Dogs For Intimidation: Interesting Blog Post

[sandgrubber]

Terrierman's blog today had a lengthy diatribe on the recent (like last 50 years) proliferation of bull breeds. My guess is some of you will find it offensive, but everyone will find it interesting. I've clipped the concluding paragraphs below

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-hell-is-american-staffordshire.html

"In the scrub country of Texas and Australia, the water hummocks of Louisiana, Spain and Florida, and the steep green volcanic mountains of Hawaii, working pig and cattle dogs look pretty much like they always have for the last 250 years. These dogs are fast, have good scissor bites, fully developed muzzles, and straight agile legs.

In the world of honest stock-working catch dogs, no one spends too much time dreaming up fanciful histories and contrived names. Whatever the dog -- pure bred or cross -- the goal is to avoid the heavy-bodied ponderous dogs so popular among the bridge-and-tunnel set, and create a dog capable to going a full day in rough country.

No one who works their terriers to ground, or uses catch dogs to chase semi-wild stock, has any confusion about what kind of dog they need to do their respective jobs, or the differences between them.

By definition, a terrier must be small enough in the chest to go to ground in a natural earth.

By definition, a catch dog has to be fast enough to catch, and large enough to hold an animal that has escape and mayhem on its mind.

Neither dog can do the job if it looks like a "keg on legs" -- an apt description of many of the molosser breeds sold in the back of pet magazines today.

The story then is an old one. In the world of true working dogs, form follows function. In the world of rosettes and puppy peddlers, form always follows fantasy. As ironic as it sounds, the blue-blazer rosette chaser and the young wanna-be bull dog man have that much in common."

[hankdog]

I dont really understand. Yes a lot of breeds have a working and show line. So what? The function of the show dogs is to be pleasing to the judges and win rosettes. To me that's ok, some people have the hobby of dog showing.

He may be slightly confused about keg-on-legs bull dogs ever having been bred to chase animals, they were bred to fight close quarters, today's versions are modified. Again they please some people and that's their job.

I'm no working-dog lover and I don't find the terrier type appealing but I understand there are people who like that kind of dog. I just love my boof heads, the more keg the better. The job of most dogs nowadays is to please their owners, luckily they come in all types.

[sandgrubber]

I dont really understand. Yes a lot of breeds have a working and show line. So what? The function of the show dogs is to be pleasing to the judges and win rosettes. To me that's ok, some people have the hobby of dog showing.

He may be slightly confused about keg-on-legs bull dogs ever having been bred to chase animals, they were bred to fight close quarters, today's versions are modified. Again they please some people and that's their job.

I'm no working-dog lover and I don't find the terrier type appealing but I understand there are people who like that kind of dog. I just love my boof heads, the more keg the better. The job of most dogs nowadays is to please their owners, luckily they come in all types.

I'd suggest reading the full article. It contains much about recent diversification of bull breeds, no doubt opinionated and selectively drawing on history.

[Isabel964]

Gosh he know alot of facts and history doesn't he? Over-all I find his post says alot (and I mean alot) about nothing really. That's alot of typing he did without making much of a point. Dogs are animals that in the wrong hands is a sad outcome. Dogs need to be treated with respect, they need to be selected appropriately, cared for correctly and they need to be understood.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Lemme see

Likes Cesar Milan and doesn't seem to understand the history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier - which according to google - was recognised as a breed in the UK in 1935 - not split from the American Staffordshire Terrier in 1970 something.

And it's probably older than that. His version of the history of breeds seems a tad weird to me. Ie a breed doesn't suddenly exist when it's recognised by the AKC. It's usually existed for much much longer than that.

And for some reason he reminds me of that Fa rmer Da ve G rah am ex big brother.

edit for google

Edited September 9, 2015 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[sandgrubber]

Lemme see

Likes Cesar Milan and doesn't seem to understand the history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier - which according to google - was recognised as a breed in the UK in 1935 - not split from the American Staffordshire Terrier in 1970 something.

And it's probably older than that. His version of the history of breeds seems a tad weird to me. Ie a breed doesn't suddenly exist when it's recognised by the AKC. It's usually existed for much much longer than that.

The focus of the article is the US scene (and there's no question that the AmStaff and pit bull both come out of the US scene). I suspect the bias is a terrier person's frustration with bull breeds being called 'terriers' . . . when he views terriers as earthdogs. IMO the value of the article is focus on breeding macho dogs for macho image.

The AKC first recognized the SBT in 1974...two years after it renamed the pit bull-derived breed that it had called Staffordshire Terrier to American Staffordshire Terrier. It is irrelevant, in this context, that the UK recognized the SBT in 1935. I see no denial that there's a long history behind the SBT in Staffordshire.

We live in a highly urbanized/suburbanized culture. Dog breeding a la KC, AKC, ANKC, etc. still caters to traditional functions such as herding, retrieving, guarding, etc.. I see the article as interesting in pointing out both 'breeds' and registries that are favored by people who want to project a tough image. Do a little skimming and you'll find that these registries don't put much emphasis on health testing, but do put big emphasis on head girth and body weight. See what you get when you google XXL pit bull. I'll bet you don't find many references to health . . . or even temperament. There's a yabo sub culture that wants big scary dogs. People are paying good money for the image.

Edited September 5, 2015 by sandgrubber

[Bob]

I don't see it as a judges role to be "pleased" with a dog (of any type), that you would be hard-pressed to identify a "conformation" point on.

Read the standard, understand the standard, compare the offered exhibits to the standard. The exhibit closest to the standard should be awarded first place.

If none of the exhibits on offer are deserving of a Ch title, then the judge should non-award.

Close enough isn't good enough, no matter where you are or how many choices you have!

Regards,

[Amax-1]

IMO the value of the macho dogs for macho imagearticle is focus on breeding .

Funny thing is, crims most fear GSD's and Rottweilers who don't need to show any aggression as they are never sure of what training may be on these breeds. Bull breeds need to be aggressive to be taken seriously by crims knowing they are not historically trained for defensive manoeuvre. Bogans with aggressive bull breeds annoy the hell out of me when they could have a stable GSD or Rotty for intimidation in the back yard with a greater margin of public safety. Machoism presented though bull breeds, my default thought is ^%&*head :laugh:

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

a truly secure and tough man can walk two SWF and not feel emasculated...

The dog and the man are separate - but some men seem to think their nuts are directly bonded to their dog's nuts, and their car is a reflection of their penis size. The bigger the better.

But the truth seems to be an inverse proportion... the bigger the dog nuts - the smaller the man's.

If he wants to be really serious about showing off big nuts in public - just get a bull and be done.

Myself - I like the fierce dog to be a stealth dog. Ie look perfectly innocent unless has a good reason to fire up. Cattle dogs are really good at this. But the nastiest meanest dog my family has ever had was an Australian Terrier.

[Wobbly]

I like Bull Breeds, I don't really care about anyone else's perception of that preference. I picked the cutest dog at the pound, now I am a hardcore full blown Bull Breed addict. They're great dogs, but of course they can be high maintenance and they aren't for everyone. Like any other breed temperament varies, unscrupulous breeders produce dogs with dodgy temperaments and good breeders produce dogs with stable temperaments.

I prefer the more athletic "terrier type" bull, because I love the athleticism, my dog is older now, but in her heyday she was the pinnacle of fit, muscle rippling athleticism. Amazing to watch when she was after her fetch toys, leaping and twisting in defiance of all known laws of gravity and physics. When she got a good bite on her tug you could you could swing her round in air borne circles, we used tohave so much fun. We're both too old for all that now, we're rather sedate in our dotage, she's snoring at my feet now and we'll have an amble later on as opposed to the hardcore exercise we used to do.

I can't be arsed reading terrier man's column sorry, it sounds like it'd annoy me, and I want to move onto reading the news before I have to get a wriggle on and make a start on all the productive stuff I need to with my day.

I really only posted here because Farmer Dave's name came up in the thread, and he probably won't ever see it to defend himself, so I figured I'd put my 2 cents in - he's a really good guy. He does dog training courses out at Box Hill in NSW and I've taken my (terrible bogan bull breed) dog out there to do a noseworks course and some dock diving, both of which were lots of fun. My (terrible bogan bull breed) dog and I enjoyed our days there immensely and so I whole heartedly recommend them. Especially the noseworks course, it's fine to be an autodidact and learn stuff for yourself, but it's really a whole lot easier and you learn a whole lot faster when you have objective, knowledgeable people to help you out. Box Hill is unfortunately a long way away from me otherwise i'd do more courses there, but if you are close enough to go here's the website. http://www.farmerdave.com.au/

[Wobbly]

And a correction to that last comment where I endorsed Farmer Daves'

I was this morning directed to this thread - http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/263197-channel-7-news-tonight/

Detailing an incident where a dog was mauled to death out at Farmer Dave's in an incident that would never have happened were a skerrick of common sense utilised.

The courses I did were fun, and I never allow my dog off leash around others so I had no issues, but there really is absolutely no excuse for what happened there, so I absolutely retract that endorsement. An incident like that should never have occurred, pure and simple, there are no excuses for it.

Edit to add:

Don't go there. That facility should be left to die. Allowing a bunch of big dogs to run free with little dogs like that isn't a "live and learn" scenario, it's a level of stupidity that noone with any real claim to an understanding of dog behaviour would have allowed to happen. No second chances for stupidity of this magnitude, it was inevitable that something like would occur when big dogs and little dogs are let loose together en masse. I can't believe it was allowed to happen.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Wobbly

[Sheridan]

The Terrierman has a particular view of terriers and working dogs. He likes certain types and doesn't like others. Just like the rest of us, I suppose.

[melzawelza]

I don't really get the article or think there's much value in it.

People have gotten dogs for the purpose of intimidation forever, and the dogs used for intimidation are certainly not limited to the umbrella of breeds that come under 'bull breed'. Different breeds have come in and out of fashion as 'intimidating dogs' over time, too.

There's been a separation between show dogs and working dogs forever, and it exists in most breeds.

Personally I'm more a fan of the terrier type working bull breeds, others prefer the blocky-headed show type. It exists in plenty of breeds and as long as both types are healthy, who cares?

The vast majority of people that own these breeds and mixes own them simply as pets and family members. Indeed, the vast majority of *all* dog owners, regardless of the breed, own them as pets and family members.

Also, he should maybe go up to and speak to some of these 'young men' DARING to walk their blockhead down the street. I have, and most of them adore their dogs and they are absolutely part of the family. Yes, even when they have tattoos. Yes, even when the dog is wearing a spiked collar. Yes, even when they are from a lower socio-economic background. They turn to mush when it comes to their dogs. But it's much easier to judge and make assumptions about them based on their age, their appearance and the type of dog on the end of the leash, I guess.

I am the Majority

Edited September 8, 2015 by melzawelza

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Gawd - teachers in the USA should get to take their pitbulls to class...

[Wobbly]

I eventually read Terrierman's post. He says a lot of stupid stuff, there's some worthwhile points there too, but his brushstrokes are too broad.

In some respects he's correct, for example the "American Bullies", a new breed that's come about that emphasises a blocky shape to an unhealthy extreme. It's an animal purposely bred to have a shape would lead to a life of pain, because the breeders think that misshapen conformation is aesthetically pleasing. I agree with him on that, it's cruel to purposely create a creature with shape will inevitably condemn it to live a life of pain. If you scroll down on this page about American Bullies and look at the blue dog you can see - look at the placement of the dog's shoulders, they don't support his weight in any kind of functional way, that animal must have some pretty awful shoulder joint issues being that shape. http://americanbullydaily.com

But then he adds Aussie Bulldogs to the same list, which is absolutely barking up the wrong tree. Regardless of whether you agree with the creation of yet another breed, Aussie Bulldogs, as I understand it, are an effort to eliminate the genetic health concerns that can affect English Bulldogs. To make a healthy dog of sound conformations yet still preserve the look and the temperament of the English Bulldog as much as possible, because they're an iconic breed and they have their staunch admirers. The English Bulldog can have some health issues related to it's structure, (though nothing as bad as the American Bully). In a country like Australia, the excessive heat of summer isn't kind to an extreme brachy face, the Aussie Bulldog has a bit more length to his snout for easier breathing. His body is a little less extreme. It's an effort to breed a dog of sound, healthy conformation for people who love English Bulldogs, but who also want a dog that's happy about being out and about on hot summer's day. Focus on breeding for health and soundness like that can only be a good thing.

And as Mel says, a lot of those young guys with their Pit Bulls are fantastic owners. Terrierman is generalising, there are some great owners and some crap ones. The dock diving days I went to were all overseen by a young guy (covered in tattoos) who owned a lovely female Pit, a champion dock diver who adored her sport. He was a great owner, and notably very stringent about ensuring all dogs in the area surrounding the pool were all leashed and kept 5 metres from each other, with only one dog at a time in the fenced diving area (yeah that was at Farmer Dave's - the leash rules for the dock diving I went to were really very sensible, funny that the Pit Bull Owner was the responsible staff member ensuring that all dogs were leashed and controlled so there was no chance of injury or fighting, make of that what you will....)

Ultimately Terrierman's article is just another uninformed diatribe about Bull Breeds, written by someone who has never owned a bull breed and doesn't really have a clue. Irritating, but common enough.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Wobbly

[hankdog]

Trying but failing not to take the bait????. There are health issues associated with Bulldogs but I've had two purebreds from a good breeder and now my crossbred. When I got my purebreds they were adult and unfit. I walked them everyday and a lot of the visible health issues disappeared. As they got fitter and leaner their breathing improved and they became quite agile. Jake came to me underweight and as he has gained muscle he has become quite athletic, a rubbish jumper but a great climber. Those wideset shoulders actually help him pull himself up over boulders, it creates a different kind of action, he pulls himself up rather than jumping. I really believe a lot of the health issues of Bulldogs are caused by being overweight and under excercised as I've been told by other owners that you shouldn't walk your bulldog????.

Yes I have a tattoo and a bulldog and he wears a spiky collar, I must be so intimidating. If you've ever actuallt spent time with a bulldog then you would understand that they are not just a dog, they are an experience.

ETA there's no such breed as a "Chinese pug", all pugs originate from China, apparently it's a marketing ploy that he bought.

Edited September 8, 2015 by hankdog

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Aussie bulldogs? Most forum posts I've seen from puppy owners or would be puppy owners are about difficulties dealing with the breeder especially when the new owner starts asking for pedigree papers - which they need especially in Victoria (have they changed that dumb law yet?) to prove their dog is not one of the banned or restricted breeds.

Ie they get a puppy - if they're lucky - and then the breeder won't talk to them again.

[hankdog]

I believe paperwork has been submitted to ANKC for Bosdogs, but that's not an organization that all breeders of Aussie Bulldogs belong to so it can be quite variable. A lot I have seen look more like short Boxers and seem to have little in common personality-wise with Bulldogs. At least once they are registered it will mean people know what they're getting.

[melzawelza]

I eventually read Terrierman's post. He says a lot of stupid stuff, there's some worthwhile points there too, but his brushstrokes are too broad.

In some respects he's correct, for example the "American Bullies", a new breed that's come about that emphasises a blocky shape to an unhealthy extreme. It's an animal purposely bred to have a shape would lead to a life of pain, because the breeders think that misshapen conformation is aesthetically pleasing. I agree with him on that, it's cruel to purposely create a creature with shape will inevitably condemn it to live a life of pain. If you scroll down on this page about American Bullies and look at the blue dog you can see - look at the placement of the dog's shoulders, they don't support his weight in any kind of functional way, that animal must have some pretty awful shoulder joint issues being that shape. http://americanbullydaily.com

But then he adds Aussie Bulldogs to the same list, which is absolutely barking up the wrong tree. Regardless of whether you agree with the creation of yet another breed, Aussie Bulldogs, as I understand it, are an effort to eliminate the genetic health concerns that can affect English Bulldogs. To make a healthy dog of sound conformations yet still preserve the look and the temperament of the English Bulldog as much as possible, because they're an iconic breed and they have their staunch admirers. The English Bulldog can have some health issues related to it's structure, (though nothing as bad as the American Bully). In a country like Australia, the excessive heat of summer isn't kind to an extreme brachy face, the Aussie Bulldog has a bit more length to his snout for easier breathing. His body is a little less extreme. It's an effort to breed a dog of sound, healthy conformation for people who love English Bulldogs, but who also want a dog that's happy about being out and about on hot summer's day. Focus on breeding for health and soundness like that can only be a good thing.

And as Mel says, a lot of those young guys with their Pit Bulls are fantastic owners. Terrierman is generalising, there are some great owners and some crap ones. The dock diving days I went to were all overseen by a young guy (covered in tattoos) who owned a lovely female Pit, a champion dock diver who adored her sport. He was a great owner, and notably very stringent about ensuring all dogs in the area surrounding the pool were all leashed and kept 5 metres from each other, with only one dog at a time in the fenced diving area (yeah that was at Farmer Dave's - the leash rules for the dock diving I went to were really very sensible, funny that the Pit Bull Owner was the responsible staff member ensuring that all dogs were leashed and controlled so there was no chance of injury or fighting, make of that what you will....)

Ultimately Terrierman's article is just another uninformed diatribe about Bull Breeds, written by someone who has never owned a bull breed and doesn't really have a clue. Irritating, but common enough.

I do agree that there are a lot of issues in some factions of the American Bully breeders, particularly in certain classes (they come in different sizes), but the breeders of the classic American Bullies are breeding some really beautiful, well put together dogs. Torque is one of my favourites (pics attached).

The American Bully Kennel Club (ABKC) is extremely supportive of rescue and welfare groups, too. Financially and otherwise.

There are definitely big problems in American Bullies, particularly in some classes, but there are a lot that are doing it right, too.

The guy you speak of is a friend of mine and you're absolutely right. He's a perfect example of someone who would probably be targeted by Terrierman's post. But Nadia couldn't be a more well trained, socialised, healthy dog, and Rob couldn't be a more responsible owner. His two dogs have got a brilliant life working and excelling in many dog sports.

[LisaCC]

Regarding the Aussie Bulldogs/Bosdogs have any of the groups succeeded in making the longer snout?

I ask because I know a few people that bought these dogs previously that still needed soft palate surgery... I don't know if thats "normal" for the breed, but if it is I wouldn't call that a success.