOGS
TO BE FROM 100 LBS". This FACT (the varied size of
the dogs on the Italian farm AND the incorporation of
this wide weight range in the standard of the ICCF)
is CONTRARY to what is stated in the ad of one of
those "show" people in California who is affiliated
with those few who are pushing for the acceptance of
that new MUCH narrowed and so-called "Italian" show
standard that has recently cropped up. In his 1998
Dogs USA ad he not only infers that most of the
breeders in the U.S. (his competition) are selling
impure Corso/Neo mixes, but he also boldly states
that the "goals of the ICCF as a club are to breed
the 150+lb type Cane Corso". Now I don't make it a
practice to badmouth ANY breeder or club -OR LIE
ABOUT THEM (I do in fact accept BOTH club's dogs as
being 'Cane Corso'), but when one starts to sling
false accusations and garbage at the other, I will
defend the one being slandered... And I will say
concerning the statement in the ad of one Brian Borg
of Medieval Mastiffs regarding the ICCF's "goals as a
club": that Brian has lowered himself to the practice
of intentional misrepresentation- he has knowingly
given false information here and is counting on your
ignorance to get you to swallow it. Now at this point
I would suggest that as you read the following
revelations, you should bear in mind and remember
that Brian also claims in the same ad that, "We pride
ourselves on operating with the highest ethical and
moral standard."... Well Brian, *We Shall
See*!...
Just what ARE the breeding practices of the ICCF? I
can't think of a better example to cite than that of
Ed & Kris Hodas of Bel Monte Cane Corso (who just
happen to be Target #1 of the slanders of Mr.Medieval
Mastiff [Brian Borg]). Though he may not particularly
like my tagging him with such a name, I consider Ed
to be Mr.ICCF himself as he was very instrumental in
the organization of the club and in it's continued
operation. Ed Hodas is as "ICCF" as you can get! He
was head of the club under the blessing of Michael
Sottile, the original importer of the breed to the
Americas. That fact alone -the trust Mr.Sottile
placed in Ed's desires for the breed- speaks much of
the enthusiasm and concern the Hodas' obviously have
for the Corso as I will venture to say that there is
NOBODY who admires the Cane Corso as much, or is as
proud of them, as was Michael Sottile, the man who
sought high & low along the backroads of rural Italy
in search of the best Cane Corsos he could find...
which Corsos
eventually became America's first! Michael Sottile
was the 1st to bring them across and establish them
on American soil, and naturally had a strong desire
to preserve and protect their soundness & quality. So
what is Bel Monte doing with the trust Michael
Sottile has placed in them?...
Through the years Ed & Kris have consistently
utilized a breeding program which incorporates the
best, most sound studs and bitches of ALL sizes,
maintaining a strong VARIED gene pool, WHICH IS
IDENTICAL TO THE WAY THEY ARE BRED ON THE FARMS OF
ITALY. While Ed has a personal preference for
medium-large to large size
Corsos (130 to 145+lbs), he does not selectively
breed ONLY those sizes (remember, Mr.Borg has lead
you to believe, and wants you to think, that Ed's
program [as well as everyone else's] is geared only
for "150+lb Cane Corsos")... THE TRUTH: Ed's
most prolific champion producing stud dog through the
years- the one probably used more frequently than any
of his others, was Ch.Rocco, who at 115-lbs, is just
under the average weight of the true working farmer's
Corso (now that's a FAR cry from Mr.Borg's
accusation!). Ed has also
consistently utilized several very sound 120-130-lb
studs (still, NOT EVEN CLOSE to the false claims of
Brian Borg). I believe that from the way Ed's
breeding program has been handled, that his priority
most certainly must be SOUNDNESS, ABILITY, & QUALITY
over weight! It mirrors the philosophy and practice
of the Italian farmers who breed for soundness above
weight.
What Brian did in his ad is the same as if an ICCF
breeder had said that the goal of the new so-called
"Itialian" standard folks is to breed Corsos with a
maximum weight of 70-lbs!! That would be a
misrepresentation as well, as the standard for their
males is 99-110lbs ...unless Mr.Borg is lying to us
about that too- I have quoted their standard from his
own ad.
I personally know of some 115-lb ICCF champion males
(Bel Monte's Ch.Rocco is one of them. My Primus'
grandfather- 2xCh.Czardus Di Morte is another- and
though he's never been shown, Primus himself is a
115.lb male Corso)... I know of MANY 120-125-lb ICCF
champion males and several at a 125-130... I know of
FEWER 130-135lb ICCF champion males... and fewer
still at 140+lbs!!! Those at 140+ lbs are more rare
than the more average sized ones (and that's as it
should be).
The above facts are what define the ICCF's "goals as
a club", not something Mr.Borg dreams up out of a
poor competitive spirit because the "other club's"
dogs are more popular or sell quicker. I am very sure
that the goals of the ICCF breeders are, as always,
TO PRODUCE DOGS WORTHY OF CHAMPIONSHIPS (and
championships are awarded to neither "impure" mixed
breeds, nor to UNSOUND dogs). And if it's 120-135-lb
Corsos that are taking most of the points and
championships, than THAT is the
"weightiest" factor [pun intended] in determining the
ICCF's "goals as a club"! If an ICCF breeder had said
that Brian's club's goals were to breed Corsos with a
maximum weight of 70-lbs, I would have the same thing
to say about them- that they were lying and lacked
integrity. Brian's dogs ARE Corsos and so are the
ICCF dogs. Brian and a couple of other breeders
simply "force" breed (my term for excessive
selectivity) to a much more narrowed standard than
the ICCF. The only problems I have with the new
so-called "Italian" standard are...
- It isn't an accurate reflection of the variety of
type and size to be found working the farms of Italy.
Again, it is a rustic breed, bred for
centuries to NO PHYSICAL standard (there wasn't one),
but rather to
the nonvisual characteristics needed for -and common
to- all working breeds. With that type of breeding
you NATURALLY get a broader range of physical
characteristics. The first Corsos to the western
hemisphere came to the USA in 1988 & '89. These were
two separate litters that were imported directly from
Italy...
The first litter -in '88- consisting of 16 puppies, 6
of which became champions:
- Ballo Orso, 135-lbs
- Cocomo, 130-lbs
- Duro, 125-lbs
- Bruno, 125-lbs
- Tori, 115-120-lbs
- and Malocchia, the only female champion in the
litter.
The second litter came in '89. I am familiar with two
of them:
Tara, a female... and Santino, a male, who was a nice
pointed dog, but just couldn't quite compete with the
six champions in the
first litter and never finished with a championship.
When the dogs of these two litters matured, they were
paired together and became the foundation stock of
the Cane Corso in this country and in Canada. In
subsequent years new imports were brought in to add
to the gene pool. They are typical ICCF dogs as the
conformation standard accepted by the ICCF WAS
DEVELOPED FROM THESE TWO LITTERS which again were
imported to the U.S.
directly from the Italian farm...
Here is an interesting tid-bit for you: Santino, the
male from
the second (1989) litter -an ICCF conforming dog who
has produced MANY ICCF conforming dogs of 115-140lbs-
was obtained by a man in California and used as the
foundation stud and core of his breeding program.
That man is none other than Brian Borg of Medieval
Mastiffs!... There is no doubt he has had to cull the
majority of pups in his litters from his breeding
program as the breed naturally (AS THEY HAVE FOR
CENTURIES) produces dogs weighing in excess of the
much narrowed and smaller standard of his new
so-called "Italian" standard (which narrowed standard
"condenses" the gene pool creating the potential for
the genetic problems that have been the bane of some
of the finest and most popular of the working breeds-
the Rottweiler and the German Shepherd. Leave it up
to show-type folks and you will have "compromise" of
some very important things in their relentless
pursuit of PHYSICAL PERFECTION!).
- Another problem that a second and later standard
causes is CONFUSION (hence, your questions). It also
causes CONFLICT (hence, Brian's attempt at unethical
undermining [the lies] of another club's standard-
which happens to possess the original and much more
REALISTIC broader standard for this working breed).
**It's instructive to note that those in possession
of
the more accurate view (in ANY field) don't usually
resort to slander and untruth... they don't have to-
they have truth and COMMON SENSE on their side.
- As mentioned at the end of point '(1)' and
earlier, I'm not interested in having to deal with
the problems that can ride along with condensed gene
pools. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF MY POINTS
AGAINST the second Italian standard.
*A note about dysplasia: Dysplasia -or any other
negative genetic trait for that matter- is NOT caused
ONLY by breeding exclusively for large size. Even
frequent or excessively occuring dysplasia is not
caused ONLY by breeding selectively for large size,
BUT RATHER BY BREEDING SELECTIVELY FOR "SPECIFIC"
SIZE... "ANY" SPECIFIC SIZE! Whether a person breeds
ONLY for large size... or SPECiFICALLY for medium
size... or EXCLUSIVELY for small size... it doesn't
make a difference: If the gene is present in the line
dysplasia WILL rear its ugly head, occur more
frequently, and have to be dealt with. To narrow a
standard to the breeding of ONLY those specimins of
SPECIFIC SIZE (be it large, medium, OR SMALL)
condenses the gene pool and has the tendency to
magnify ANY negative genetic traits piggybacking
along- including dysplasia. Smaller Rottweilers can
have dysplasia as well as medium sized or larger
Rotties. Smaller Corsos can be afflicted as well. It
is the same for all of the breeds that carry the gene
for dysplasia. One of the keys to keeping the
negative trait of dysplasia "diluted" and the monster
of frequent & excessively occuring dysplasia "at bay"
is to avoid too much
narrowing of a breed's physical standard (the 1992
"Italian" standard -males 99-110-lbs- is an example
of a VERY overly narrowed standard)... We should ALL
know better than to breed ONLY small specimins, or
ONLY medium sized ones, or ONLY large ones.
Especially among the working breeds physical
conformation should be left largely as they have been
developed by the usually rural peoples who have bred
them and worked them, sometimes for centuries.
It is true that for these particular breeds -the
breeds subject to dysplasia (Rotties & G.Shepherds)-
most of the selective breeding that has taken place
has been to obtain larger specimins of each
particular breed. These type breeds are generally
desired by people who lke big dogs. And since most of
the selective breeding has been towards obtaining
larger dogs, that is where we begin to see the more
frequent occurances of dysplasia. HOWEVER, it is JUST
AS TRUE that if a breeder or club chooses to narrow
the physical conformation standard of a breed to the
using of ONLY the SMALLEST specimins for breeding- to
FORCE a line or a breed into a smaller size, then ANY
NEGATIVE TRAITS THAT ARE PRESENT -SUCH AS DYSPLASIA-
WILL BE MAGNIFIED. and will begin to occur AS
FREQUENTLY as when breeding ONLY for LARGE size.
Therefore the best approach is to avoid overly
selective breeding practices and utilize in our
breeding programs ALL sizes available in a rustic
working breed- large, medium, AND small... so long as
they are sound in mind and body.
- I like an average sized Corso (120-130-lbs)
better than a smaller one. That's just a matter of
personal taste... a smaller Corso can do as good a
job (with cattle... NOT necessarily large boar or
bear) and be as good a companion to the family. But a
130+lb Corso can handle an intruder more effectively
than a 100-lb dog... and UNQUESTIONABLY be a more
visual deterrent!
Sincerely,
Randall C. Todd
COLOSSEUM SHADOWS
---CANE CORSO----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tucson, Arizona
<--BACK--
If you've just arrived at this page from a
search engine or a webpage outside the
COLOSSEUM SHADOWS website, use the following link to begin your tour of the
COLOSSEUM SHADOWS™ Cane Corso website:
__________________________©1996, Randall C. Todd__________________________
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
