What Constitutes A "pit Bull Terrier"

[ricey]

I'm sure he went via "Ivy'?

I still keep a framed pic of him in the kids playroom for them.

If he went via Ivy, then chances are that he stayed with me for a time. I was the pick up person for Ivy's rescue pit bulls at the Perth airport. A lot of Ivy's dogs spent a little time with my pit bull Hobbes, and with my dingo/kelpie/ferret cross Lizzie, and my Maltese/Shih Tsu/Silkie cross Lulu. I'd have to say that only Lulu scared the pit bulls.

"Ivy" is Ivy Bilos who lives in Kalgoorlie.

Ivy spent literally over $100,000 dollars paying for the air fares and rehoming costs for dozens and dozens of pit bulls from NSW, Queensland, Victoria, ACT, and South Australia. And then there are the dozens and dozens of pit bulls from WA that she paid for to get rehomed here.

Ivy is a god; we should all worship her for what she has done for our breed in Australia. I am honoured to count Ivy as a friend. She is still going to bat for our breed and I know that she always will.

ricey

[juice]

Yes, she stepped up pretty fast when i posted him for help getting him out of NSW.

I had had several inquiries for him, all exactly where i didn't want him to go, one even got aggro with me, so wanted him to get out of the area.

I think he may have gone to a new home quickly though, a girl who had split from her boyfriend who took the dogs had him, she sent me pics when he was grown up, will see if i can find them.

[ricey]

Yes, she stepped up pretty fast when i posted him for help getting him out of NSW.

I had had several inquiries for him, all exactly where i didn't want him to go, one even got aggro with me, so wanted him to get out of the area.

I think he may have gone to a new home quickly though, a girl who had split from her boyfriend who took the dogs had him, she sent me pics when he was grown up, will see if i can find them.

Hi Juice,

Ivy would have had no problem rehoming a lovely dog like Nudge. Ivy was really fussy about who she would rehome dogs to, and there was no chance that a d#ckhead would get a dog from Ivy. So Nudge would have gone to a good owner.

You have to worry about where the dog ends up; maybe the aggro person you mention had plans for Nudge that don't bear thinking about. I've had d#ckheads ask me "do you want to fight him?" when they see Hobbes. FFS! Hobbes is my best mate, and no, I don't want to effing fight him scumbag! This breed sometimes attracts people who don't deserve to be called people.

Pah! People! Some times I think that there are some people that I would not p!ss on if they were on fire and most times I think that dogs behave more honorably than a lot of people. The old line is, "dogs are a man's best friend" but some humans are certainly not a dog's best friend.

Hey, I am getting old and a bit jaded and if I sound a bit down on humanity at the moment I am sorry. I am quietly surprised at the amount of sh!t that dogs put up with from humans. All dogs are well equipped in the mouth and teeth department and I am surprised (but pleased) with how few dogs bite people.

ricey

[juice]

Yes i live with attracting idiots to my breed too, they come up and ask about her, "oh yeah, they have lock jaw don't they"

I have even walked straight past my house once with her when i was being followed by some guys in a car, i was worried they were waiting to see where she lived.

The first thing i tell people is she is desexed, and loves other dogs, not a mean bone in her body, they soon lose interest. :)

[Rocketeer]

Yes the Apbt/Amstaff is Bull and Terrier. Some Apbts are small and thin, they look almost like Whippets. Yet some can look like mastiffs. Who's to say one or the other is wrong. Everyone has their own preference and that's great. Yes some colours have been overbred (like red-nosed Apbts), at least that lets the better breeders know what they don't want to aim for. Although conformation was not a big consideration in breeding of game-bred Apbts I do believe in a balanced body for a healthy and happy pet.

I have to agree you Rocketeer; nearly all the rescue APBTs from NSW that I dealt with were red nosed fawn. I guess that all the council rangers found them easy to identify and so over breeding this type of APBT was not good for them. Most Australians seem to think that all APBTs are buckskin with red noses

I agree with you about sizes of APBTs; the UKC breed standard for APBTs allows for a huge range in height and weight

Desirable weight for a mature male in good condition is between 35 and 60 pounds. Desirable weight for a mature female in good condition is between 30 and 50 pounds.

As a general and approximate guideline only, the desirable height range for mature males is from 18 to 21 inches at the withers; for mature females it is from 17 to 20 inches at the withers.

It is important to note that dogs over or under these weight and height ranges are not to be penalized unless they are disproportionately massive or rangy.

The ADBA breed standard does not even mention weight or height , but emphasises balance in all aspects

Above all, the American Pit Bull Terrier should appear to be an all around athlete. His body is called upon for speed, power, agility and stamina. He must be balanced in all directions. Too much of one thing, robs him of another. In his ideal form, he is a thing of beauty.

I think we both agree that when the APBT is not agile and athletic, they become lesser examples of the breed. 35 pound lower limit for males is a touch under 16 kilos; 60 pounds is a touch over 27 kilos.. In my dreams I think of when the breed restrictions are finally repealed that both ends of the APBT spectrum will become available. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

It is good talking with you.

Cheers,

ricey

There is a range of shapes, sizes, colours, types, drives, abilities, energy levels within the Apbt breed. It's is a breed that is not well defined and everyone has their own idea of what a 'real' Apbt is. I think variety is the spice of life and with pets in general; you pick the right type for you.

[juice]

I beg to disagree, not making it more defined leave's the breed open to too many variable's, some not great.

I don't want to see a dog with a chest so wide it can't move, or a head so big it look like a freak.

In my own breed the standard size has gotten so big that the mini is now more the size of the BT's i grew up with, size is not everything :laugh:

[Rocketeer]

I beg to disagree, not making it more defined leave's the breed open to too many variable's, some not great.

I don't want to see a dog with a chest so wide it can't move, or a head so big it look like a freak.

In my own breed the standard size has gotten so big that the mini is now more the size of the BT's i grew up with, size is not everything :laugh:

Variety is not only more fun it also drives creativity and growth. If no one ever went outside the lines I think we'd all be walking around with purebred, true to type Wolf Dogs. Imagine if there was only one type of dog, one size, one colour. How would you know you prefer Small dogs? There will be no 'Small dog' because there is only a one Dog Size fits all. What a boring world.

I think the BT wouldn't be what it is today if someone didn't say- " I want a smaller, solid,strong/lean, short furred Dog with an egg shaped head". It would be the BT it was before. And some will say that todays BT is ugly and impractical. But hey variety is the Spice of life.

[GeckoTree]

I like BT miniatures. They are the BT 'Normal' size that I remember. Maybe just a smidge larger.

GT.

[ricey]

Hi all,

I guess this discussion we are having is very much "on topic". The original poster did ask 'what constitutes an APBT?'

Historically, the APBT has been bred to a performance standard rather than a conformation standard. Generally speaking, this has been a good thing for our breed as they have been bred for their working abilities rather than their looks. There have been some positive outcomes with regard to the health of our breed. The two most accepted breed standards for American Pit Bull Terriers are the United Kennel Club's breed standard, and the American Dog Breeders Association breed standard. Some would say that the ANKC American Staffordshire Terrier breed standard also describes American Pit Bull Terriers and I guess this is true to a degree. However, the ANKC American Staffordshire Terrier breed standard is a show and conformation standard and not a working dog standard.

I am in two minds here; I'm working out what I think as I type :laugh: . Part of me thinks that it does not matter what an American Pit Bull Terrier looks like as long as it comes from pure bred APBT lines and is an athlete, but part of me thinks that some dogs that are called American Pit Bull Terriers are so overly large that they couldn't lick their own nuts. And you'd have to agree that any dog who can't do that is really not a dog

The UKC breed standard does mention ideal sizes and weights, but also states that bigger dogs should not be penalised as long as they are not overly massive or out of proportion. The ADBA standard (which both my gut and my head tell me is the better standard) does not mention size or weight at all, but states that the APBT should be both an athlete and a thing of beauty.

You can google the UKC and ADBA breed standards and make up your own minds. My personal preference is for APBTs that are under 26kg and athletic (if I dieted and worked Hobbes he'd probably be no more than 23kg) but I also had a rescue American Pit Bull Terrier come through my yard that probably weighed nearly 40kg. I know this dog's breeder and I know his lineage, and he is a fine athletic dog. If you looked at this dog, you'd have to say "American Pit Bull Terrier".

So, I'm having a bet each way here; I know what my personal preference is for APBTs, but I am not about to say that other peoples preferences are wrong. Each to their own.

ricey

(edited for spelling and grammar)

Edited May 19, 2013 by ricey

[Rocketeer]

Hi all,

I guess this discussion we are having is very much "on topic". The original poster did ask 'what constitutes an APBT?'

Historically, the APBT has been bred to a performance standard rather than a conformation standard. Generally speaking, this has been a good thing for our breed as they have been bred for their working abilities rather than their looks. There have been some positive outcomes with regard to the health of our breed. The two most accepted breed standards for American Pit Bull Terriers are the United Kennel Club's breed standard, and the American Dog Breeders Association breed standard. Some would say that the ANKC American Staffordshire Terrier breed standard also describes American Pit Bull Terriers and I guess this is true to a degree. However, the ANKC American Staffordshire Terrier breed standard is a show and conformation standard and not a working dog standard.

I am in two minds here; I'm working out what I think as I type :laugh: . Part of me thinks that it does not matter what an American Pit Bull Terrier looks like as long as it comes from pure bred APBT lines and is an athlete, but part of me thinks that some dogs that are called American Pit Bull Terriers are so overly large that they couldn't lick their own nuts. And you'd have to agree that any dog who can't do that is really not a dog

The UKC breed standard does mention ideal sizes and weights, but also states that bigger dogs should not be penalised as long as they are not overly massive or out of proportion. The ADBA standard (which both my gut and my head tell me is the better standard) does not mention size or weight at all, but states that the APBT should be both an athlete and a thing of beauty.

You can google the UKC and ADBA breed standards and make up your own minds. My personal preference is for APBTs that are under 26kg and athletic (if I dieted and worked Hobbes he'd probably be no more than 23kg) but I also had a rescue American Pit Bull Terrier come through my yard that probably weighed nearly 40kg. I know this dog's breeder and I know his lineage, and he is a fine athletic dog. If you looked at this dog, you'd have to say "American Pit Bull Terrier".

So, I'm having a bet each way here; I know what my personal preference is for APBTs, but I am not about to say that other peoples preferences are wrong. Each to their own.

ricey

(edited for spelling and grammar)

I agree with you that people have their preferences and there is nothing wrong or right about that. People's preferences change overtime and so do the dogs. How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe.

As for the Apbt, Yes they were bred to be a working dog ( and many other breeds) but not everyone wants or needs a working dog as a pet these days. And I wouldn't recommend it (for most people) anyway. So to answer the OP's question. What is a Pit bull Terrier. To me I believe every purebred dog bred directly from purebred Apbt blood can technically be called a Pit bull Terrier. Now everyone has their own definition of what a 'Real' Apbt is. At the moment I'm more interested in balanced/functional types of Akc/Ankc Amstaff.

[ricey]

I agree with you that people have their preferences and there is nothing wrong or right about that. People's preferences change overtime and so do the dogs. How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe.

As for the Apbt, Yes they were bred to be a working dog ( and many other breeds) but not everyone wants or needs a working dog as a pet these days. And I wouldn't recommend it (for most people) anyway. So to answer the OP's question. What is a Pit bull Terrier. To me I believe every purebred dog bred directly from purebred Apbt blood can technically be called a Pit bull Terrier. Now everyone has their own definition of what a 'Real' Apbt is. At the moment I'm more interested in balanced/functional types of Akc/Ankc Amstaff.

Yep; me too! I think that most pet dog owners really don't want a working dog. This is why I'd never recommend someone with a small back yard and a laid back personality get a border collie. These are working dogs that need to be worked.

I think that a balanced/functional APBT is not a massive dog and should not ever be a massive dog.

As for your question and statement "How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe." I'd have to say that the breeders have probably gone way off track. My personal belief is that many fine dog breeds have been totally stuffed up by breeders who seem to want to breed dogs that do not conform to the breed standard. And then they manage to get the breed standard altered to match their view. To give an example of what I mean, the British bull dog originally was a fine athletic dog and an example of what this breed was can still be seen by viewing google images of the Dorset Old Time Bulldog. Granted, not quite the same but close. But the British bull dog got f*cked over when breeders around 100 years ago chose to breed their athlete dog with pugs. I think that if the individual dogs of a particular breed now look nothing like like the foundation dogs then the breeders have stuffed up.

Stick to the programme and breed dogs that meet the breed standard. If you can't do that and want a dog that is totally different, just call it another breed and move on. Do not call your bastard new breed the previous breed.

I'd have to say that performance breed standards result in far healthier dogs than conformance breed standards have, and I like that APBTs have traditionally been bred to a performance standard. Should a dog owner really care about whether their dog is blue fawn or grey merle, or should they care about what their dog can do or how their dog behaves?

I'd like to say that I am really enjoying this discussion and I hope I am not offending anyone when I put forward my views. I'd like to continue this discussion with you all.

ricey

(I'd better shut up now before I say something that will really shoot me in the foot)

[juice]

LOL ,Ricey .

Good job this discussion is'nt in general or you would have been hung by now :laugh:

The topic of dogs no being able to do what they were bred from is very touchy, and breeders jump on anyone who dare's to say their breed can't breathe, move ,give birth naturally etc etc.

There are a few breeds i love but would never own as they are a health nightmare.

Its good to know that this breed still has people interested in their welfare and maintaining it as it should be. :)

[Rocketeer]

I agree with you that people have their preferences and there is nothing wrong or right about that. People's preferences change overtime and so do the dogs. How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe.

As for the Apbt, Yes they were bred to be a working dog ( and many other breeds) but not everyone wants or needs a working dog as a pet these days. And I wouldn't recommend it (for most people) anyway. So to answer the OP's question. What is a Pit bull Terrier. To me I believe every purebred dog bred directly from purebred Apbt blood can technically be called a Pit bull Terrier. Now everyone has their own definition of what a 'Real' Apbt is. At the moment I'm more interested in balanced/functional types of Akc/Ankc Amstaff.

Yep; me too! I think that most pet dog owners really don't want a working dog. This is why I'd never recommend someone with a small back yard and a laid back personality get a border collie. These are working dogs that need to be worked.

I think that a balanced/functional APBT is not a massive dog and should not ever be a massive dog.

As for your question and statement "How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe." I'd have to say that the breeders have probably gone way off track. My personal belief is that many fine dog breeds have been totally stuffed up by breeders who seem to want to breed dogs that do not conform to the breed standard. And then they manage to get the breed standard altered to match their view. To give an example of what I mean, the British bull dog originally was a fine athletic dog and an example of what this breed was can still be seen by viewing google images of the Dorset Old Time Bulldog. Granted, not quite the same but close. But the British bull dog got f*cked over when breeders around 100 years ago chose to breed their athlete dog with pugs. I think that if the individual dogs of a particular breed now look nothing like like the foundation dogs then the breeders have stuffed up.

Stick to the programme and breed dogs that meet the breed standard. If you can't do that and want a dog that is totally different, just call it another breed and move on. Do not call your bastard new breed the previous breed.

I'd have to say that performance breed standards result in far healthier dogs than conformance breed standards have, and I like that APBTs have traditionally been bred to a performance standard. Should a dog owner really care about whether their dog is blue fawn or grey merle, or should they care about what their dog can do or how their dog behaves?

I'd like to say that I am really enjoying this discussion and I hope I am not offending anyone when I put forward my views. I'd like to continue this discussion with you all.

Ricky

(I'd better shut up now before I say something that will really shoot me in the foot)

Working dogs have their place and so do non-working dogs. Yes performance bred dogs are healthier. But performance-bred dogs also carry certain characteristics that not everyone wants in a dog. There's something for everyone.

In terms of dog breeds changing. Nothing in life stays the same forever. As for the Bulldog, I guess when bull-baiting phased out then so did the Bulldog. People change and things change. Many things have been adjusted or discarded as society changes. Then some things are brought back. It's like fashion I guess lol. I'm not interested or bothered by the Bulldog of today. If I wanted a working dog there are many capable breeds out there now days. Change is inevitable and change is what created many of the great breeds we have available today. The Apbt itself was an offshoot of the Staffordshire dog. The Americans made the dog more leggy, more functional and more capable.

In terms of what dog is called what I think it's just all politics. In saying that I do believe it can be confusing if you out a 70kg dog next to a 16kg dog and call it the same breed.

[Dame Aussie]

LOL ,Ricey .

Good job this discussion is'nt in general or you would have been hung by now :laugh:

The topic of dogs no being able to do what they were bred from is very touchy, and breeders jump on anyone who dare's to say their breed can't breathe, move ,give birth naturally etc etc.

There are a few breeds i love but would never own as they are a health nightmare.

Its good to know that this breed still has people interested in their welfare and maintaining it as it should be. :)

Was just thinking this :laugh:

I agree that dogs bred for work/performance are usually the ones I am attracted to, rather than dogs bred for their looks or conformation.

[ricey]

I agree with you that people have their preferences and there is nothing wrong or right about that. People's preferences change overtime and so do the dogs. How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe.

As for the Apbt, Yes they were bred to be a working dog ( and many other breeds) but not everyone wants or needs a working dog as a pet these days. And I wouldn't recommend it (for most people) anyway. So to answer the OP's question. What is a Pit bull Terrier. To me I believe every purebred dog bred directly from purebred Apbt blood can technically be called a Pit bull Terrier. Now everyone has their own definition of what a 'Real' Apbt is. At the moment I'm more interested in balanced/functional types of Akc/Ankc Amstaff.

Yep; me too! I think that most pet dog owners really don't want a working dog. This is why I'd never recommend someone with a small back yard and a laid back personality get a border collie. These are working dogs that need to be worked.

I think that a balanced/functional APBT is not a massive dog and should not ever be a massive dog.

As for your question and statement "How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe." I'd have to say that the breeders have probably gone way off track. My personal belief is that many fine dog breeds have been totally stuffed up by breeders who seem to want to breed dogs that do not conform to the breed standard. And then they manage to get the breed standard altered to match their view. To give an example of what I mean, the British bull dog originally was a fine athletic dog and an example of what this breed was can still be seen by viewing google images of the Dorset Old Time Bulldog. Granted, not quite the same but close. But the British bull dog got f*cked over when breeders around 100 years ago chose to breed their athlete dog with pugs. I think that if the individual dogs of a particular breed now look nothing like like the foundation dogs then the breeders have stuffed up.

Stick to the programme and breed dogs that meet the breed standard. If you can't do that and want a dog that is totally different, just call it another breed and move on. Do not call your bastard new breed the previous breed.

I'd have to say that performance breed standards result in far healthier dogs than conformance breed standards have, and I like that APBTs have traditionally been bred to a performance standard. Should a dog owner really care about whether their dog is blue fawn or grey merle, or should they care about what their dog can do or how their dog behaves?

I'd like to say that I am really enjoying this discussion and I hope I am not offending anyone when I put forward my views. I'd like to continue this discussion with you all.

Ricky

(I'd better shut up now before I say something that will really shoot me in the foot)

Working dogs have their place and so do non-working dogs. Yes performance bred dogs are healthier. But performance-bred dogs also carry certain characteristics that not everyone wants in a dog. There's something for everyone.

In terms of dog breeds changing. Nothing in life stays the same forever. As for the Bulldog, I guess when bull-baiting phased out then so did the Bulldog. People change and things change. Many things have been adjusted or discarded as society changes. Then some things are brought back. It's like fashion I guess lol. I'm not interested or bothered by the Bulldog of today. If I wanted a working dog there are many capable breeds out there now days. Change is inevitable and change is what created many of the great breeds we have available today. The Apbt itself was an offshoot of the Staffordshire dog. The Americans made the dog more leggy, more functional and more capable.

In terms of what dog is called what I think it's just all politics. In saying that I do believe it can be confusing if you out a 70kg dog next to a 16kg dog and call it the same breed.

Rocketeer, I am not sure how to respond to your posts. Most of what you post I agree with totally. I believe that the "British bulldog" was a fine breed but its demise as a healthy breed was not due to the phasing out of bull-baiting. It was when some breeders decided to breed their dogs with pugs. Whether their decision was somehow related to the demise of bull-baiting is immaterial. They chose to breed their fine healthy breed to pugs. Personally, I like pugs but I'd have to say that this breed is certainly not the best or most virile dog breed out there.

I agree that performance bred dogs are not for everyone. But they are for me. I want a dog that is stronger, more determined, more reliable, more trainable, even more than a bit head strong and probably more than just a bit of a tough nut; I want a dog that is more like what an APBT is supposed to be. There is not a breed other than the APBT that fills my selection criteria for a dog.

I love this breed; I love this breed for many reasons; I love this breeds resilience; I love this breeds stamina; I love this breeds strength; I love this breeds gentleness with human babies; I love this breeds perseverance; I love that APBTs don't give up and quit. The best things about this breed are that they don't do the things that humans do to disappoint us.

ricey (again, I'd better shut up before I say something to really embarrass me; I really love the APBT and I really do not understand why some people think they are dangerous).

[Rocketeer]

Ricey-

Who knows what happened to the Bulldog and why it is the way it is today. As for the Apbt I can see you are passionate about the breed. I too have an interest in the breed. But I believe there isn't just one 'right' way for the breed to be bred.

Now as for performance and non-performance bred dogs. Non-performance bred dogs can also be very strong, determined , reliable, trainable, head-strong and tough. There are many dogs out there who aren't bred from working dogs that display these qualities and make excellent pets.

Yes performance dogs can display one or more of these qualities to a higher degree. But I believe some performance dogs are way too much dog for the average owner. Some working dogs should never roam free with other dogs/animals. Some need 2 hours or so of exercise a day just to keep them happy. “Season 4 episode 30” of the Dog Whisperer is great example of the degrees of energy/drive within the same breed. The couple has two dogs- Sandi ( the more laid back one) and Trinity ( the higher drive/energy/dominance one). Now Trinity is on a level different to Sandi ( and Cesar’s Petbulls). I would recommend Trinity for the more experienced owner.

[ricey]

Ricey-

Who knows what happened to the Bulldog and why it is the way it is today. As for the Apbt I can see you are passionate about the breed. I too have an interest in the breed. But I believe there isn't just one 'right' way for the breed to be bred.

Now as for performance and non-performance bred dogs. Non-performance bred dogs can also be very strong, determined , reliable, trainable, head-strong and tough. There are many dogs out there who aren't bred from working dogs that display these qualities and make excellent pets.

Yes performance dogs can display one or more of these qualities to a higher degree. But I believe some performance dogs are way too much dog for the average owner. Some working dogs should never roam free with other dogs/animals. Some need 2 hours or so of exercise a day just to keep them happy. “Season 4 episode 30” of the Dog Whisperer is great example of the degrees of energy/drive within the same breed. The couple has two dogs- Sandi ( the more laid back one) and Trinity ( the higher drive/energy/dominance one). Now Trinity is on a level different to Sandi ( and Cesar’s Petbulls). I would recommend Trinity for the more experienced owner.

Hi Rocketeer,

Yes I am passionate about the APBT, and probably a bit over-passionate. I wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to American Pit Bull terriers. If I ever got a tattoo on my wrinkly 56 year old body, it would be an APBT (it will never ever happen LOL). I never intended to become an owner of one of these dogs; it all happened by accident. There are many breeds that I like (really, I'm sure there probably isn't a dog breed I don't like) but I am passionate about the bull breeds in general and the APBT/AST/SBT in particular. And the Boerboel, and the Canary Island dog, and the Dogo Argentino, and the Tosa Inu, and the Fila Brasiliero, and the German Shepherd, and the Dobermann, and the Rottweiler; and all the other so-called 'dangerous breeds' dog breeds that really just are nothing more than just dog breeds. I know it sounds simplistic of me, but I'd say "you show me a problem dog and I'll show you a problem dog owner".

I do believe there is a 'right way' for the APBT to be bred, and I believe there is a 'right way' for all dog breeds to be bred. Again, maybe a bit simplistic of me but I think that the health of the breed should be the main consideration. Not what each individual dog looks like, but how healthy is it, and how well can it do what it was bred for?

Cheers,

ricey

[corie]

Yes I am passionate about the APBT, and probably a bit over-passionate. I wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to American Pit Bull terriers. If I ever got a tattoo on my wrinkly 56 year old body, it would be an APBT (it will never ever happen LOL). I never intended to become an owner of one of these dogs; it all happened by accident. There are many breeds that I like (really, I'm sure there probably isn't a dog breed I don't like) but I am passionate about the bull breeds in general and the APBT/AST/SBT in particular. And the Boerboel, and the Canary Island dog, and the Dogo Argentino, and the Tosa Inu, and the Fila Brasiliero, and the German Shepherd, and the Dobermann, and the Rottweiler; and all the other so-called 'dangerous breeds' dog breeds that really just are nothing more than just dog breeds. I know it sounds simplistic of me, but I'd say "you show me a problem dog and I'll show you a problem dog owner".

You forget the 'problem dog seller' :p

I do believe there is a 'right way' for the APBT to be bred, and I believe there is a 'right way' for all dog breeds to be bred. Again, maybe a bit simplistic of me but I think that the health of the breed should be the main consideration. Not what each individual dog looks like, but how healthy is it, and how well can it do what it was bred for?

For my own clarification - what do you mean exactly when you talk about 'a way'? Selection, breeding practises? 'What a dog is bred for' is quite a general statement - and general statements hardly ever hold up when put to practise. Working and companion animals are the obvious example. I don't think it's unfair for a family to like 'the look' of a certain breed of dog and want to bring it into their home. It's just important that that particular dog has been bred from companion animal lines. Variety isn't always a good thing, but it definitely isn't a bad thing.

Interesting discussion, just my two cents :)

[ricey]

Yes I am passionate about the APBT, and probably a bit over-passionate. I wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to American Pit Bull terriers. If I ever got a tattoo on my wrinkly 56 year old body, it would be an APBT (it will never ever happen LOL). I never intended to become an owner of one of these dogs; it all happened by accident. There are many breeds that I like (really, I'm sure there probably isn't a dog breed I don't like) but I am passionate about the bull breeds in general and the APBT/AST/SBT in particular. And the Boerboel, and the Canary Island dog, and the Dogo Argentino, and the Tosa Inu, and the Fila Brasiliero, and the German Shepherd, and the Dobermann, and the Rottweiler; and all the other so-called 'dangerous breeds' dog breeds that really just are nothing more than just dog breeds. I know it sounds simplistic of me, but I'd say "you show me a problem dog and I'll show you a problem dog owner".

You forget the 'problem dog seller' :p

I do believe there is a 'right way' for the APBT to be bred, and I believe there is a 'right way' for all dog breeds to be bred. Again, maybe a bit simplistic of me but I think that the health of the breed should be the main consideration. Not what each individual dog looks like, but how healthy is it, and how well can it do what it was bred for?

For my own clarification - what do you mean exactly when you talk about 'a way'? Selection, breeding practises? 'What a dog is bred for' is quite a general statement - and general statements hardly ever hold up when put to practise. Working and companion animals are the obvious example. I don't think it's unfair for a family to like 'the look' of a certain breed of dog and want to bring it into their home. It's just important that that particular dog has been bred from companion animal lines. Variety isn't always a good thing, but it definitely isn't a bad thing.

Interesting discussion, just my two cents :)

Hi corie,

My personal view (and it is certainly not the view of a lot of breeders) is that breeding for a conformational 'visually ideal' dog historically has tended to result in dogs that look pretty but are very unhealthy. A good example of what I mean is the Cavalier King Charles spaniel; over the last 90 years or so these were bred solely to resemble the idealised spaniels that could be seen in some rather bad paintings from the King Charles the Second era. Interbred with flat nosed dog breeds such as the pug, this breed is recognised as having mitral valve disease (resulting in heart failure) which affects most Cavs at some stage and is the most common cause of death in this brred. Also well known is the common issue of syringomyelia (google "pedigree dogs exposed") which UK breeders of this breed were shown to have knowingly continued to breed from stud dogs with this awful disease. But the stud dog did look rather pretty....

And then there is the Ridgeback; the ridge indicates spina bifida occulta, and by continuing to breed for the ridge, breeders knowingly continue this problem. Quote "if it doesn't have a ridge, it wouldn't be a ridgeback", as one breeder said on 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'.

So, when I said there is 'a way' that dogs should be bred, all I mean was that the health of the resultant pups should be the primary concern; not what the dog looks like. I'd feel rather sorry for a young family who bought themselves a Cavalier King Charles spaniel because they and their kids liked what it looked like. When the dog dies at an early age from heart disease (as most do), or when the dog dies from the unspeakable agony that is syringomyelia (sadly, very common), how do they explain this to their traumatised kids? This is not a rhetorical question; really, how would mum and dad explain to their kids why little Charlie spent his last months increasingly agonised by the pressures building up in his skull? "Sorry kids, Charlie's breeder didn't give a sh*t" How well do you think that is going to go down?

Don't get me wrong; the vast majority of dog breeders want their pups to be healthy, and most go to incredible lengths to ensure this. I have a lot of respect for dog breeders that do all the genetic testing and really put the effort in. But as you point out

You forget the 'problem dog seller'

Some breeders are a problem and I don't resile from that. If a breeders motivation is to produce popular examples of a breed by appearance alone, then I'd have to say that the breeder really does not have the breeds health or best interests at heart.

Like I said in my previous post, there really is not a breed that I don't like; however, I am appalled by what has been done to the Cavalier King Charles spaniel by breeding it solely for its looks (conformation). This has happened to a lot of breeds.

ricey

[corie]

Hi corie,

My personal view (and it is certainly not the view of a lot of breeders) is that breeding for a conformational 'visually ideal' dog historically has tended to result in dogs that look pretty but are very unhealthy. A good example of what I mean is the Cavalier King Charles spaniel; over the last 90 years or so these were bred solely to resemble the idealised spaniels that could be seen in some rather bad paintings from the King Charles the Second era. Interbred with flat nosed dog breeds such as the pug, this breed is recognised as having mitral valve disease (resulting in heart failure) which affects most Cavs at some stage and is the most common cause of death in this brred. Also well known is the common issue of syringomyelia (google "pedigree dogs exposed") which UK breeders of this breed were shown to have knowingly continued to breed from stud dogs with this awful disease. But the stud dog did look rather pretty....

And then there is the Ridgeback; the ridge indicates spina bifida occulta, and by continuing to breed for the ridge, breeders knowingly continue this problem. Quote "if it doesn't have a ridge, it wouldn't be a ridgeback", as one breeder said on 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'.

So, when I said there is 'a way' that dogs should be bred, all I mean was that the health of the resultant pups should be the primary concern; not what the dog looks like. I'd feel rather sorry for a young family who bought themselves a Cavalier King Charles spaniel because they and their kids liked what it looked like. When the dog dies at an early age from heart disease (as most do), or when the dog dies from the unspeakable agony that is syringomyelia (sadly, very common), how do they explain this to their traumatised kids? This is not a rhetorical question; really, how would mum and dad explain to their kids why little Charlie spent his last months increasingly agonised by the pressures building up in his skull? "Sorry kids, Charlie's breeder didn't give a sh*t" How well do you think that is going to go down?

Just from a factual point of view - Cavalier King Charles spaniel were not bred with pugs, it was the King Charles/toy spaniel that came to be with the addition of pugs. The Cavaliers were bred specifically to regain the look of the original spaniels - the ones from the paintings - a look they had before the introduction of pugs with the King Charles. As for their health problems, it's stated from wikipedia (I know, always to be taken with a grain of salt, but there are references to the information) that it is largely the result of Cavs having a limited 'founding' gene pool, something that modern selective breeding can't control for.

I agree completely that health should never be compromised when breeding for any standard. But that itself is a general statement. With the Cavalier example, MVD can't be guaranteed clear by one test before breeding, and MRI machinery for screening SM for dogs is quite uncommon (and very expensive). SM is also a progressive disease, some dogs never showing signs of SM even though they are affected, and on top of that most cavaliers already have a degree of skull malformation. So without even an absolutely clear standard yet of what categorises a Cav 'clear' for SM, it's not fair yet to say that the breeders aren't breeding for health when the technology and information isn't there yet.

With your Ridgeback example - I didn't look beyond the wiki page for that documentary, but it says in there that 'The programme mistakenly claims that the ridge itself is a mild form of spina bifida'. I learnt myself the hard way to always remember to think critically about documentaries, regardless of how well it's presented. This of course doesn't mean that all the information they provide is false!

Also my 'problem sellers' wasn't directed at the breeding practise (although now that you've put it that way, they can certainly be included) - it was more about people who sell dogs to pet homes when they are unsuited for them (from working lines, high energy level, dominant temperament to inexperienced owner etc), which then results in a problem dog.

Edit to say that I got completely sidetracked - I definitely agree that historically, conformational breeding has led to breed-associated health issues. But I also think that breeding for health as the only criteria isn't always viable either.

Edited May 28, 2013 by corie