# Shorty Bulls?



## CWBullyBreedRescue (Dec 10, 2009)

I am fairly new to this breed - I'm fairly sure it's a new breed. I'm having a hard time finding any breeders. But I think I have fallen in love all over again.

I have been contemplating getting a new dog - sometime within the next few years, after I get my own place, ect. And I'm seriously thinking about this kind. Chances are I will have to get one from a breeder, since the people that do have them are likely going to do anything to hang onto them - I know I would. And if I found an older one for sell, it'd be a lot of money, and I'd rather get a puppy to make sure it's raised right.

They are a registered breed, but I think they are still rather rare. I haven't done a whole lot of research about their typical medication conditions, but their stocky bodies and short snouts lead me to believe they have joint issues and breathing problems. I would be really picky about which dog I'd want. I would want one that is not overly built and doesn't have a MILLION wrinkles on his face.

I want something that looks like this: (also a good info site)
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...q=shorty+bulls&hl=en&rlz=1R2GGLL_en&sa=X&um=1

And this is a dog from 808Shorty Bulls, which is where I am likely to get my dog, but they are in Hawaii, and I'd rather not have to ship my new dog from so far away.
http://808shortybulls.com/Grizzly.JPG

What I would consider a good looking dog of this breed reminds me of a shrunken down AmStaff mixed with a French Bulldog. They look a lot like AmStaffs with extra nose wrinkles to me. But like I said, I'd want one with minimal wrinkles and minimal build. I love the stocky look, but some of them are extra wide with extra muscles and they just look like they are going to have several health issues as they grow old, which I'm sure they do.


----------



## luvntzus (Mar 16, 2007)

They are not purebred, as in recognized by any legitimate registry like the AKC or UKC. It looks like it's only recognized by various "Bully" clubs. They look like they have a lot of health problems.


----------



## chul3l3ies1126 (Aug 13, 2007)

They are not a true breed. They are mutts. Just like all the oodles out there... we've had a few threads about these dogs on another forum of mine. Majority say they are AmStaff/French Bulldog mix or English Bulldog mix. 
With designer mutts like these I always say... if I wanted an English Bulldog I'd get an EB, if I wanted a Frenchie... I'd get a FB or AmStaff etc etc. I wouldnt go out and deliberately buy a mutt if it is not from a shelter. 

That is probably why you are having trouble finding a good breeder. I have read 'some' info about them being used for pulling. Gosh I cant imagine what their breathing must sound like while they are pulling. Or what kind of struggle it would be to breathe during that.
Nessa


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

I would have to say I'm not a fan of "shorty bulls" ...way too many "breeders" breeding for the extreme


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

I think it would be MUCH easier to find a healthy French bulldog from a breeder with a lot of dogs competing in performance sports- there are a surprising number of Frenchies in agility, apparently.


----------



## CWBullyBreedRescue (Dec 10, 2009)

But there's my problem. I've never had a desire to have a Frenchie.. or really any other Bulldogg for that matter. There is just something about this mix that I really like. And they aren't your typical designer breed. They were build for work, not just for show. I'm not so sure what they could do effiently without hurting themselves in some way, but they were made to do something.

And my problem with getting an AmStaff is they are rather large, and in my experience they like to throw their weight around. Wether it be playing or whatever, they aren't good "small house" dogs. They need a lot of room, or something is likely going to get broken. I suppose this would be my version of a Yorkie, or some other small, naturally pampered breed. I'm not really into the foofy, "cute" little dogs. I'm bot really into small dogs at all, in general. But these little guys have caught my attention.


----------



## luvntzus (Mar 16, 2007)

Your screen name says that you rescue bullies. Do you?


----------



## CWBullyBreedRescue (Dec 10, 2009)

Yes I do. Putting the Rescue website up would probably get me into trouble for "advertising" but I think I can get away with saying google CW Bully Breed Rescue or CWBBR. We have a webs.com website and a Myspace. We're not very big, but we are growing quite quickly.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

I could be wrong as I have not done that much looking into shorty bulls (really the name says it all) but I highly doubt they were bred to work....if you want a working dog you stick with the APBT . You don't take the apbt or Amstaff and shorten its legs and muzzle...what working ability are you trying to improve by doing that?...to me it seems they were bred just for show....

If you really interested in a smaller dog that was bred to work you should look into the Patterdale Terrier


----------



## CWBullyBreedRescue (Dec 10, 2009)

They are weight pullers. They weren't miniaturized by way of breeding in Boston or Pug (not sure how they miniaturized, really) but because of that, they have all the athletic ability of a normal Bulldog.

http://www.pulldoggies.com/Shorty Bull.htm

And I've been doing more looking around. So far I have not come across any major health concerns, not even the assuming breathing or joint problems I thought they'd have.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> They are weight pullers. They weren't miniaturized by way of breeding in Boston or Pug (not sure how they miniaturized, really) but because of that, they have all the athletic ability of a normal Bulldog.
> 
> http://www.pulldoggies.com/Shorty Bull.htm
> 
> And I've been doing more looking around. So far I have not come across any major health concerns, not even the assuming breathing or joint problems I thought they'd have.


Sorry I'm really not trying to be combative but that is a crock!...what bulldog are you comparing them too?

Yes they can pull.....a lot of breeds can pull....see the thread about the Crested pulling

If you want a pulldog you still stick with the APBT...if you want something smaller is size you find a dogs in the 30-40lb range...and yes there are pulling dogs in that weight range !

as far as I can tell from that site they were not bred specifically for work but to be family pets with some athletic ability...the say that they don't have pug or boston....but the don't say they don't have french bulldog or English bulldog...which if you look at 
other sites you can definitely see

anyway I'm not trying to put them down ..I guess I just don't understand breeding for "mini" anything especially if you are breeding for working ability..what is breeding for shorter legs (with a still heavy muscled body) and a short muzzle going to add? ...I just don't understand how this is supposed to be bettering any breed?

As far as health issues....these will come up as more info comes out...this is a new "breed".....but you have to know from looking at what goes into these dogs that they are going to share the same health concerns....short face=not good in heat or cold....short legs on a heavy body=joint issues


----------



## luvntzus (Mar 16, 2007)

You rescue dogs, but instead of keeping one of those, you're going to buy one of these "shorty bulls"? I just really don't understand why. Aren't there different sized bully mixes that come your way? Because that's what the shorty bull is.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Interesting how they don't mention where the miniaturization comes from. Are they choosing EBD with dwarfism? Have they mixed in Frenchies (that's a pretty frenchie face)? The width of the chest compared to the length of the legs is a real concern for working LONG TERM. And why the hell are they cropping those ears?

If you are truly interested in Bully rescue, supporting breeders like this who are breeding for physical traits like this should be on your no no list. This is irresponsible breeding.


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> And my problem with getting an AmStaff is they are rather large, and in my experience they like to throw their weight around. Wether it be playing or whatever, they aren't good "small house" dogs. They need a lot of room, or something is likely going to get broken. I suppose this would be my version of a Yorkie, or some other small, naturally pampered breed. I'm not really into the foofy, "cute" little dogs. I'm bot really into small dogs at all, in general. But these little guys have caught my attention.


Im not sure how small of a dog you are wanting, but female Amstaff should be 16-18 inches. I've seen a lot of them and they are little......just very strong! I have a rottie inside a very small house and he does just fine. He likes to throw his weight around and we've yet to have anything broken. I just take him on long walks and let him run around in the yard. We have also trained to when we say claim down he does. 

I also don't understand why you want to buy a dog and not just take in one of your rescue dogs.


----------



## CWBullyBreedRescue (Dec 10, 2009)

I work with mainly Pit Bulls. Yes, I love these dogs, and when they are in my care I consider them "my" dogs, but my boyfriend does not want me to have another "large" dog as I already have a White Shepherd that thinks he's a giant puppy... and I'm just waiting for the day that he breaks something irreplacable and it's gonna be my behind.

And pretty much any site I have seen, they say the same thing "these have not been bred with Bostons or Pugs and they have the athletic abilities of a regular Bulldog" "The Shorty bull is a compact, sturdy muscular Bulldog that is incredibly athletic and agile." from the site I posted above. And if you read the bottom of that page it even points out that they are supposed to have "wonderful health qualities."

Why am I being attacked for liking a certain mixed breed? Just because I run a rescue doesn't mean I don't have my own opinion as to what do I would like to keep as my personal companion. Pit Bulls probably wouldn't work with my life style, not my "home" life style anyways. I try to spend a lot of time with my dog, but it doesn't always happen that way. I want a dog that is petite, but can hold it's ground. My dog doesn't exactly play nice when he really gets going.

I have put thought into this. It's not like I was just like "Oh he's cute. I want him!" That's the exact reaction I try to avoid when it comes to my rescue dogs. Sure, being cute helps them, but I don't want someone to adopt a dog because it's cute, then get bored with him later on. Sure, that was my first response. I do think they are really cute dogs, but I've done a bit of research, and am still learning stuff about this "breed" and so far nothing that I couldn't deal with has come up. They can even give birth to their own puppies (not that I would breed), but I know a lot of short stalking bulldogs have problems with. They do seem to have sturdy health, and as all the sites say, as well as being working dogs, they make great family dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

that aint no workin bred bull my friend. and the breeder is.....icki.....

there are many, far better choices if you want a bulldog type dog.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

This "breed" is not recognized by any kennel clubs. it looks like a Frenchi mix to me. IF you can find a breeder that does all the health tests (patellas, Hips, elbows, eyes) then more power to ya, but this dog is a scam as for as how they are advertising it. Someone could advertise a labradorXcorgi mix as the next great herding dog and tell people you should get this cause it's bred for herding. NO if you want a dog thats good for competition in that sport you get a border collie.

If you want a dog thats good in weight pulling you get a Pit Bull simple as that. WHY would shortening the nose and legs make a Pit Bull better at pulling? it wouldn't! thats why this is a scam.


----------



## CWBullyBreedRescue (Dec 10, 2009)

They are registered with the ABKC.
"The Shorty Bull is trademarked and recognized as an independent breed. They are not lumped into a category with “mini”bulls or Bantams. They are registered with the BBCR ( Bull Breeds Coalition Registry ) and the ABKC ( American Bully Kennel Club ) we are working with a number of other registries to recognize themas well."
http://www.doublebarrelbulldogs.com/shortybulls.htm

I have come to believe they were miniaturized through selective breeding of French Bulldogs and American Bulldogs. And to answer the question "why are their ears cropped" it's because that is the breed standard. 

Height: 15" and under
Weight: 40 pounds and under
Head: Round head with typical bulldog features. Eyes set far apart and should not protrude.
Jaw: should be curved, not straight. Nose should be turned up slightly and may be black or liver colored. Dudley noses are a cosmetic fault.
Bite: Undershot, but not excessively undershot
Eyes: May be any color although brown is the preferred eye color
*Ears: Cropped, drop or rose, erect ears are a fault. *
Body: Should be short from back of the neck to the tail. Chest should be broad for height and have depth reaching to the elbow. A compact look is desired.
Width: front quarters and hindquarters should be proportionate, not lending to a narrow rear, and the chest may be broader that the rear, but very narrow hindquarters are a fault.
Shoulders and Rumps: Well rounded and well muscled, lending to an appearance of strength. There may be a slight rise over the loins. 
Legs: Heavy boned and in direct proportion to the body. Long legs in proportion to the body or fine bones are a fault. Cow hocked or pigeon toed is a fault. 
Feet: Tight feet and straight pasterns. Splayed feet are a fault.
Tail: Tail must be short, either docked or screwed.
Color: all coat colors accepted except merle or black and tan. 
Temperament: Good natured and even tempered. Extreme shyness or undue aggression is unacceptable.

They won't be in shelters anytime soon. At least not the "true" Shorty Bulls. Part of their contract is contacting them if anything arises. And only Shorty Bulls bred under a few select breeders will be able to be registered. They have to register the dogs, according to their contract, if I understand right. And garanteed health for at least 24 months is also in their contract.


----------



## Shalonda (Nov 18, 2009)

CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> But there's my problem. I've never had a desire to have a Frenchie...


But you have the desire to have something that looks like a Frenchie on steroids. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why not a Staffordshire Bull Terrier? They're smaller than an AmStaff too, but don't have the deformed look of these shorty bull things.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

http://www.bbcr.info/ said:


> The Bull Breed Coalition Registry (BBCR) was started for the sol purpose of registering Shortybulls.


That does not scream reputable registry to me. The ABKC looks slightly more reputable, in that they appear to have shows, but the website is very hard to actually read. Yes, I judge people by their style sheets. The reputability/worthiness of a registry is what you get out of it. AKC: conformation, agility, field trials, earthdog, hunt tests UKC: conformation, agility, coonhound hunts. BBCR: The ability to register with the ABKC (if their home page is to be believed, which makes it seem more of a breed club than a registry and a crap one at that) and what does the ABKC get you? Some conformation shows. Nothing about performance events, which if it's a registry for bully dogs then performance events would seem MORE important than conformation. It also looks very new, which is not an encouraging sign.

And the standard for the Shorty bulldog is a joke. Have you seen standards for the AKC and UKC? They spend paragraphs on each point, not just two brief sentences. 



> these have not been bred with Bostons or Pugs and they have the *athletic abilities of a regular Bulldog*


Also not inspiring. In 2008, *12* bulldogs earned AKC agility titles. (http://www.akc.org/events/event_statistics.cfm) And they are ONLY preferred titled, which means the dogs jump a lower height than similarly sized dogs. Again, not screaming athletic there.

Other than breeders and people invested in this cross of breeds, who is saying good things about them? _Of course_ people breeding them are going to only have good things to say about them. They're making money off these dogs! And a two year health guarantee is crap. You can't OFA hips/elbows UNTIL two years of age.

You're being attacked because you're reasons for liking this dog (a small, athletic dog with a look you like that was bred to work) is none of those things except a look you like.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

Well, if you want one contact breeders and find one that has their dogs hips and elbows checked out by OFA or PennHip and tests for common issues with breeds that went into the making of this mix.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

smaller huh....you do know the lower limit of the pit bull breed standard is 35 pounds...with 25 pound dogs popping up on an intermittent basis...right? pit bulls are not always big dogs...were all the pits you have owned rescues? why not buy a ADBA reg APBT from a breeder whose lines tend toward the small side? instead of buying from this sort of operation? im not trying to attack you btw...i just dont understand.


----------



## Vira_Lata (Nov 11, 2009)

how about a mini bull terrier?


----------



## CareBearStare (Dec 19, 2009)

CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> Yes I do. Putting the Rescue website up would probably get me into trouble for "advertising" but I think I can get away with saying google CW Bully Breed Rescue or CWBBR. We have a webs.com website and a Myspace. We're not very big, but we are growing quite quickly.


Ok, this might be getting slightly off topic here, but I decided to check out your website and I was left with a few questions. Is the site finished right now? Because I couldn't find any information on adoption policies or the process someone would have to go through if they were interested in one of your dogs. 
Also, for your breed information resources, you direct people to a website where I found this gem:



> Their natural aggressive tendencies are toward other dogs and animals, not people. However if they are properly socialized with a firm, but calm, confident, consistent pack leader, they will not even be aggressive with them.


Personally, I feel like this could be misleading. It's common for people who don't have experience with bully breeds to say that "it's all in how you raise them" which can be partially true. However, DA is something that many bully breeds have been bred for. Saying that you can socialize DA out of a dog can be a very dangerous statement.

I'm not trying to say that you support/believe everything said on that website, but perhaps there are better resources for breed info that you could give to people who go to your site looking for education.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

Short Bullies... just another designer breed. If you really like short bullies then howz about this fella 










It's called a Staffordshire bull terrier. There's already a breed existing that meets everything you said you wanted in a bully with out supporting those designer breed idiots.

Staffordshire bull terrier:
Height: Dogs 14-16 inches (36-41cm) Bitches 13-15 inches (33-38cm)
Weight: Dogs 25-38 pounds (11-17kg) Bitches 23-35 pounds (10-16kg)

Health issues (nothing that ANY bully breed wouldn't be prone to and actually a lot LESS than most) Prone to cataracts. HC & PHPV (both eye complaints) although through screening of both parents this can be avoided. DNA work in the UK is very nearly complete as to cure this (people should ensure they buy from eye tested parents, and that puppies are screened at a few weeks old. Hip dysplasia is occasionally seen and so are tumors. Puppies are prone to having an elongated soft palate. Like all the bully type breeds, Staffordshire Bull Terriers often have gas problems.

Besides I don't see how ANY of those dogs listed on dogbreedinfo.com could EVER work a day in their lives with those extremely pinched nostrils (a boston and frenchie trait as well as pug). All those dogs look like to me is over glorified french bulldogs. You want a canine athlete then go with a Staffordshire bull terrier.

PS they crop the ears so that they don't have the tell tale bat ear of the frenchie. Brutal thing cropping ears. Thank goodness it's been outlawed in the UK and startig to gain momentum here in the states as well.


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but I saw it on youe rescue myspace. Do you think Rottweilers, Mastiffs, and Doberman are bully breeds? I ask because I see *A LOT* of rescues, shelters, and dog events that say they are.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> What I would consider a good looking dog of this breed reminds me of a shrunken down AmStaff mixed with a French Bulldog. They look a lot like AmStaffs with extra nose wrinkles to me.


Really? Cause they look a lot like ugly Frenchies to me.



CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> And my problem with getting an AmStaff is they are rather large, and in my experience they like to throw their weight around. Wether it be playing or whatever, they aren't good "small house" dogs. They need a lot of room, or something is likely going to get broken. I suppose this would be my version of a Yorkie, or some other small, naturally pampered breed. I'm not really into the foofy, "cute" little dogs. I'm bot really into small dogs at all, in general. But these little guys have caught my attention.


I have a 70lb Lab in a 700 square foot home. I don't play with him the house. That's what the yard is for. That's why we take walks and go to the dog park. The house is for quiet time. 

To be perfectly honest, this sounds like a really bad excuse to justify buying what you know to be a designer dog. If others on this forum can live with Danes and Mastiffs and St Bernards and packs of four or five or six dogs, you can probably handle a single AmStaff in whatever size home you've got.

Do you know anything about English Bulldogs? Bull Terriers? Patterdales? Have you ever met a French or Boston Bulldog? All of these breeds would fit your list of desired dog traits without requiring you to support the designer breed fad. Have you visited your local shelter lately? Mine is FULL of "designer dogs" that would fit your list perfectly, including one _papered _Staffie of about 28 lbs.



CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> I work with mainly Pit Bulls. Yes, I love these dogs, and when they are in my care I consider them "my" dogs, but my boyfriend does not want me to have another "large" dog as I already have a White Shepherd that thinks he's a giant puppy... and I'm just waiting for the day that he breaks something irreplacable and it's gonna be my behind.
> 
> Why am I being attacked for liking a certain mixed breed? Just because I run a rescue doesn't mean I don't have my own opinion as to what do I would like to keep as my personal companion. Pit Bulls probably wouldn't work with my life style, not my "home" life style anyways. I try to spend a lot of time with my dog, but it doesn't always happen that way. I want a dog that is petite, but can hold it's ground. My dog doesn't exactly play nice when he really gets going.


A small, badly behaved dog is just as likely to break something as a large, badly behaved dog. Put breakable items out of the dog's reach, especially if they are irreplaceable. 

You have to spend time with all dogs, regardless of their size. If someone told you that "petite" dogs will require less time and energy on your part, they lied to you. If anything, this particular mixed breed would probably require MORE interaction than your average dog. Terriers are not known for being naturally easy to get along with!

You're being attacked because what you're saying makes no sense. You want qualities in your next dog that are available in many established breeds and in mixes at your local shelter, but you're insisting that only this designer dog can provide exactly what you want. Because you run a rescue, you should know that mixes like "Shorty Bulls" are dying by the handful in shelters around the country. Why support this problem by giving your money to breeders of more mutts?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Show me their pedigrees and I will prove to you their not a breed.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> And to answer the question "why are their ears cropped" it's because that is the breed standard.


Hard to have a breed standard when it isn't an actual breed...

It is sad that someone who works in rescue would support designer dog breeds...


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

I suspect that their ears are cropped so that no one will notice they have enormous French Bulldog ears. They look a little more serious if you chop off the bat-wings.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

Actually the breed description states that they can be cropped, natural or rose shaped.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Hell, Lizzie is, and Indy was, 100x more destructive than Kaylee, Mal, and Rittie put together. 

LIZZIE breaks more crap bouncing off walls in a random week than Kaylee has in her ENTIRE LIFE.


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

They do look like overmuscled Frenchies...
In every pic shown they have very pinched nostrils..which is going to cause breathing issues. Even the way they're panting screams of the noisy breathing you hear with some Bulldogs. I'd doubt they're doing anything horribly athletic for any length of time. I'd look into one of the other breeds mentioned.

I can't fathom why a French Bulldog isn't desirable, when aside from ears they look quite close to those dogs, aside from the cropped ears. I've seen Frenchies do Obedience, agility, and I've heard of several working as hearing dogs.


----------



## BG78 (Jan 19, 2010)

To the OP:

If you want more information on this great breed send me a PM - I can tell you exactly where to get more information  We have a forum where we all meet and talk about our shortybulls and everyone is very helpful and friendly - you will not get all this negativity there  I have 2 shortybull pups and I just LOVE them!! Actually, one of my pups is a baby sister to the dog you posted (Griz in Hawaii).


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

X-Man said:


> Wow!! I have never seen so many ignorant ppl in one post!! lol U guy's don't know a thing about this breed n ur passing judgment!! (says a lot about u guys!!) I have a male Shorty Bull Which is a year old. He's real bully n has no type of help problems at all!!!!!! doesn't hardly visit the vet.. He also runs about 4 times a week with me for about 2 miles each time and we do hill work about 3 times a week. N oh yeah he just started pulling n is doing a great job!! Not to mention that he is also doing confirmation training n listens to my every instruction!! N to top it off we are just getting him started on protection work!! now that's on active dog!!!
> 
> I know of a couple of Shorty Bulls that R older than 9 yr old n have no help problems at all!!! not with joints or anything else!! I can only think of a few that have health issue's.. N trust me they R a lot healthier than EB n Frenchy's N breath a lot better to.. My little guy also hangs on the spring pole just like a pit but he's only 13 inche's tall... N he is as sweet as can be.. How's that for a good small WORKING BULLDOG!!!
> 
> ...


Way to join a forum just to necro a 9 month old thread.


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

Honestly, to me the look almost like boston terriers on steroids.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

He really does look likea French Bulldog mixed with and English Bulldog to me.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Ok, I'll go there. 

It really helps, in making a point, to write in a way that other English-speaking Human Beings can understand.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

Looks like a frenchie on steroids.

How can you defend a "breed" that does not exist. a year old, and running so many miles a day,w hen did you start that? you will surly have health issues with that.

What does your dog do otherwise? what it was bred to do? what is that again? what did his parents do? what they were bred to do? I doubt that.

breeding muts for any reason other then work, is irresponsible. No good breeder will breed for no good reason.


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

I'd be afraid to let a dog like that work at all. The 'shorty bulls' don't look designed for pulling or any type of work. BYB English bulldogs can't work, they're far too unhealthy..most can't even breathe and a responsible breeder would never breed a health tested etc EB with a Frenchie or vice versa. Your dog is cute, but IMO a 'bully rescue' should never support a byb and buy a $1,000 mixed breed that's probably unhealthy.


----------



## Darcystheone (Apr 30, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Ok, I'll go there.
> 
> It really helps, in making a point, to write in a way that other English-speaking Human Beings can understand.


Thank you for saying it. 

I have absolutley no stock in this, but did want to add, that yes he looks to me like a frenchie on steriods. I just fell in love with frenchies recently, and your dog is a cutie but I will stick with researching FB's .


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

X-Man said:


> I just found this post while surfing and it made my blood boil that ppl will be bashing on these dogs n they have no knowledge about them at all.


Can you honestly not see the problem with that dog's nose? It's not healthy for a dog's nostrils (bull dog breed or not) to be pinched shut. It's considered a fault in most breed standards for short-nosed breeds for a reason, it impairs breathing and can cause respiratory damage over longterm since so much stress is put on the dog's heart and lungs by having to strain extra hard to breathe.

Many people seem to think it's normal for a bulldog to have to gasp for air, but it's seriously not.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

His face looks like a French Bulldog, yes.

And dogs' front legs do not work that way! (for very long, anyway)


----------



## indiana (May 27, 2010)

X-Man said:


> Thanks for the insults! I appreciate it (just for the two people that decided to be smart!!) X-Man actually has no full EB in him at all. He breaths fine and actually runs for 2 miles just fine. He actually breaths better than any EB or French bulldog that I have meet.


He has no full EB? What does that mean?


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

None of our comments were aimed to insult you, although it's entirely up to you on how you interpret them. If you've ever met a EB or a FB from good health tested, pedigreed lines you wouldn't hear them gasping for breath after a quick few steps, you wouldn't hear them huffing and puffing at all. A BYB EB or in some cases APBT can't breathe well and has low stamina because of the simple fact it can't breathe. Take a BYB EB (doesn't have to be purebred) and breed it with a BYB french bulldog it's quite obvious the result is going to be a wide chested dog with horrible body structure that can't breathe well at all.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

X-Man said:


> Thanks for the insults! I appreciate it (just for the two people that decided to be smart!!) X-Man actually has no full EB in him at all. He breaths fine and actually runs for 2 miles just fine. He actually breaths better than any EB or French bulldog that I have meet.
> 
> Here R some links and some pictures. They may not be the best at any dog sport yet but they do work hard.
> 
> ...


Why bother? You are absolutely not going to change any minds here. And what is that old saying.. if everyone is saying you're wrong, then maybe you're wrong? 

But "N oh yeah" made me laugh and laugh, so thank you for that. When did the word 'and' become reduced to a letter?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

X-Man said:


> Tazzy pulling 2,708 pounds not bad for a 28 pound dog.
> 
> http://manstoppers.com/bullyvard/viewtopic.php?t=37501&highlight=working
> 
> http://manstoppers.com/bullyvard/viewtopic.php?t=34425&highlight=working


pffft...and structurally sound pit bulls in the same weight class are pulling *ten thousand pounds and MORE*.

not impressed. bad structure is bad structure. does mean its a bad dog...just means it has bad structure. which means it cant do the work a structurally sound animal can do. 

you should..you know...grow some skin...facts are facts. just because you dont like them..doesnt make them a. insults or b..not facts.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

X-Man said:


> I just found this post while surfing and it made my blood boil that ppl will be bashing on these dogs n they have no knowledge about them at all.
> 
> How do they look like Boston terrier's, EB or Frenchies??? look at my boy X-man below at a year old. He doesn't look like any of those dogs!!
> 
> The BBC has a tone of consistency in there breeding n must dog's from that Registry R Blue River dog's... Now if ur buying an ABKC or BBCR registered Shorty Bull than things are a little different...The BBC is all about the dogs n the dogs get breed with integraty and a vision for the future.. The BBC Shorty Bulls R also breed to work.. so if ur looking to do some homework on these little guy n learn something check out the BBC shorty bulls and not the BBCR (Coalition) ABKC Shorty Bulls.. U'll have a different view on these dogs..


uh...are you kidding?....how does your dog not look like a beefed up frenchie?.....here is a good friends Frenchie axel.......








Looks pretty darn close to me : )


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> pffft...and structurally sound pit bulls in the same weight class are pulling *ten thousand pounds and MORE*.
> 
> not impressed. bad structure is bad structure. does mean its a bad dog...just means it has bad structure. which means it cant do the work a structurally sound animal can do.
> 
> you should..you know...grow some skin...facts are facts. just because you dont like them..doesnt make them a. insults or b..not facts.


It LOOKS strong... that's all that matters. That's why there's such a fixation on HUGE heads and HUGE chests and WIDE everything else. And those ears look like they were cropped with a pair of scissors, gawd.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> It's the same thing as texting!! It's called Abbreviating a word! wow do u still have a 10 pound cell phone two!! TFF


FORUM IS NOT PHONE. Do you see ANYone else typing like you are? No! Because writing skills _count!_ This is a lasting medium, it's important that other people can understand subleties of the topic. We aren't just coordinating a trip to Walgreens for munchies.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I really don't see the point in this breed. I guess I understand how one could be drawn to the look and not want a FB. Though that is what they look like French and English bulldog mixes with other breeds. 

They can pull but they are not a working breed. If one wants a certain breed or type of dog I've nothing against that but there seems to be alternatives with established bully breeds if one wants a small bully. 

Shorty Bulls are to be under 40lbs it states. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are under that weight by standard (I know some are larger). A small APBT could also be a good choice don't have to get a large one. The female in my avatar is 25lbs, one hell of a pull dog. My Pits are 26-39lbs females and 32-45lbs males, they are not large by any means. I'm certain they are far more athletic and agile than a Shorty Bull. I'd put anyone of them against a shorty in competition.

I had a 28lber that went to a pet home about 3yrs ago. Great house dog, not destructive, doesn't knock over things. Lives with another dog and cats. Is also from game lines but isn't hyper or crazy in the home. So I see no reason why a Pit couldn't be a good small house dog. It's not like Shorty Bulls are toy dogs themselves.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

X-Man said:


> It's the same thing as texting!! It's called Abbreviating a word! wow do u still have a 10 pound cell phone two!! TFF


This is NOT your cell phone, leave the texting talk to your buddies. This is a forum where people go to have conversations thru the written word not lazy chat speak. Yes we all may make spelling errors now and then but at least they arn't intentional.


----------



## Darcystheone (Apr 30, 2008)

X-Man said:


> It's the same thing as texting!! It's called Abbreviating a word! wow do u still have a 10 pound cell phone two!! TFF


I think you meant TOO, not Two, as in the number. . Or is that an abbreviation too/to/two . Look, I am not spelling or grammer natzi (I make my fair share of grammer mistakes trust me), but honestly some of what you have written has been difficult to read, due to what you call abbreviations.

Oh and FTR, I have a Bold 9700, lol, not entirely sure what cell phone size has to do with anything, I don't abbreviate to that extent on my cell phone either .


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/s/shortybull.htm

The Shorty Bulls on this site don't look all that great to me.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> I wasn't talking about the comment that were made about my dog. lol I'm still going to give him he's raw diet meal tomorrow. I was taking about people me abbreviating things and sending me PM's about how I'm a 12 year old. A 28 pound pit bull really!! What's next your going to tell me that you have a 12 inch tall pit bull in your backyard!! TFF No dog is going to beat a well balanced pit in the track (pulling) but for a small bull dog 2,700 pounds is really good. Name an FB that pulls that much!! take your time I'm waiting! lol X-man's grandmother use to pull 4,000 pounds. Name a FB or EB that pulls that much. You might name 1 or 2 if your lucky. That's the hole purpose, to have a fun little bull dog that you can work to an extend. Better yet name me a FB that does protection work well.


French Bulldogs aren't working/pulling dogs. Neither are English Bulldogs. So, if your goal is a working/weightpull dog, WHY are you breeding THOSE two breeds? They don't contribute anything to your goal.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

X-Man said:


> I wasn't talking about the comment that were made about my dog. lol I'm still going to give him he's raw diet meal tomorrow. I was taking about people me abbreviating things and sending me PM's about how I'm a 12 year old. A 28 pound pit bull really!! What's next your going to tell me that you have a 12 inch tall pit bull in your backyard!! TFF No dog is going to beat a well balanced pit in the track (pulling) but for a small bull dog 2,700 pounds is really good. Name an FB that pulls that much!! take your time I'm waiting! lol X-man's grandmother use to pull 4,000 pounds. Name a FB or EB that pulls that much. You might name 1 or 2 if your lucky. That's the hole purpose, to have a fun little bull dog that you can work to an extend. Better yet name me a FB that does protection work well.



ummm..ok kid...first...you dont seem to know a whole heck of a lot about pit bulls if you are surprised at the idea of a 28 pound pit. pit bulls are SUPPOSED to be medium sized dogs..the ones on the smaller end are in fact often in the upper 20's pound range. its the super huge ones that are incorrect. 

second..you dont seem to understand what we mean by structure. we arent talking specifically of muscle. what we are talking about is angulation of the skeletal system. if you take a physics class in high school..you will learn about how some angles are stronger than others and will absorb shock better AND will waste less energy. these are the same principles that engineers use to build efficient machines. the build of a shorty bull is inefficient. it just is. the angles are such that there is a lot of wasted motion..which equals wasted energy..resulting in a dog that will tire ten times faster than a dog with efficient angulation. this isnt being insulting. its SCIENCE.

third. most of us here are full grown adults and have been dealing with dogs longer than you've been alive. you'd do well to listen. you might learn something.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I don't think you get it. just because a dog CAN do something dosn't mean it should start the base of a whole new breed claiming to be bred for such a thing.

For example, There are Australian Shepherds who are good hunting dogs but you wouldn't use Australian Shepherds to make the next great hunting breed. You would obviously use other breeds who have been known for a long time to be amazing at that thing and breed them together. If one wanted to make the next great Weight pull and stamina dog you don't start with Frenchies and English Bulldogs, you start with American Pit Bull terriers, American Bulldogs, and the like. If one wants to make the next best companion breed with a tough look and a sweet personality THEN you start with FB and EB, It seems to me that the companion qualities of the Shorty are the breeds true purpose which I think is great but don't try and make a Thoroughbred out of a Koala bear.

Let me say it clearer
There is NOTHING wrong with creating a Shorty Bull breed (assuming all health testing is done and the dogs themselves are healthy) 
But claiming it's being bred as a performance dog is BS. It's a cute, tough looking, companion bred dog and you shouldn't be ashamed of that in any way.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

X-Man said:


> That's cool!! pit bulls are amazing dog's but I didn't want a pit bull I wanted a small bull dog. Like an EB or FB but as you know they can't perform much. They are not just French and EB mix dogs. They have about 3-4 other breeds because an EB/FB mix will not give you a better dog than what they are already. They won't work any different than they already do. Think about it. It's nice to have an option of getting a small bull dog that work's to a degree and that you can have fun with and are not stuck with a small bull dog that just wants to sleep. Your pits might weight that much but how many of them are 12-13 inches tall?? Not much, if any. So even if my dog weighs more it still looks smaller than your pits and take up less space.


personally id have gone with a Patterdale Terrier or a second choice would have been a JRT. 

patterdale pulling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01SvcZYNNNo

shutzhund jack russell terrier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTN5kTkdvME

not a bulldog..but far more structurally sound with good working ability.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

I guess people see what they want to see.....Like most on here I just don't get the logic behind the breeding 
I see the breed as a step back .....


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Keechak said:


> I don't think you get it. just because a dog CAN do something dosn't mean it should start the base of a whole new breed claiming to be bred for such a thing.
> 
> For example, There are Australian Shepherds who are good hunting dogs but you wouldn't use Australian Shepherds to make the next great hunting breed. You would obviously use other breeds who have been known for a long time to be amazing at that thing and breed them together. If one wanted to make the next great Weight pull and stamina dog you don't start with Frenchies and English Bulldogs, you start with American Pit Bull terriers, American Bulldogs, and the like. If one wants to make the next best companion breed with a tough look and a sweet personality THEN you start with FB and EB, It seems to me that the companion qualities of the Shorty are the breeds true purpose which I think is great but don't try and make a Thoroughbred out of a Koala bear.
> 
> ...


Psh, that's just because you haven't seen my Koala Bear stables. I'm having trouble finding jockeys though. They need to be very tiny.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

TStafford said:


> http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/s/shortybull.htm
> 
> The Shorty Bulls on this site don't look all that great to me.


lol Dog Breed Info doesn't make ANY breeds or mutts look good. Have you looked at their Rottwieler page?


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

Keechak said:


> lol Dog Breed Info doesn't make ANY breeds or mutts look good. Have you looked at their Rottwieler page?


Yeah, I guess they just let people post any picture of the breed because I have seen some that liked mixed breeds. I was using them because a breeder had put thier pictures on there.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm going to bet the farm Jonas could out work these dogs. And he isn't a shining white knight of his breed.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> I know you weren't talking about he's muscle structure or things like he's paws. My point is this, compared to an EB or FB a Shorty Bull will perform better. A Shorty Bull also does bite work better. If I'm in the market for a small Bull dog, I'm going for a Shorty Bul. Why dislike something that's better than the excising dog. Why not make a better healthier small bulldog. Only vets will have a problem because of $$ lol My vet told me that he's healthier than any EB FB that she has seen and he had he's hips x-rayed.


I don't think you're getting it. 

Picture a table. It's a very big table. In the middle, put a very heavy television. Where would you rather have the legs: far away from the weight or directly under it? You want the legs underneath the weight, it's more stable. When you put them way out, the top of the table can start to dip downward. That's a less stable position. If you look at the legs of shorty bulls, you'll see they are way away from the dog's center of gravity. Compare that image to a pit bull (or just about any other breed of dog) and you'll see their legs are directly underneath them supporting the dog's weight.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> Last post!
> 
> Shorty Bulls are companion dogs that have some working ability. Nothing can beat a pit bull or staffy, nothing!! But not everybody wants a pit bull or staffy. Some people just want a small bulldog and the Shorty Bulls give people a different choice other than getting an EB or FB that can't really do much (not to mention the health problems). Why are you guy's so against it if a better dog has been created. I can work my dog or me and him can just chill out on the coach. He's not on full drive mode at all time's like most pits and staffies (I've had a couple of pits but they have weighed at least 50-60 pounds). So that's all, a small bull dog that's not a lazy with less wealth problems and that's willing to work. It's better than the alternative. Name me a FB/EB that can run 10 miles, do protection work and some weight pulling. Like I said take your time I'm waiting! I already know a couple of Shorty Bulls.
> 
> Still don't understand why you guy's are so against it. You guy's most hate EB's because some weight about 60-70 pounds of fat and are only about 14 inches tall and you still can't understand why this breed was created??


Because it's not a better dog. It's a dog that might have some drive, but it's a dog whose body is going to betray it. Think about tables.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

because dogs with that build have problems. sooner or later depending on how much stress you subject their bodies to.

Im against ANY breeding that produces dogs with that build...Shorty Bull or not. that type is just not sound.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

If you were looking for a smaller bull with working drive, why not get a Staffordshire Bull Terrier?

Also, I post from my phone all the time...

So... IMHO I R TEH #1 IDK MY BFF JILL

Also, you keep saying it's not just made out of an EB mixed with FB...

But I dare you to say those are not breeds used in it.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

I'm not sure if you know the difference between an American Staffordshire Terrier and an Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier kinda looks like a less meaty version, tighter face, of your dog. Far healthier looking. AKC standards 24 to 38lbs, 14 to 16 inches tall.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

What are the five breeds you keep bringing up?


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

LoL I'd pick my Orion over your X-Man in any sort of "performance" any day, and he's only 6 months old.

I drive a manly pickup.

My wife's pretty hot.

And I don't live with my parents, so I can't have to much money.

ETA: X-Man would totally beat him ina limbo contest though.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

X-Man said:


> What don't you get about that I don't won't a pit bull or Staffordshire Bull Terrier!!?? I just don't want does dogs!! What's so hard about that understanding that!! not everybody thinks like you do!! I'm not in love with pit bulls or Staffordshire Bull Terrier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> and yes some French was used way down the line. Mixed in with about 5 other breeds.
> 
> ...



You didn't see me giving a legit critique of eb because you didn't look. You just are acting out because you don't understand what we are talking about. Because you're choosing not to.

And cursing can get you in trouble here.

Your claims of health don't mean anything with respect to an objective standard. And in reality .....I'm pushing for change in the dog world...pushing to use scientific research instead of what people think looks cool in the breeding of dogs. You're just missing the point that what I'm saying is based on science. Its a fact


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

My vote for breed mix is Frenchie x American Bully (another mess of a "breed")


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

X-Man said:


> Tazzy pulling 2,708 pounds not bad for a 28 pound dog.


2,708lbs on RAILS? For a 28lb dog.... So that is 96x his body weight? Dude, your dog would get his butt handed to him by any of the UKC dogs in the area.

Toby the Chinese Crested weighs around 12lbs, and pulls 133x his body weight. Cassie the SBT, well lets just say that dog will put that little dog to shame (and she weighs in at 28lbs)







[/IMG] 
Cassie and Toby go back and forth on winning MPP all the time.

I can't say anything for my WP dog who can't get beyond 76X currently, but we've been pulling for under a year so I can understand. He also weights 67lbs so he's need to be pulling around 7000lbs which is a lot more then I could ever pull. I expect to hit around 5000lbs in our rail pull in Oct (I'll be thrilled with 3000lbs on a cart this weekend!)

It may be impressive to those who do not know the WP world, but I happen to be in the area with the top weight pulling dogs in the country for the UKC. It's not bad, but that is pretty low for a dog that size.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

Darkmoon said:


> Toby the Chinese Crested weighs around 12lbs, and pulls 133x his body weight.


LoL I wanna see!


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

tw1n said:


> LoL I wanna see!


I didn't get a photo of him pulling that time. It was already 5pm when we got done pulling so we took off to eat and take care of the dogs. They didn't get done pulling until like 9pm. I heard about it the next day when awards were handed out. Beat every dog there that day in percentage pulled at least 65 other dogs. If you have Facebook, here's the link to him http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Toby-the-Strong/110089389029183?ref=ts Looks like he'll be coming out to another rail pull in Oct and maybe I can get some photo's then.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

LoL I love the way his hair actual accents his pulling. It makes him look big and strong.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

X-Man said:


> You’re definitely right that Shorty Bull will probably get her butt handed to her in an UKC weight pull but she'll also hand you your butt and your dogs butt right now in a Wal-Mart bag so you can take it home with you and rub it on your chest! lol


Um WTH? Have a little tack here. 



> There cool little bully dogs that can work to a certain extend! I've given you facts! I don't live through my dogs, so I don't care if he wins 1st place in weight pulling. I just want to have some fun with my little cool Shorty Bull! You say he not healthy my vet says he's 100% healthy and he has no problems doing some work and running 2 miles, now how's right? Plus you guys haven't even seen a Shorty Bull in the flesh your just assuming things.


I'm sorry Vet's will say any dog is "healthy" as long as they don't see any issues. Genetic testing, and health testing for Hips and elbows will really say if a dog is healthy or not. Vets would say my dog is healthy as a horse, but until they look at the x-rays of his hips, they wouldn't see the issue of one of his hips may already be showing signs of arthritis. He was 3 years old when we found it and it won't really bother him until he's much older. He would NOT be a good breeding candidate because of that. "Healthy"is a very genetic term. Dogs that are "healthy" can carry many genetic issues that may not produce now, but down the line in a few years it may start showing up. 

Personally I agree with what everyone else has to say, it's a designer breed that's only purpose is to look "tough". You may get a few that are good at WP and other high demanding sports but overall, that breed wouldn't do well at any sort of demanding sport like Agility. They just wouldn't be able to breathe well enough. Sorry you may love the "breed" but they aren't a real breed, just a designer fad.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FNo..the science is correct. Nothing you have said has proven it wrong. You're just not getting it. 

How you are defining health is basic stuff. The stuff your average vet is qualified to diagnose is NOT WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT.

In order to prove to me those dogs are as structurally healthy as a well built animal, you would need to see a series of specialists for the entire dogs life for many many dogs. Preferably every member of this so called breed. 

Tell me...what's the c section stats for Shorty bulls? What about rate of dysplasia? Ratio of dogs with to dogs without patellar luxation?


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

Is he implying that the shorty bull will attack us and our dogs in a wal-mart parking lot?


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

Am I the only one that has a terribly hard time believing that his dog can actually RUN two miles at a time? 

I see pictures of that dog, and I just don't believe it. And, if it can, I'd really worry at the damage it's causing.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have nothing at stake here and honestly don't really care but how can they have crossed 5 breeds if the oldest is only 10 years old? There's no way it's a breed yet if the oldest is just 10...


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

X-Man said:


> and I don't like does dogs!!


 That completely seals it for me. If you don't understand the concept of correct usage of words and spelling then you are incapable of understanding canine body struction vs. function or ethical dog breeding.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Hallie said:


> That completely seals it for me. If you don't understand the concept of correct usage of words and spelling then you are incapable of understanding canine body struction vs. function or ethical dog breeding.


RaeganW would like to thank you for this post.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I have nothing at stake here and honestly don't really care but how can they have crossed 5 breeds if the oldest is only 10 years old? There's no way it's a breed yet if the oldest is just 10...


I also have nothing at stake in this thread (especially because I don't think the OP cares to learn anything here), but I would also love to know this!



Hallie said:


> That completely seals it for me. If you don't understand the concept of correct usage of words and spelling then you are incapable of understanding canine body struction vs. function or ethical dog breeding.


Hahaha, I'm with RaeganW here... Is there a "like" button I can hit???


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> so I refer to them as a breed


Then you refer to them incorrectly. An animal of any type must breed true to be called a breed.

That said...
Spellchecker, spellchecker please check those words


----------



## Ramble On Rose (Apr 21, 2010)

Sheesh, why would anyone want a blobbed out short snouted Frenchie to do weight pulling with? Makes no sence. If I wanted a smallish dog to do this with, i'd get a Staffie Bull or a Mini Bull Terrier. Both are such cool dogs and no doubt would have more stamina. These shorty dogs remind me of one of those recreation Bulldogs (can't think of which line right now), that have arms so turned outward that they look like crabs - a mess. I'm not against creating new breeds if it serves a viable purpose. I just don't see it here at all.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

American Bullies? Olde English Bulldogges?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Xeph said:


> American Bullies? Olde English Bulldogges?


I've seen some nice OEBs, but those dogs can vary a LOT from line to line, there's little consistancy at all.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Every time I read the title of this thread I think Shwetty Balls. I'm sorry, I can't help myself LOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

Finkie_Mom said:


> Hahaha, I'm with RaeganW here... Is there a "like" button I can hit???


haha! I think 'like' buttons would be a good idea on this thread! 



X-Man said:


> Get a life!! You’re just trying to bash on anything possible!! I work in financing for EMC and its end of quarter. I'm extremely busy so I'm typing everything quick to get back to work and make three times’s the money you make a year.


 I don't care how much you make a year. That's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, kindergarteners think having a brighter crayon makes them superior, I believe this is your theory as well?Also, I hope you realize 'those' is only one letter longer than 'does' and 'extended' is longer than 'extent'. Unfortunately money doesn't equal intellegence or ability to understand "complex" dog things which is proven above. So what were you trying to prove with the income nonsense? Shorty Bulls aren't a breed. They aren't needed as a breed and have no purpose to serve that a purebred couldn't serve more effeciently and with fewer consequences to the dog itself. Therefore there is absolutely no need for Shorty Bulls. 

Am I the only one that thinks 'Shorty Bulls' sounds like a new kind of bullystick?


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

Hallie said:


> ...'those' is only one letter longer than 'does'...


And does is pronounced DUZ, so doze or dose would be a better shortcut...


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

X-Man said:


> That's cool!! pit bulls are amazing dog's but I didn't want a pit bull I wanted a small bull dog. Like an EB or FB but as you know they can't perform much. They are not just French and EB mix dogs. They have about 3-4 other breeds because an EB/FB mix will not give you a better dog than what they are already. They won't work any different than they already do. Think about it. It's nice to have an option of getting a small bull dog that work's to a degree and that you can have fun with and are not stuck with a small bull dog that just wants to sleep. Your pits might weight that much but how many of them are 12-13 inches tall?? Not much, if any. So even if my dog weighs more it still looks smaller than your pits and take up less space.


Like I said I've nothing against wanting a certain type of dog.

What are the other breeds?

I understand its nice to have type of dog you want. It isn't a working breed, that is the point. Many breeds can compete in some type of sport but it doesn't make them a true working breed and that is fine. It's just the truth. You can do what you want with your dog hood for you.

So they are 2 to 3 inches taller, yes that is taking up so much less space. The Shorty Bull standard actually tops @ 15" so not all are shorter or so much shorter.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Spellchecker, spellchecker please check those words


I think even IE has a spellchecker now (though you won't catch me using it to find out).



> and I don't like does dogs!!


Ok. Totally neutral* question: What do you like, specifically, about the shorty bull that you do not like about AmStaffs or SBT?

*As a note, I cannot spell the word "neutral." But Chrome can, and I care enough about everyone else's ability to read and understand what I am saying, that I corrected it. You're welcome. XP


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

X-Man said:


> ...and make three times’s the money you make a year.


What does this have to do with anything, and how do you know how much money any of us make in a year?


----------



## QuidditchGirl (Apr 9, 2010)

X-Man said:


> I have never bred a dog before but I will be running a couple of test on X-man to make sure that everything is good with him (including x-rays). I think in order for the breed to grow healthy dog need to be used for breeding. I'm not saying that they are going to be the best athletes; all I'm saying is that they can work to some extent and that there not just a lap dog that looks nice.


Does this mean you are planning on breeding your dog??


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

Hallie said:


> None of our comments were aimed to insult you, although it's entirely up to you on how you interpret them. If you've ever met a EB or a FB from good health tested, pedigreed lines you wouldn't hear them gasping for breath after a quick few steps, you wouldn't hear them huffing and puffing at all. A BYB EB or in some cases APBT can't breathe well and has low stamina because of the simple fact it can't breathe. Take a BYB EB (doesn't have to be purebred) and breed it with a BYB french bulldog it's quite obvious the result is going to be a wide chested dog with horrible body structure that can't breathe well at all.


Um, even well bred frenchies can have breathing problems. It's part of the problem that comes with the breed. Especially in the summer, after just a few minutes they can be huffing and puffing. You have to be very careful with them. Even our frenchies that are "good breathers" can get winded in the summer. And I don't mean to sound rude, so I hope I don't offend you. But it's just something that comes with the breed, it's to be expected. My boy Murph is a pretty decent breather but even the other day when he was trotting around the pet store with me, he was breathing through his mouth, not huffing and puffing, but you could hear him. And it was only like 75 degrees outside.


and I dunno how the OP doesn't think they look like frenchies on steroids lol. Here is my guy Murph. He's 20lbs and VERY small & compact for a male frenchie, but looks like a mini body builder lol. 










That pic actually makes him look much bigger than he is LOL. In real life, he looks like a tiny little nugget.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

X-Man said:


> Oh! and I have not heard of a Shorty Bull having any hip or joint problem. I don't have the time to go look in everybody's yard, so I don't have a percentage. The Shorty Bulls also give natural birth and feed the pups by them self's. I've only heard of one female not having natural birth and that's because the first two pups came out backwards. Unlike EB's or FB's!


id appreciate you not blowing a gasket and actually trying to understand what WE are saying.

a. we like all dogs. Im sure your dog is a nice dog. if i was gonna try to diss a dog...id be talking smack on them directly. but im not dissing the dogs. a criticism doesnt always equal a diss.

yes i AM criticizing them. because i forsee major problems. the traits these dogs posses are the SAME traits that are causing problems in EBs and Frenchies...its just that this gene pool is new. the more you breed this short wide body type to this short wide body type...the more problems you're going to get. because type to type with no consideration towards proper moderation in structure will create exaggeration...and its the exaggeration of these traits that cause problems in breeds like EB. creating this breed as it is is walking a dangerous path. im not criticizing the dogs..im talking about the breed as a whole and its future. they're too wide and short as it is. they arent the only breed with these problems. the other breeds like this only have more problems _because they've been around longer._ people dont seem to understand that its a *fact of biology* that form and function go hand in hand. its not just a fact of biology either. its a fact of existence. if you look at enzymatic reactions within cells..enzyme structure has to correlate to substrate structure in order for a reaction to take place. its a fact of chemistry, biology, physics..its just a fact of science. period. and if one is going to create a breed that's going to last and have no problems in the long run..you NEED to understand that and take it into account. period. the reason why so many breeds have problems is because people DONT understand that. frankly it sickens me that people ignore this. these Shorty Bulls do not have good structure. if its not fixed or if its not moderated AT LEAST..the problems WILL come up.

and it pisses me off that i get accused of being "a hater" when im _trying to help._

seriously. grow up.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just have a few questions in general.

How long have shorty bulls been around? 

What breeds went into them?

Are they breeding true yet? 

Just curious.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

QuidditchGirl said:


> Does this mean you are planning on breeding your dog??


If so it just gets worse & worse...Yikes!


----------



## doginthedesert (Jun 18, 2010)

I have seen a lot of dogs around here on craigslist at the rescue I work with that look just like these. They are calling them "pocket pit bulls" though. 

I must agree, it seems a little irresponsible to try to make a breed that is destined to be structurally unsound. Especially without very diligent health testing.


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> Yeah! I'm a liar now!! It happens when you buy a Shorty Bull.


I was not accusing you of lying at all. I was saying that I have a hard time believing that your dog can run for that distance and amount of time without it causing some sort of damage. And you're making yourself look exceedingly foolish with comments that jump to conclusions and are overly defensive like the one above.

You call everyone else "haters" and other ridiculous, meaningless words, and yet you've taken a shot at every member of this forum. About intelligence, openness, and even something as trivial as salary. You're the one who came here, spewing rude comments.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

X-Man said:


> I appreciate you at least trying to understand. The Shorty Bulls were not build to be the complete athlete and take over a specific dog sport. They weren't designed to be a working dog, that's not what I'm trying to say. All I'm trying to say is that they can work to a certain degree. They were built to have the classic bulldog temperament that the EB's and FB's have and people have fallen in love with but they can perform better than those breeds. They can do protection work but they are not the best at it. They can do weight pulling but are not the best at it.


I understand completely one liking a certain type. Nothing wrong with that. It's a problem of breeders being responsible. Which is an issue in all breeds. There are also just facts of form, I have trouble believing they don't have hindered breathing. As dogs with such muzzles to, even Pits I've seen with short muzzles do, especially on heat. They are winded easier and tire faster. The Boxers I've had have had the same problem and my Am Bulldog too somewhat at least, not really too bad.

I think companion breeds are fine if bred responsibly. You have to understand that this type of dog really isn't something I'm keen on however. 



> They are fun dog's to have around because of there classic bulldog attitude but you can have some fun with them by working with them in some dog sports. They are a better option to the small bulldogs that are around and by bulldog I mean real bulldogs with a smashed in face (not just a bull breed). It's fun to have a bulldog that like's to chill but at the same time when I take out a bite tug it's game on and the dog will hang on it like a pit. My dog also works the spring pole, which I really like and I like running 2 miles with him. There's not much small bulldog breeds that can say that or that you can do that with. Just like everything else it's a preference
> 
> 
> > To me the APBT will always be the ideal bulldog but I understand they are not everyone's cup of tea.
> ...


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

Every litter of frenchies we've had this summer have nursed their pups....

C-section, yes. But they nurse their own pups....


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

First...

Murph is adorable.


Second...

Why is the Shorty Bull community so tight lipped about what breeds got in a Shorty Bull? Knowing what dogs go into it could actually shoot down a lot of our criticisms. All we can say by looking at the short stumpy legs and compressed muzzle is it looks like a dog was bred to have joint and breathing problems. It appears no actually testing is being done? I went to the first 3 big breeders I could find and not a single one mentioned health testing; although they did all share your horrible use of the English language.

Third...

Laur,
One of the sites claims that the "breed" if 5 generations true.


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

tw1n said:


> First...
> 
> Murph is adorable.
> 
> ...



Hehe, thank you. That picture does not do his cute little chunkness justice. When I actually got to pick him up, I couldn't believe how small and compact he is, with a big ol' head. And he looks like a little tough guy there, in reality, he has sweet eyes, like a seal :laugh:


----------



## PittiLove29 (Apr 3, 2009)

I didn't read the whole thread as I'm not in to people producing mutts and calling them purebred. The BBCR and ABKC ARE NOT reputable registries. If you want a small working dog get a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Also, as others have said if you stick with ADBA registered APBTs you can find them to be on the small side (30-40 lbs). These dogs may be pullers, but I guarantee they can't get anywhere near an APBT in competition. If you want to compete then get the best. 

This is just my opinion, but it really doesn't look good for a rescue to be buying into the "designer" dog crap.


----------



## Kayote (Oct 3, 2009)

Oh look, a beefed up french bulldog, or a plethora of bred dogs to create a very sad, potentially unhealthy dog. 

Sigh.

Oh, and yeah, agreed with above. What kind of rescue promotes mixed breeding. :I


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

X-Man said:


> smashed in face bulldog breed


 They are called brachycephalic btw. I know that is hard to say, hard to spell, and not many people even know what it means but for some reason reading "smashed in face dog" over and over and over is driving me nuts!


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Kayote said:


> Oh, and yeah, agreed with above. What kind of rescue promotes mixed breeding. :I


 *Not a good one*. 

I wish boys would learn to feel manly without the puffed up "manly dog" on the end of their leashes. This must be the 12 year olds version of a "dangerous dog" to threaten people with. Sad really. The dog is cute but I would worry a great deal about his long term health with the squished nostrils and the fact that his owner sees him as athletically built and pushes him to be such.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Xman, You love your dog..this is clear. He's probably a pretty awesome little brick. 

You want us to understand why your dog was developed, if you want us to know that you need to be able to give us more information on the development of the breed. New breeds do get developed responsibly, the Alaskan Klee Kai comes to mind, but if you look up that breed you will see the extremes that were gone to to ensure that health, temperament and standard were based on specific goals. Developing a bulldog type that "can work" is not specific. 

I too have specific concerns about the physical conformation in your dog and other's of it's type. Pure physics really. Think of it this way...you get a really really tall guy and make him into a basketball player..but the taller and bigger the player gets the flatter his feet become and the more pressure on his lower back and knees occur. Then you've got a big guy who can do nothing but stand in the paint with his arms up. No speed, no agility and no stamina..he will also likely suffer from heel spurs, plantar fasciitis and a have a very painful retirement.

When you create a dog with a chest and shoulder angulation like is evident in your pics, ALL the weight when he runs and jumps is supposed to be absorbed equally between his wrists, elbows and shoulder...but it's not, it will almost all be absorbed by his elbows, simply because they are not parallel to his sternum and spine but instead turn outwards. This is a functional issue...

Developing a breed responsibly..say you want the EB and FB temperament but with more "energy" for working and exercise, would require choosing breeds to put into the mix that have good athletic structure. This dog doesn't. He may be able to work now and actually enjoy it, but I have known many dogs in my life that will run with their owner, run in the park and work if asked to even if they are in discomfort. It means that much to them. That is awesome, but is it fair?

Our concern is for the dogs. All dogs. Regardless of breed. It's the owners and breeders that don't consider these things that upset us. Because it should be about the dog.

I am also very curious about the other breeds that were/are being used for the foundation of this new breed. And yes, technically a breed is not considered a "purebred" until it breeds TRUE TO TYPE consistently for five generations. This is why the Aussie Labradoodle IS a breed but a lab/poodle mix is NOT.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Cracker, I am with you through most of that post, but for the end.

This is an "I object" post, to the definition of 'breed' that you have posted.

This is an interesting little tidbit from the animal sciences department, Oklahoma State University which outlines my difficulty and puts things succinctly.

_*What is a breed?*

The classic definition of a "breed" is usually stated as a variation of this statement.

Animals that, through selection and breeding, have come to resemble one another and pass those traits uniformly to their offspring. 

Unfortunately this definition leaves some unanswered questions. For example, when is a crossbred animal considered a composite breed and when do we stop thinking about them as composites? Perhaps this definition from The Genetics of Populations by Jay L. Lush helps explain why a good definition of "breed" is elusive.

A breed is a group of domestic animals, termed such by common consent of the breeders, ... a term which arose among breeders of livestock, created one might say, for their own use, *and no one is warranted in assigning to this word a scientific definition and in calling the breeders wrong when they deviate from the formulated definition*. It is their word and the breeders common usage is what we must accept as the correct definition.

As you can see from Dr. Lush's definition it is at least in part the perception of the breeders and the livestock industry which decides when a group of individuals constitutes a "breed".​_
http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/

The use of the word 'breed' as it pertains to dogs, or any other animal, is not a closed matter. It is in dispute and will remain so as long as there are different perspectives. 

Now the definition you gave (the five generation breeding true is one I've not yet seen and made me laugh out loud actually) might be the kennel clubs or registries definition, but these entities do not have the authority to dictate that to all that are in dogs - although they do try. Breeds of dogs were around long before the kennel clubs and registries.

Objection over . . . just thought I'd clarify some thoughts and point out that the definition of the word 'breed' can be fought over for days without agreement, and most likely all would be right, and all would be wrong at the same time.

SOB


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

SOB, it is fine to object to my post. 
Though I do prefer not be laughed at unless I've made a joke...

I've been known to be wrong, but as far as I know the generally accepted definition is breeding true to type for five generations based on the type standard with some natural deviation. I would assume in dog breeding this is how they would "sort" dogs into breeds first and then groups. But hell, I could be wrong. It's happened before.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

But isn't the "common consent of the breeders" that the AKC decides what is a breed and what isn't?

If any breeder gets to decide which dogs are a certain breed, you would need to recognise maltipoos and cavoodles as breeds, due to the number of backyard breeders that refer to maltipoo etc as a "breed".


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> But isn't the "common consent of the breeders" that the AKC decides what is a breed and what isn't?
> 
> If any breeder gets to decide which dogs are a certain breed, you would need to recognise maltipoos and cavoodles as breeds, due to the number of backyard breeders that refer to maltipoo etc as a "breed".


AKC doesn't have any athority to deside what is and isn't a breed, they only hold a registery for breeds that have a certain level of popularity in the USA and who's stud book holds a required amount of pureity, and they will only accept such breeds if a breed clubs requests them to.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> But isn't the "common consent of the breeders" that the AKC decides what is a breed and what isn't?


Not really. Breed clubs can exist for many years on their own, doing their own thing with their breed (and some want nothing to do with the AKC). Clubs apply for membership with the AKC purely for the ability to participate in all-breed shows and events, since the AKC generally runs the biggest and most prestigious of these.



> If any breeder gets to decide which dogs are a certain breed, you would need to recognise maltipoos and cavoodles as breeds, due to the number of backyard breeders that refer to maltipoo etc as a "breed".


Random people can call their mixes whatever they want, but establishing a breed requires years of conscientious effort by an organized group of people. Folks can call 1st generation mixes whatever they like, but it doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

I little question on the whole "breeding true" thing. What exactly does that mean? Surely it allows for some variation, because not all offspring within a certain breed is going to be an identical clone of its ancestors. Even with purebred dogs, puppies in the same litter can vary by color, coat type, size, different ear types, different facial structure, etc. Breeding mutts can cause a lot of variation, yes, but you could argue that there's still a lot of variation within purebred litters, too. And if you understand the genetics behind the dogs being used for breeding, it shouldn't be hard to predict what's likely to occur in potential litter. Am I making any sense?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Nargle said:


> I little question on the whole "breeding true" thing. What exactly does that mean? Surely it allows for some variation, because not all offspring within a certain breed is going to be an identical clone of its ancestors. Even with purebred dogs, puppies in the same litter can vary by color, coat type, size, different ear types, different facial structure, etc. Breeding mutts can cause a lot of variation, yes, but you could argue that there's still a lot of variation within purebred litters, too. And if you understand the genetics behind the dogs being used for breeding, it shouldn't be hard to predict what's likely to occur in potential litter. Am I making any sense?


Breeding true means just that... the offspring across generations are relatively predictable and the same. You can't really compare the variation in a purebred litter to that in a mixed litter. Yeah there's some variation in purebreds but not near the extent in mixed breeds. Yes some breeds allow for different coat types or ear types, but overall the offspring is fairly homogenous. 

Labradoodles (as in poodle x lab crosses) don't breed true. If you cross a labradoodle to a labradoodle you will get a large number of coat types (and looks). Most labradoodle breeders will breed labradoodle x poodle because that is a much more predictable cross. So labradoodles are not a 'breed' because they don't breed true in any way. 

A breed can't exist without some sort of predictability be that appearance, working function, etc. That's the whole meaning of a breed.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Breeding true means just that... the offspring across generations are relatively predictable and the same. You can't really compare the variation in a purebred litter to that in a mixed litter. Yeah there's some variation in purebreds but not near the extent in mixed breeds. Yes some breeds allow for different coat types or ear types, but overall the offspring is fairly homogenous.
> 
> Labradoodles (as in poodle x lab crosses) don't breed true. If you cross a labradoodle to a labradoodle you will get a large number of coat types (and looks). Most labradoodle breeders will breed labradoodle x poodle because that is a much more predictable cross. So labradoodles are not a 'breed' because they don't breed true in any way.
> 
> A breed can't exist without some sort of predictability be that appearance, working function, etc. That's the whole meaning of a breed.


But there is some degree of predictability in mixed breeds. For instance, if you breed a black tri Collie to a blue merle Aussie, you know that some of the pups will turn out black tri and some will turn out blue merle, there isn't suddenly going to be a faun colored puppy. I know that's just color, but what I'm trying to say is, if you understand the genetics that are behind the parents, it's still possible to reasonably predict the traits that will show up in the puppies, especially when mixing breeds that are closer together and carry many of the same traits. I'm not referring to breeding Yorkies to St. Bernards. Where's the line between "completely unpredictable mutts," "reasonably preditcable mutts," and purebreds? Breeds are, in fact, a compilation of a bunch of different traits that are desirable to the people creating that breed. What if two dogs have the same traits, but got those traits from different sources?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Nargle said:


> But there is some degree of predictability in mixed breeds. For instance, if you breed a black tri Collie to a blue merle Aussie, you know that some of the pups will turn out black tri and some will turn out blue merle, there isn't suddenly going to be a faun colored puppy. I know that's just color, but what I'm trying to say is, if you understand the genetics that are behind the parents, it's still possible to reasonably predict the traits that will show up in the puppies, especially when mixing breeds that are closer together and carry many of the same traits. I'm not referring to breeding Yorkies to St. Bernards. Where's the line between "completely unpredictable mutts," "reasonably preditcable mutts," and purebreds? Breeds are, in fact, a compilation of a bunch of different traits that are desirable to the people creating that breed. What if two dogs have the same traits, but got those traits from different sources?


But the pups won't look like their parents and won't look like each other and if you bred two pups together they wouldn't look like their parents. Many crosses fail on the 2nd generation. The first generation may be extremely predictable but the second generation out generally has a lot more variation. (and many revert back to the parent type because a 1st gen cross is typically heterozygous for traits)

No one has ever said mixed breeds can't be PREDICTABLE but they can't breed true. This isn't the same thing. Things like lurchers, other working crosses, borderjacks, 1st gen lab x poodles tend to be fairly predictable mixed breeds.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

The JRT is one that I always think of when this type of discussion arises. They have an established breed club with policies that I very much admire - and a crossbreed, even of first generation, can be registered as a JRT. As long as there is a 4 gen pedigree behind it (can be of another breed on one side), and as long as the pup meets all the specifications that any other JRT has to meet, including passing a breed specific health check through a vet at 12 months of age and meeting conformation standards, then it can be registered as a JRT. 

_"In other words should a mating between a Jack Russell and a Border Terrier occur, any puppies from that litter which look like a Jack Russell can be fully registered. The dog still must pass a vet check, have a pedigree, however the individual dog does not need to prove registration in any other Registry." _

http://earthworkers.com/differences/intro.htm

http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/realjack.php

http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/registry.php

SOB


----------



## Root (Apr 10, 2010)

Nargle said:


> But there is some degree of predictability in mixed breeds... ...*Where's the line between "completely unpredictable mutts," "reasonably preditcable mutts," and purebreds?* Breeds are, in fact, a compilation of a bunch of different traits that are desirable to the people creating that breed. What if two dogs have the same traits, but got those traits from different sources?





Laurelin said:


> *But the pups won't look like their parents and won't look like each other and if you bred two pups together they wouldn't look like their parents.* Many crosses fail on the 2nd generation. The first generation may be extremely predictable but the second generation out generally has a lot more variation. (and many revert back to the parent type because a 1st gen cross is typically heterozygous for traits)
> 
> *No one has ever said mixed breeds can't be PREDICTABLE but they can't breed true. * This isn't the same thing. Things like lurchers, other working crosses, borderjacks, 1st gen lab x poodles tend to be fairly predictable mixed breeds.


Maybe that line is drawn with mixed dog breeders who breed companion animals.. such as many of the poodle mixes. Form following function isn't really a consideration with a companion animal so it should be alright if the pup doesn't look exactly like it's parents. Two differen't hypoallergenic breeds would predictably produce a hypoallergenic mixed breed. Temperment and intelligence might also have a high degree of predictability. The breeder I purchased my Shih Poo from has been in the business for 30 years. That's a lot of time to spend figuring out whether or not they're successfully breeding predictable traits. I don't think they'd be in business for that long if they weren't delivering what they advertise.



Laurelin said:


> No one has ever said mixed breeds can't be PREDICTABLE but they can't breed true. This isn't the same thing. Things like lurchers, other working crosses, borderjacks, 1st gen lab x poodles tend to be fairly predictable mixed breeds.


I know of at least one person who claims mixed breeds can't be predictable.

Joanne Reichertz DVM (and poodle breeder... go figure), author of the article 'Oodles of Poodle Crosses for Sale. Can we prevent our Pet Puppies from Being used to produce these Crossbreeds?'

http://www.poodleclubcanada.com/goldendoodles.html


> "When you breed a litter of purebred dogs you get predictable puppies. With crossbred puppies you do not. It takes many generations to fix traits when developing a new breed."





spanielorbust said:


> Now the definition you gave (the five generation breeding true is one I've not yet seen and made me laugh out loud actually) might be the kennel clubs or registries definition, but these entities do not have the authority to dictate that to all that are in dogs - although they do try. Breeds of dogs were around long before the kennel clubs and registries.


I've also heard anywhere between two decades to over a hundred years. From Joanne Reichertz DVM and poodle breeder. Very scientific stuff.



> "...It takes many generations to fix traits when developing a new breed. For example *after a hundred years of breeding the Toy Poodle we still get the problems* of oversized individuals, long backs/short legs and soft coats (particularly in white) – all leftovers from the breeds originally used to produce the Toy Poodle.
> 
> Crossbred dogs such as the Goldendoodle or Cockapoo are NOT hybrids nor are they a breed. Cockapoos may look like a Poodle, a Cocker or somewhere in between. A Cockapoo bred to a Cockapoo is not a breed. *It takes decades or more to get a new breed to “breed true” without throwbacks occurring*....


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Root said:


> Form following function isn't really a consideration with a companion animal



Bullshizz it doesnt. Companionship is a function. The dog should be just as physically sound and structurally balanced as a working animal..the only difference is that there's a slightly larger margin of error. but its not that much bigger...


----------



## Root (Apr 10, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Bullshizz it doesnt. Companionship is a function. The dog should be just as physically sound and structurally balanced as a working animal..the only difference is that there's a slightly larger margin of error. but its not that much bigger...


Companionship isn't a function as the word is used in biological science. I don't have any bio background but as far as I know form and function describe the evolutionary process of things like flippers evolving into legs. If we're talking about breeding (I guess that could be considered an artificial 'evolutionary-like' process) then we're still talking about modifying the dogs body through breeding in order to get a certain build that presumably is selected to make a certain task more efficiently done. That's not really what poodle mix breeders do... as far as I know. I also have no breeding background.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Root said:


> Companionship isn't a function as the word is used in biological science. I don't have any bio background but as far as I know form and function describe the evolutionary process of things like flippers evolving into legs. If we're talking about breeding (I guess that could be considered an artificial 'evolutionary-like' process) then we're still talking about modifying the dogs body through breeding in order to get a certain build that presumably is selected to make a certain task more efficiently done. That's not really what poodle mix breeders do... as far as I know. I also have no breeding background.


companionship IS a function and its a function in the biological sense. or do your companion dogs sit like perfect statues 24 hours a day 7 days a week?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> But the pups won't look like their parents and won't look like each other and if you bred two pups together they wouldn't look like their parents. Many crosses fail on the 2nd generation. The first generation may be extremely predictable but the second generation out generally has a lot more variation. (and many revert back to the parent type because a 1st gen cross is typically heterozygous for traits)
> 
> No one has ever said mixed breeds can't be PREDICTABLE but they can't breed true. This isn't the same thing. Things like lurchers, other working crosses, borderjacks, 1st gen lab x poodles tend to be fairly predictable mixed breeds.


So breeding true is looking like the parents? But no dog is going to look 100% like its parents. Especially if it's born a different color, different coat type, different size, etc. How much variation in a breed is acceptable? Rottweilers are pretty uniform, one color, one coat type, one size, etc. But Border Collies can have a ton of variation, because there is a longer list of traits that is acceptable in the breed. If you start a line of mixed breed dogs, and the parents have a certain list of traits (Be they expressed or hidden, but still in their genes), couldn't you say those traits are the traits that are acceptable within the breed, and any offspring that has these traits is a member of the breed? 

Also, SOBs post about JRTs is really interesting to me. It sounds to me like they're more concerned with dogs having the correct traits for the breed, and less concerned with having the lines be pure. I mean, just about every breed started out as a mix of dogs that shared similarities.


----------



## Root (Apr 10, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> companionship IS a function and its a function in the biological sense. or do your companion dogs sit like perfect statues 24 hours a day 7 days a week?


I suppose in the sense that people are part of the environment in the dog world and that things like cuteness might affect how people interact with the dog. Just to be clear I'm not referring to tea cup breeders. The poodle mix breeder I purchased from doesn't breed tea cups. If we're talking about "form and function" and what a poodle mix breeder selects in physical traits (for the purpose of companionship) then we're not talking about anything that has any adverse consequences to the dog. Again, disregarding tea cup breeders. If you compare this scenario to what some of the working dog breeders have to consider (like a shorty Bull breeder) and the associated consequences then you're comparing apples and oranges. 

If we're talking about behavioral traits then my contention is that this is a lot more predictable in breeding mixed dogs than people think. Again, the breeder I purchased from has run a successful business and has enjoyed a great reputation for 30 years.


----------



## PittiLove29 (Apr 3, 2009)

> Oh, and yeah, agreed with above. What kind of rescue promotes mixed breeding. :I


I just remembered the ONLY other time I've heard of this "rescue". http://www.gopitbull.com/general-discussion/25130-beware-central-washington-bully-breed-rescue.html

It might be unfounded, but I'm seeing it become more believable the more I see this person on the net.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Nargle said:


> couldn't you say those traits are the traits that are acceptable within the breed, and any offspring that has these traits is a member of the breed? .


This is why it is so hard to define what the word 'breed' really means. It means different things to different people/groups and aways will.

For instance, in Tibet they had a landrace breed for thousands of years - the small lion dogs.

Here are some interesting Tidbits from historical accountings.

_"There are Apsos and what are known in the West as Tibetan Spaniels everwhere…. In every colour, typical of the breeds as we know them, but only a few Apsos have been brushed … As soon as I arrived in Kathmandu, I was contacted by Mrs. Prabka Rana who is trying to get the Apsos and the Spaniels sorted out and registered with the Kennel Club… Ama Rana certainly knows her dogs and we spent an interesting time inspecting the various specimens to decide which were reasonably pure. She explained, as did most Tibetans, that *they do not recognize the spaniel as a separate breed,* and it is called a short-haired Lhasa Apso (emphasis added). They frequently mate the two together and all efforts to prevent this practice have failed . . . The answer is always the same. *“It’s our breed and we should know.*”"_​
http://www.moniqueswebdesign.nl/dlap/cassandra1.html

_"*The smooth and the long haired coat are one and the same dog,* which throws huge questions out as to how the Lhasa Apsos (long haired) and Tibetan Spaniels (smooth coats) becames separated and why. An English show/breeder told me that *in the 1950s* her friend was there when dogs arrived into England from Mr. Tenzin Norgay’s Breeding Programme* and they were sorted into ‘short and long haired’ dogs and given separate names.* However, furthering on that, I have seen smooth and long haired Apsos treated exactly the same way by the Tibetans and also LARGE and SMALL ones. *We have called the large ones Tibetan Terriers!* It is true that the Tibetans prefer the small long haired dogs as fancy gifts for people, but they also adore the funny, frisky nature of the smooth coat, as it a feisty little dog and different from the long haired."_​
http://www.lhasadogs.com/OldNewComparison.html

Lots to chew on there. I know if I were from Tibet I would be deeply offended if folks from a totally different world attempted to educate me on the idea of what a breed should or should not be, or on which points a breed should be separated, or on which traits/dogs are most precious or valuable and should be bred forward on. 

..... oh wait, I'm from rural Canada and DO feel the same way about that exact process here.  Admittedly, I have a thick independent streak and question everything and understand others with that mindset the best. I get completely flummoxed by those that happily follow or want to do things the same way as others. 



Nargle said:


> Also, SOBs post about JRTs is really interesting to me. It sounds to me like they're more concerned with dogs having the correct traits for the breed, and less concerned with having the lines be pure.


Seems the same to me - one of the reasons for the admiration of the club and its policies.

SOB


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Nargle said:


> So breeding true is looking like the parents? But no dog is going to look 100% like its parents. Especially if it's born a different color, different coat type, different size, etc. How much variation in a breed is acceptable? Rottweilers are pretty uniform, one color, one coat type, one size, etc. But Border Collies can have a ton of variation, because there is a longer list of traits that is acceptable in the breed. If you start a line of mixed breed dogs, and the parents have a certain list of traits (Be they expressed or hidden, but still in their genes), couldn't you say those traits are the traits that are acceptable within the breed, and any offspring that has these traits is a member of the breed?


I believe that's how most breeds got started, actually. Generally dogs were crossed to improve function, then some very rich English guy would start refining a line until physical type was set. Some entire breeds can go back to just a handful of dogs. Pretty common in sporting dogs, as I understand it. Look at Tollers. They really only come in one color, but two dogs can look nothing alike. However, family lines tend towards a more predictable look.

I guess you can classify dogs to breeds two ways: physical type or working type. If it herds like a Border Collie, it's a Border Collie. If it hunts like a Jack, it's a Jack. But you there isn't really a difference in the way Papillons or Yorkies are companions.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

In companion breeds if you follow the history you will find that the 'rich guys' were in the different royal courts and ducal houses with their refined strains. Invariably, as their strains became ill from inbreeding, they reached out to the general population for an influx of new blood.

Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors is an historical book which speaks in volumes about the different strains of small or toy dogs, and their comings and goings and crossbreeding.

SOB


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> But you there isn't really a difference in the way Papillons or Yorkies are companions.


But there are different things different people want from their companion dogs. Some people want a low energy dog they can snuggle with and pamper and will always follow them around, some want a more active friend they can go out and have fun with (not specifically work, though), some want a really smart dog they can train to do cute tricks, and some want an independent, low-maintanence dog that will give them some space. So.. I think there's a huge difference in the way different breeds are companions, lol! There are mischievious Papillons, smart and trainable Poodles, independent and stubborn Pekingese, etc. etc. etc. My dog's "job" is to want to be near me all the time, be active enough to have fun, and be smart and biddable, and that's why I got a Papillon. It's not JUST about being cute with companion breeds.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Nargle said:


> So breeding true is looking like the parents? But no dog is going to look 100% like its parents. Especially if it's born a different color, different coat type, different size, etc. How much variation in a breed is acceptable? Rottweilers are pretty uniform, one color, one coat type, one size, etc. But Border Collies can have a ton of variation, because there is a longer list of traits that is acceptable in the breed. If you start a line of mixed breed dogs, and the parents have a certain list of traits (Be they expressed or hidden, but still in their genes), couldn't you say those traits are the traits that are acceptable within the breed, and any offspring that has these traits is a member of the breed?
> 
> Also, SOBs post about JRTs is really interesting to me. It sounds to me like they're more concerned with dogs having the correct traits for the breed, and less concerned with having the lines be pure. I mean, just about every breed started out as a mix of dogs that shared similarities.


Breeding true does not mean it looks like it's parents. It means that there is some sort of standardization through generations. Border collies have so much variation because the standardization in the breed is not physical standardization but rather standardizing through working type. 

Of course there is variation. Without it any breed would die out. How much variation depends on the founders of the breed, I suppose. The people in charge of the breed decides what makes 'the cut'. But to make a 'breed' you must have some sort of deciding criteria or some sort of breeding for type. 

Breeds were created various ways- through what worked best or what struck the creator's fancy. Most breeds as we know them developed out of dogs of different landraces or types. 

In your mixed breed example you could hypothetically take two dogs and decide certain offspring expressing certain types were part of your 'breed', but really you can't call it a breed until those offspring breed true. Because most likely if you cross those two offspring that have the traits you want the next generation won't have all or even many of the traits you want. Think labradoodles again... you call the 2nd gen poodle type coat, lab personality, etc dog your 'labradoodle' breed. But if you take two of these dogs and breed them the result is not a labradoodle.



RaeganW said:


> But you there isn't really a difference in the way Papillons or Yorkies are companions.


I disagree with this. There's a lot of variation among companion breeds, probably more than any other group. A pug doesn't do companionship the same way a papillon does. (just an example)


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Root said:


> I suppose in the sense that people are part of the environment in the dog world and that things like cuteness might affect how people interact with the dog. Just to be clear I'm not referring to tea cup breeders. The poodle mix breeder I purchased from doesn't breed tea cups. If we're talking about "form and function" and what a poodle mix breeder selects in physical traits (for the purpose of companionship) then we're not talking about anything that has any adverse consequences to the dog. Again, disregarding tea cup breeders. If you compare this scenario to what some of the working dog breeders have to consider (like a shorty Bull breeder) and the associated consequences then you're comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> If we're talking about behavioral traits then my contention is that this is a lot more predictable in breeding mixed dogs than people think. Again, the breeder I purchased from has run a successful business and has enjoyed a great reputation for 30 years.


you're glossing over a serious thing....health....what use is a companion if it has a short lifespan? costs thousands of dollars in vet bills?

physical structure plays into that absolutely. not only that but physical structure is a key concern for many companion breeds due to the fact that there is such a wide variety of things people do with their companion dogs. a companion breed absolutely needs to take structure into account because their job is the most general of all the potential positions dogs hold in life. and keep in mind..im not talking about breed standards(though there are quite a few fabulous breed standards that hold to scientifically sound physical traits.).

structure is HUGELY important..no matter what a dog does.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> structure is HUGELY important..no matter what a dog does.


I agree with you whole-heartedly, and have to mention that I was completely dismayed, after a lifetime with working breeds, to look at the choices in companion breeds and find all the exaggerations which are bred for by standard.

I think 'selling structure' will remain a sticking point to breeders of companion breeds. I've yet to find a single moderately coated historically companion bred breed in the small but still sturdy 10-25 pound range (keep in mind the exclusion of most small terriers and sight hounds here) that is void of exaggerated features. They all have what I consider exaggerated deformities in their structure. In the Lhasa Apso and Tibetan Spaniel the standard was changed from an avoidance of undershot bites, to preference for it, and now it is a common occurance. I find this horrible.

1901 Standard - Mouth quite level, but of the two a slightly *overshot mouth is preferable *to an undershot one. . . . 
1933 Standard - The jaws are generally slightly “undershot”; some times there are very much
1935 Standard - Mouth and muzzle - mouth level, otherwise undershot preferable.
1960 Standard - Mouth : Level. Otherwise slightly *undershot preferable. An overshot mouth is undesirable*. 
1978 Standard - The preferred bite is either level or slightly undershot.

http://www.lhasa-apso.org/standard/mouth.htm
http://www.tibetan-lhasa-apso.com/Us/UsCaract/UsBouche.html

We have a whole slough of brachycephalic muzzles, undershot bites, bulging eyes, deep wrinkles, achondroplasia, apple heads, or profuse coats (and a profuse coat or bearded face is the first thing that turns me completely off of a dog). IMHO what has been done in the name of 'improvement' is just ridiculous. 

I am always amazed when posters comment that there are no reasons for new companion breeds - they are obviously needed to replace some of those that are on the road to ruin. This process has gone on historically and I have no doubt it will continue to do so. Hopefully at least some of those inspired will learn from past mistakes and do things a little differently . . . can always keep my fingers crossed anyways.

SOB


----------



## Root (Apr 10, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you're glossing over a serious thing....health....what use is a companion if it has a short lifespan? costs thousands of dollars in vet bills? physical structure plays into that absolutely. not only that but physical structure is a key concern for many companion breeds due to the fact that there is such a wide variety of things people do with their companion dogs. a companion breed absolutely needs to take structure into account because their job is the most general of all the potential positions dogs hold in life. and keep in mind..im not talking about breed standards(though there are quite a few fabulous breed standards that hold to scientifically sound physical traits.).
> 
> structure is HUGELY important..no matter what a dog does.


I don't disagree with any of this but I will point out the distinction between pure bred toy breeds that have specific health concerns (such as brachycephalic issues) and toy poodle cross breeds that have lesser exaggerated features and lesser health concerns because of it. Yeah, I agree that breeding for a healthy structure is a concern for any dog breeder but the point I'm trying to make is that toy poodle cross breeders (save the tea cup variety) don't breed for unhealthy, exaggerated features. At least not the one's I'm familiar with. I'm not talking about what certain pure bred toy dog breeders do.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> There's a lot of variation among companion breeds, probably more than any other group. A pug doesn't do companionship the same way a papillon does. (just an example)


This. As much as I love toy breeds, there are only 2 or 3 I'd ever want to _own_, precisely because of energy level and temperament compatibility and grooming/etc issues. The 'Ideal Companion Dog' means different things to different people.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Root said:


> I don't disagree with any of this but I will point out the distinction between pure bred toy breeds that have specific health concerns (such as brachycephalic issues) and toy poodle cross breeds that have lesser exaggerated features and lesser health concerns because of it. Yeah, I agree that breeding for a healthy structure is a concern for any dog breeder but the point I'm trying to make is that toy poodle cross breeders (save the tea cup variety) don't breed for unhealthy, exaggerated features. At least not the one's I'm familiar with. I'm not talking about what certain pure bred toy dog breeders do.



bullcrap. that's a form of the fallacy of false dilemma to even say that. you're generalizing to an extreme. ive seen just as many crossbreed breeders with this particular issue as i have purebred breeders....that's to say..the majority of people in general do not understand what the implications of the correlation between structure and function really are..apparently you as well going by what you have said here...so what would make most breeders any different? how many breeders take college level biology courses and keep up to date with the lastest research? ...id bet money that the ones who do are HEAVILY outnumbered by the ones who dont...judging by most of the dogs that i see...

i mean really...in another thread you told me about how you basically werent concerned that your breeder didnt do any health testing...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Pai said:


> This. As much as I love toy breeds, there are only 2 or 3 I'd ever want to _own_, precisely because of energy level and temperament compatibility and grooming/etc issues. The 'Ideal Companion Dog' means different things to different people.


Honestly the only toy breed I'd own is a papillon most likely. Crestie if I was going to ever get a different breed. It makes sense if you think about it, toys are bred down from virtually every single large type of dog. Most toy breeds just aren't my kind of dog...


----------



## Root (Apr 10, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> bullcrap. that's a form of the fallacy of false dilemma to even say that. you're generalizing to an extreme. ive seen just as many crossbreed breeders with this particular issue as i have purebred breeders....that's to say..the majority of people in general do not understand what the implications of the correlation between structure and function really are..apparently you as well going by what you have said here...so what would make most breeders any different? how many breeders take college level biology courses and keep up to date with the lastest research? ...id bet money that the ones who do are HEAVILY outnumbered by the ones who dont...judging by most of the dogs that i see...
> 
> i mean really...in another thread you told me about how you basically werent concerned that your breeder didnt do any health testing...


Yep, I'm generalizing. Generally speaking I don't see why crossbreed breeders (particularly toy poodle crosses) are interested in altering a companion dog's body in such a way that they'd intentionally breed exaggerated features or intentionally breed something about the body that isn't structurally sound. (excepting tea cup breeders) 

Sure there's good and bad breeders.. those who know what they're doing and those who don't. Those who unintentionally breed a pup with a defect and those who know what they're doing and avoid doing that. That's a different issue, no?

Correct, and I still wouldn't require absolute certainty about whether my pup would have X genetic defect with that particular breeder . I have confidence in their 30 years of experience and good reputation.



> id bet money that the ones who do are HEAVILY outnumbered by the ones who dont...judging by most of the dogs that i see...


Judging by the pugs that I see I'd bet every single pug breeder out there contributes to the problems associated with body type; susceptibility to eye injuries, inefficient breathing and body temperature regulation, etc. It can't even be said that this is an issue of bad vs good breeding... unless you want to consider that breeding any pug is bad.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

TStafford said:


> This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but I saw it on youe rescue myspace. Do you think Rottweilers, Mastiffs, and Doberman are bully breeds? I ask because I see *A LOT* of rescues, shelters, and dog events that say they are.


None are Bully Breeds, The Mastiff and Rott are Molossor, which the Bullies are also descended from, the was developed from The Rott, Terriers and Sighthounds, so DEFINATELY not a Bully (I'd say closer to a Terrier in attitude and temperament)


----------



## 519shortys (Sep 24, 2010)

Shorty bulls are not bred with pugs or any other breed that is not a bully. There are much healthier than other bulldogs, do not have the same shoulder issues and are much more energetic. they are a great dog for apartments or homes or even farms. There are great breeders out there (Blue Rock, Blue River if you are in the states, and here in Ontario there are 2, we will be breeding ours next winter once our female is 2). 
They are registered with the bully breed coalition. The only reason they are not AKC registered yet is because they are a new breed. These are not 'muts'. The reputable kennels are working towards registering these dogs with the American Kennel Club but this will only happen with time. Some so called breeders out there are claiming to have shorty bulldogs but in fact they are bantams or another 'mini' type bulldog. If you are looking for a true shorty bulldog make sure they are BBC registered.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

519shortys said:


> Shorty bulls are not bred with pugs or any other breed that is not a bully. There are much healthier than other bulldogs, do not have the same shoulder issues and are much more energetic. they are a great dog for apartments or homes or even farms. There are great breeders out there (Blue Rock, Blue River if you are in the states, and here in Ontario there are 2, we will be breeding ours next winter once our female is 2).
> They are registered with the bully breed coalition. The only reason they are not AKC registered yet is because they are a new breed. These are not 'muts'. The reputable kennels are working towards registering these dogs with the American Kennel Club but this will only happen with time. Some so called breeders out there are claiming to have shorty bulldogs but in fact they are bantams or another 'mini' type bulldog. If you are looking for a true shorty bulldog make sure they are BBC registered.


What breeds go into them? I keep seeing there's not this or that but never what is there... Also, how long have they been bred for and are they breeding true?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> There are much healthier than other bulldogs, do not have the same shoulder issues and are much more energetic


Uhhh, have you LOOKED at their structure?


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

A breed might be differently defined from one person to the next and depending on the type of breed. 

I don't think breeding true means producing clones at all. Most breeds have some amount or variance, working breeds even more so. Breeds that are bred for strictly conformation or lines within a breed bred for the show ring will he more cookie cutter in type but I wouldn't say identical. The working/performace dogs are bred for certain drives, temperament, ability, ect. There might be more variance in physical type but they can be recognized as a member of their breed on site. Certain lines also tend to breed true to that line when it cones to physical traits, they have distinct characteristics.

APBT have a wide variance in physical type. They are of the same breed but traits were not eleminated from the gene pool as they could have been. So you see dogs small ears, big ears, full drop, prick or half prick ears. Various coat, eye and nose color. Different structure. Short, "just right" or snippy muzzle. A degree of height and weight range. You can see differences in littermates and offspring from the parents, depending on the lines and consistentcy. As some look alike for generations within an established bloodline and you may get a throwback every once in a great while whose an oddball. 
The AST can also be bred to an APBT, though the AST is genetically the same as an APBT the majority have a recognizable difference in type which can be seen in the offspring but they are still APBT. The same goes for the SBT which is a different breed and considered a cousin, yet when registered as and bred to an APBT the subsequent offspring is considered to be APBT. There are also small amounts of Am Bulldog and Bull Terrier within some. 

Same with Dutch Shepherds. Dutch Shepherds have out breeding breeding not just in the background but present day Malinois x Dutch Shepherds can still be recognized as Dutchies.

American Bulldogs have APBT bred into certain lines as well.

Purity or being considered pure bred doesn't always mean genetically pure. Though I believe it must be within reason, because if you bring in another breed and the progeny don't breed true to your breed you have created a different breed or simply mixes.

Patterdale have variance in physical type, coat type,ect but are recognized to be members of the same breed.

Bob tail Boxers are interesting as well. Considered Boxers born with natural bobbed tails by cross breeding. Other traits were eleminated while the bob tail locked in. The thing with breeding dogs is that genes can be excluded, traits of other breeds can be bred out. Though recessives can be scene after several generations of being hidden. It is the same when breeding pure if one reads a dogs pedigree to be 25% this, 25% that and 50% another line who is to say how much genetic influence each line REALLY has on the individual or from littermate to littermate.

There are actually a number of breeds which have seen some other breed interbred sometime in their history AFTER being considered an established pure breed.

When a breed is to be considered a breed is hard to agree upon for some. I think there does need to be some standardization, members should breed true meaning they have the traits which make them recognizable as that breed.

On the same note when you breed grossly away from the standard and traits of the particular breed without outcrossing I consider it to be a different breed.


----------



## 519shortys (Sep 24, 2010)

YES, I have looked at their form, I have 2. 
They have been bred with other types of bulldogs. 
What does breeding true mean? 
I believe they are in their 5th or 6th generation


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Breeding true.....

If you are planning to breed it is something you should know about, among other things.

Breeding to type with reasonable variance. To me it means a breed will produce a specific phenotype (doesn't mean identical), temperament, energy level, drive and behavioral traits. This is acheived by selective breeding and culling. 

It is how you recognize a Great Dane from a Poodle by sight and why a Malinois behaves different than an English Setter. It is why your average Pit Bull is very "friendly" to almost anyone and why your Fila will accept no stranger. It is why a husky will run itself to exhaustion while a bloodhound will trail to it's death. It is what makes a breed a veclro breed or very independent. Because one generation breeds true to the next with predictability.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> As far as saying that these dog's are built way to bully and short. Which people say it's having bad structure. Think about this a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, golden retriever, FB and a Great Dane have nice structure. However when you bring up hip and joint issues these dog's are the first to be mentioned, right next to the EB's. Especially German Shepherd which are great dog's and have nice structure but are known to have issue's like hip dysplasia and weak pasterns. Same for golden retriever but I think they have like an 80% chance of having cancer. Great Dane's owners have reported that they waste more money on the vet with this breed than any other breeds. See no matter how much you know about science a Dog's gene's really decide on how healthy a dog is. If you get a bully and the parent are healthy bullies with no issues, than the chances are that your pup will have no issues if you treat it right. I know that bully breeds can hurt them self while there still young with a big fall but so can German Shepherd etc.


You know, I could tear this apart on the basis that you have no idea what you are talking about, but I have just had awful luck with posts recently (I concede the point that I know nothing about bison or toy dogs, and will humbly bow to the knowledge of more knowledgeable people) that I'm just going to take this as my bye.


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

X-Man said:


> As far as saying that these dog's are built way to bully and short. Which people say it's having bad structure. Think about this a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, golden retriever, FB and a Great Dane have nice structure. However when you bring up hip and joint issues these dog's are the first to be mentioned, right next to the EB's. Especially German Shepherd which are great dog's and have nice structure but are known to have issue's like hip dysplasia and weak pasterns. Same for golden retriever but I think they have like an 80% chance of having cancer. Great Dane's owners have reported that they waste more money on the vet with this breed than any other breeds. See no matter how much you know about science a Dog's gene's really decide on how healthy a dog is. If you get a bully and the parent are healthy bullies with no issues, than the chances are that your pup will have no issues if you treat it right. I know that bully breeds can hurt them self while there still young with a big fall but so can German Shepherd etc.


Now i'm no dog expert, but from what I know all the dogs you just named have such bad health problems because of over breeding due to popularity. If the "Shorty Bulls" became a dog everyone wanted and BYB started popping out puppies left and right i'm sure the same thing would happen to them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Is it just me, or do ALL of those dogs in the above picture post look like their ears were hacked off with rusty scissors?


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> People were just trying to say that they were not healthy because of their frame, size and because science didn't allow it. I understand that people love biology *(probably to throw around big words)* but there's living proof that a dog can be healthy with that frame and not just Shorty Bulls but some EB's as well a lot other dog like the American Bullies.


I'm not going to waste anyone's time picking apart your post and how flawed it is, because you clearly believe what you believe, but I will say that once again you have discredited yourself by putting others down simply because of their decent vocabulary. 

No one loves biology just to "throw around big words"--they are real words and they mean something. Maybe you should look into that some day.

I can't help it, so I'm going to say it. You are absolutely correct that the parents' genes are what breeders go by to determine health. However, if the dog's features are incredibly contorted and exaggerated, it is CLEAR to anyone who knows anything about the form+function relationship that that is NOT a healthy breed.


----------



## CareBearStare (Dec 19, 2009)

X-Man said:


> I don't care what science or biology has to say! The health of a dog depends on the gene's.


You do realize that genes aka genetics is based in biology, right? Genetics is a biologic science. Also, 3/4 years old...isn't old.


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> You know what let's just agree to disagree and I'll let the dog's do the talking for the future and prove you wrong. Just remember this.


:drama:

Ironically enough, message was too _short_.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

519shortys said:


> Shorty bulls are not bred with pugs or any other breed that is not a bully. There are much healthier than other bulldogs, do not have the same shoulder issues and are much more energetic. they are a great dog for apartments or homes or even farms. There are great breeders out there (Blue Rock, Blue River if you are in the states, and here in Ontario there are 2, we will be breeding ours next winter once our female is 2).
> They are registered with the bully breed coalition. The only reason they are not AKC registered yet is because they are a new breed. These are not 'muts'. The reputable kennels are working towards registering these dogs with the American Kennel Club but this will only happen with time. Some so called breeders out there are claiming to have shorty bulldogs but in fact they are bantams or another 'mini' type bulldog. If you are looking for a true shorty bulldog make sure they are BBC registered.


Are you kidding me? I'm looking at the structure and it's an ABSOLUTE trainwreck, I've seen better on EB's (one of my favorite breeds BTW). They are also NOT breeding true, and until that happens and a STANDARD is set and adhered to they won't be recognized by the AKC or any other reputable registry. It took BullMastiffs* 30 years* to be recognized as a breed, it's taken the DDB 20 years and it's an ANCIENT breed. 

You say you're breeding? What HEALTH TESTING is being done? Are you testing the Hips and Elbows for Dysplacia, the Hearts (tested annually) for Cardiomyopothy and other conditions, The Elbows and Patellas, how abou the eyes for Glaucoma (also annually). These dogs need to be tested for every health issue for each breed involved in their development. Otherwise they are nothing more than another 'designer' breed with a cutesy name for marketing.

As far as EB's not being healthy, I beg to differ, Those who come from HEALTH TESTED parents and RESPONSIBLE breeders are VERY healthy. The reason they have a reputation for being unhealthy is the rampant BYB and Puppymilling in the breed. Dogs from INFERIOR stock that never should have been bred in the first place. However those dogs generally aren't as Exaggerated as what is in fashion for EB's right now.


----------



## TStafford (Dec 23, 2009)

Entwine said:


> However, if the dog's features are incredibly contorted and exaggerated, it is CLEAR to anyone who knows anything about the form+function relationship that that is NOT a healthy breed.


That is what I should have added to what I said! Thank you. I read what he wrote as saying all of those breeds are just unhealthy breeds, which isn't true. Good breeders make sure to breed healthy dogs. If you buy from someone who really cares for the breed and is doing everything they should be doing you're not going to get a messed up, unhealthy dog.



Willowy said:


> Is it just me, or do ALL of those dogs in the above picture post look like their ears were hacked off with rusty scissors?


They did do a bad job with most of their ears.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> Your right the way something looks should be determined by its purpose. But it also doesn't mean that the dog is not healthy. I never said that a Shorty can beat a Greyhound running, I never said it can beat a pit in weight pulling or that it can beat a German Shepherd in protection. But they can participate in does sports. I just gave you an example of a Shorty that ran 12 miles, which is not the norm but it still proves that they can compete at some level.


Ok. So you want a sport dog, but a more midrange model. I get that. But isn't that what an AmStaff is? You've said you just don't like them, and I can respect that, but WHY don't you like them? They're clearly bully dogs. 



> People were just trying to say that they were not healthy because of their frame, size and because science didn't allow it. I understand that people love biology (probably to throw around big words) but there's living proof that a dog can be healthy with that frame and not just Shorty Bulls but some EB's as well a lot other dog like the American Bullies.
> 
> Just as an example-Moby (Shorty Bull) runs for 12 miles and has earned he's iron dog title back in 2006 and he's been doing that since he was like a 1 yr old. He is still a healthy 3 or 4 year old Shorty Bull with no health problem and great hips and joints. That's the gene's that we are bringing to the table. I guess science is wrong again!! lol


Please excuse me if I don't take anecdotal evidence of one dog as breaking science. I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

And for the last time. "Those" has a TH. It makes a thhhhh sound.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Root said:


> Yep, I'm generalizing. Generally speaking I don't see why crossbreed breeders (particularly toy poodle crosses) are interested in altering a companion dog's body in such a way that they'd intentionally breed exaggerated features or intentionally breed something about the body that isn't structurally sound. (excepting tea cup breeders)


wow you are just totally glossing over sooooooo many things...

Companion crossbreeders are QUITE OFTEN interested in breeding exaggeration. yes that includes poodle crosses.

the reason? fad=demand=MONEY.

i would have thought that would have been obvious.....or are you honestly THAT naive???



X-Man said:


> Your 100% right and not only were they over breed but they breed dogs with bad genes. That's my whole point. If you breed dogs with good genes and no heath problems, your going to get good healthy puppies no matter the breed. Take English Bulldogs for example. They are really unhealthy dog's and have a lot of health problem but not all of them are like that. If you breed two healthy English bulldogs with no health problems your going to get healthy puppies. Even if your breeding a bully breed like the EB with a wide chest and heavy muscle! So you can't really say that a dog is not healthy because it's short, has a wide chest and a lot of muscle. The health of a dog, the joints and the hip are dictated by genes. If the father and mother are just as bully as the pups and they are healthy they will pass there genes to there offsprings, so you can't really say that a dog is not healthy because it's bully and has way too much muscle! I don't care what science or biology has to say! The health of a dog depends on the gene's.
> 
> That's what I'm trying to saying that the Shorty Bulls are healthy because only the healthiest dogs of different BULLY breeds were used. Dogs that are just as short and have just as much muscles, just as bully and have lived for a long time with no problem. People were just trying to say that they were not healthy because of their frame, size and because science didn't allow it. I understand that people love biology (probably to throw around big words) but there's living proof that a dog can be healthy with that frame and not just Shorty Bulls but some EB's as well a lot other dog like the American Bullies.
> 
> ...


you're just being deliberately ignorant because you're offended for the wrong reasons. its frankly laughable.

science lengthed your lifespan, puts food on your table, cures your sickness, protects you from threats and brings health and comfort to every aspect of your life...

and you just ignore it because you dont like what it has to say about your dog. that's laughably sad.


----------



## Root (Apr 10, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> wow you are just totally glossing over sooooooo many things...
> *
> Companion crossbreeders are QUITE OFTEN interested in breeding exaggeration. yes that includes poodle crosses.
> *
> ...


Are Cav Poo's, Bichon-Poo's, Cock-a-Poo's, Eskie-Poo's, Lhasa-Poo's, Peke-a-Poo's, Pom-Poo's, Schnoodle's, Shih-Bi's, Shih-Poo's, and Yorkie-Poo's bred for exaggerated features? Maybe you could point me in the right direction for some cross breed examples with exaggerated features that are the product of the cross breeding itself and not just a throwback from one of the parents. (which would probably be less of an exaggeration in the offspring) Actually, maybe it's my fault for not being more specific. I'm talking about first generation poodle mixes breeders.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Root said:


> Are Cav Poo's, Bichon-Poo's, Cock-a-Poo's, Eskie-Poo's, Lhasa-Poo's, Peke-a-Poo's, Pom-Poo's, Schnoodle's, Shih-Bi's, Shih-Poo's, and Yorkie-Poo's bred for exaggerated features? Maybe you could point me in the right direction for some cross breed examples with exaggerated features that are the product of the cross breeding itself and not just a throwback from one of the parents. (which would probably be less of an exaggeration in the offspring) Actually, maybe it's my fault for not being more specific. I'm talking about first generation poodle mixes breeders.


which is another fallacy. hmmm...because most of those breeds have conditions in common perhaps? and it doesnt matter what generation cross the dog is..you still increase the percentage chance of inheritance unless proper measures are taken.

let's talk about bone issues for a second since you seem to be centering on that aspect of this...

http://www.poodleclubofamerica.org/health.htm

Patellar Luxation and Hip Dysplasia are two conditions related to structure that affect poodles. Patellas more in minis(i think)..both conditions are exacerbated and affected by structure...on the bad end is severe pain and possible crippling early. on the good end if the dog is built well...you might still get the condition..but it is less likely to progress at a rapid rate..extending quality of life.

Im not just talking about short noses and such. and its within people's grasp to get this idea and affect their lines positively....its the question of whether or not they can learn to separate personal preference or marketable product from beneficial to the dog.

a cross doesnt automatically mean superior health....not by a long shot. generally speaking you can run the gamut...

i mean..it is entirely possible to have a healthy heavily inbred population...what it depends on is what you start out with and how you proceed from that point. just because someone has had 30 years of success breeding crosses means very very little...could be sheer luck that no health problems have shown THUS FAR. Breeders who take an active role to LEARN SOMETHING...affect change using pretty readily available tools...ok...they're TRYING. Im not saying all mix breeders are bad. but they should be held to no less a high standard than purebred breeders. period. you cant make that generalization.

there's no way in h e double hockey sticks you have enough evidence to make that generalization and have it be *truth.*


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> _"a cross doesnt automatically mean superior health....not by a long shot. generally speaking you can run the gamut..._


This is absolutely true. Could you point me in the direction of the post on this thread that mentioned they *automatically* will be?



> _i mean..it is entirely possible to have a healthy heavily inbred population_


This is not true Zim, and you should know it. Heavily inbred populations are immune compromised. That cannot be called healthy. Inbred strains are always more susceptible to being wiped out by illness, to cancers, to allergies etc. Most have lower fertility and shorter lifespans than outbred counterparts. A quick look at how MHC (major histocompatibility complex) works in vertebrates, and it is easy to understand what is happening as homozygosity WEAKENS the immune system which works best when heterozygous.



> _...what it depends on is what you start out with and how you proceed from that point._


Explain to me Zim, how do dog breeders know the risk in the dogs they start off with? If someone, or you, knows how this is done I know a huge scientific community that is waiting for the answer. It would be worth billions.

As scientists *can't* know this in their experiments, how *DARE *dog breeders gloss over the fact that they can't know it, by promoting ideas like the one you just posted? 

To create heavily inbred populations, because even scientists do NOT know and can NOT know the genetic predispositions of the stock they start out with, there is huge LOSS and SICKNESS (80 - 90%) created in those populations, that are then culled to go forward with the healthier ones. Even once strains that manage to survive that culling process emerge they have weakened disease resistance, and that is a FACT. 

A population with a weakened immune system is not a 'healthy heavily inbred population' in my measure, and I don't think many others would measure it that way either, *let alone have any tolerance for the suffering caused to create it.* That is what we are seeing in the purebred dog world now, and what is the breeding community doing? They are holding tight to their rotten philosophies and asking scientists for fixes instead of recognizing the inbreeding they've done is the problem. Un-freaking believable.

There are very, very rare exceptions where in the real world, with natural selection at play (which is extremely tough) we have populations that have made it through and are surviving despite their high level of inbreeding . . . . and they are at high risk of extinction form illnesses that normally would not plague the full population. I can site examples and studies if you so wish.

If one believes that club involved breeders should be supported in their attempt to create one or more of these 'rare and exceptional' strains, despite the suffering caused, cuz they see the goal as laudable in some manner, they can go ahead and support them, however, I'll continue to object whenever the subject comes up.



> _Im not saying all mix breeders are bad. but they should be held to no less a high standard than purebred breeders._


This is true, however those standards will depend on what the buyer sees as acceptible, and that varies from buyer to buyer.

Some buyers see 'high standards' very differently than others, as everyone's measurement of what risks they find acceptable, and therefore what they require of breeders, are very different. My idea of what I want a breeder to be doing is very different from your own, as what I prioritise as important in the background of a pup to purchase is very different.

For example, IF a breeder is inbreeding and therefore creating his/her own heightened need to test in order to breed for traits that help him WIN in a competition, or WIN in the department of ego boost when he beholds his 'perfect specimen', I would not consider THAT breeder one worth supporting. I do not consider the risks he is taking with another's life acceptible, nor do I consider the idea that he has created an inbred population that is at such a heightened incidense rate of problems that many tests HAVE to be done, acceptible. I don't consider the heightened cost, monetarily or in suffering, required to produce pups in this system acceptible either.

So, when I look for a pup, (small/toy lover here) I look for one with aged dogs in good health that I can meet. I like to see patella tests, I like to see CERF and know about heart health, but I will take an outbred or mixed bred pup from aged parents and grandparents in good health (that I can meet), and an experienced breeder who backed those pups for life, while I would not even consider a dog from an inbred strain that had testing up the ying-yang. Titles don't play into it one bit for me as I see no value in the preservation of breeds as they are defined within the current registry system and therefore own no ethical or moral obligation to support breeders proving their 'art' within that system.

You have to realise that some of us are well old enough to remember when 'types' were still being bred, and when we could still get type bred dogs as those breeders were NOT villified. I do not see the registry system as improvement.

In regards to testing in the small breeds and OFA records - just so you know - patellas are done by a *practitioner vet.* But for in one breed that I know of, hearts are done by a *practitioner vet*. CERF is done by a opthomologist, but CERF on pedigrees on a bunch of young stock that are then retired before follow up in age, tells us nothing. It is the eye condition of the ancestral dogs as they age that counts. When you find groups of toy breeders breeding together and tracking this, tell me, as I have looked meticulously and have not found. 

In other words the high standards which some on these forums claim those in the fancy are practicing, are not high at all, especially if you look at the companion bred breeds where they are merely proved, by phenotype, in the show ring.

You don't have to like my priorities, nor do I have to like yours. They are fun to discuss though as long as those in the discussion realize that between black and white is a huge gray area.

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> _"a cross doesnt automatically mean superior health....not by a long shot. generally speaking you can run the gamut..._
> 
> This is absolutely true. Could you point me in the direction of the post on this thread that mentioned they automatically will be?


repeatedly implied by Root across several threads.





> This is absolute B.S. Zim, and you should know it. You are smoothing over the fact that to create heavily inbred populations, because even scientists do NOT know and can NOT know the genetic predispositions of the stock they start out with, there is huge LOSS and SICKNESS (80 - 90%) created in those populations, that are then culled to go forward with the healthier ones.


umm...no..it is posssible. what are YOU defining as heavily inbred? 



> _...what it depends on is what you start out with and how you proceed from that point._
> 
> If scientists can't know this in their experiments, how DARE dog breeders gloss over the fact that they can't know it, by promoting ideas like the one you just posted?


assumptions much? you can know to a degree...and as things progress...we should be able to know more and more, granted proper records and testing continuously are done...when i talk about these things...im speaking in a very broad scope. i



> Even once strains that manage to survive that culling process emerge they have weakened disease resistance, and that is a FACT. Inbred strains are always more susceptible to being wiped out by illness. A quick look at how MHC (major histocompatibility complex) works in vertebrates, and it is easy to understand what is happening as homozygosity WEAKENS the immune system which works best when heterozygous.


after a certain point..you seem to assume im speaking of something like nothing but brother to sister/parent to child matings on down through generations or something like that.

linebreeding...while a fancy term...is still inbreeding. there are in fact heavily inbred(by my standards anyways) breed populations who are generally extremely healthy. 


> A population with a weakened immune system is not a 'healthy heavily inbred population' in my measure, and I don't think many others would measure it that way either, *let alone have any tolerance for the suffering caused to create it.* That is what we are seeing in the purebred dog world now, and what is the breeding communitydoing? They are holding tight to their rotten philosophies and asking scientists for fixes instead of recognizing the inbreeding they've done is the problem. Un-freaking believable.


again..assumptions much? you think i am not aware of these things? im kinda offended at the suggestion i have such extremely narrow vision.



> There are very, very rare exceptions where in the real world, with natural selection at play (which is extremely tough) we have populations that have made it through and are surviving despite their high level of inbreeding . . . . and they are at high risk of extinction form illnesses that normally would not plague the full population. I can site examples and studies if you so wish.


no need. im pretty sure i already have them and more.



> This is true, however those standards will depend on what the buyer sees as acceptible, and that varies from buyer to buyer.
> 
> Some buyers see 'high standards' very differently than others, as everyones measurement of what risks they find acceptable, and therefore what they require of breeders, are very different. My idea of what I want a breeder to be doing is very different from your own, as what I prioritise as important in the background of a pup to purchase is very different.


and what im suggesting is setting an objective baseline standard. i totally am of the opinion that such a thing (while difficult to actually do) would eliminate a set of serious problems. how that could be done...dont know yet...but its an idea that needs to be spread imo. 



> For example, IF a breeder is inbreeding and therefore creating his/her own heightened need to test in order to breed for traits that help him WIN in a competition, or WIN in the department of ego boost when he beholds his 'perfect specimen', I would not consider THAT breeder one worth supporting. I do not consider the risks he is taking with another's life acceptible, nor do I consider the idea that he has created an inbred population that is at such a heightened incidense rate of problems that many tests HAVE to be done, acceptible. I don't consider the heightened cost, monetarily or in suffering, required to produce pups in this system acceptible either.



again with the assumptions.....



> So, when I look for a pup, (small/toy lover here) I look for one with aged dogs in good health that I can meet. I like to see patella tests, I like to see CERF and know about heart health, but I will take an outbred or mixed bred pup from aged parents in good health (that I can meet), and an experienced breeder who backed those pups for life, while I would not even consider a dog from an inbred strain that had testing up the ying-yang. Titles don't play into it one bit for me.


i didnt say squat about titles...this bit of your post's response belongs in another thread...i may start it later on...



> In regards to testing in the small breeds - just so you know - patellas are done by, guess what, your practitioner vet. But for in one breed that I know of, hearts are done by, guess what, your practitioner vet. CERF is done by a optomologist, but CERF on pedigrees on a bunch of young stock that are then retired before follow up tells us nothing. It is the eye condition of the ancestral dogs as they age that counts. When you find a toy breeder tracking this, tell me, as I have looked meticulously and have not found.


hmmm....so those are the only possible tests for toy dogs are they? :suspicious:


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> repeatedly implied by Root across several threads.


I never understood that implication once, so I would say 'no it wasn't.




zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> umm...no..it is posssible. what are YOU defining as heavily inbred? .


Oh come on. Heavily inbred is not a debatable point . . . and no it is not possible. IF you have your own ideas of what heavily inbred is, then make sure you explain that well when you make statements like this one that you did, that have the potential to give the wrong information to people reading - _"i mean..it is entirely possible to have a healthy heavily inbred population...what it depends on is what you start out with and how you proceed from that point."_



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> assumptions much? you can know to a degree...and as things progress...we should be able to know more and more, granted proper records and testing continuously are done...when i talk about these things...im speaking in a very broad scope.


Give me a hint here. What are you claiming I've assumed? Knowing 'to a degree' is not knowing. It also doesn't matter IN THE LEAST that scientists can help us know more. We shouldn't be pushing populations to this brink in the first place.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> after a certain point..you seem to assume im speaking of something like nothing but brother to sister/parent to child matings on down through generations or something like that.
> 
> linebreeding...while a fancy term...is still inbreeding. there are in fact heavily inbred(by my standards anyways) breed populations who are generally extremely healthy. .


That is what heavily inbred means Zim. Linebreeding is a term for inbreeding but a linebred animal is not the same as a heavily inbred animal - however linebreeding in a closed registry for many generations produces the exact same effect. If dog breeders want to cause suffering in less numbers they should just do as the scientists do to create their inbred strains - mother/father and brother/sister for generations - and see which lines survive. Then they would KNOW what they had. See if they could pass THAT idea by most of us.

I have yet to read of/ know of a 'heavily inbred' (by my standards anyway) population that is healthy. Would you give your example to see what you are looking at and considering 'heavily inbred' and considering 'extremely healthy?'



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> again..assumptions much? you think i am not aware of these things? im kinda offended at the suggestion i have such extremely narrow vision..


No assumptions were made. Easily offended much? Some of us post knowing that others reading might need more of an explanation.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and what im suggesting is setting an objective baseline standard. i totally am of the opinion that such a thing (while difficult to actually do) would eliminate a set of serious problems. how that could be done...dont know yet...but its an idea that needs to be spread imo.


What are you hoping to eliminate, and how would a baseline standard eliminate them? What would be the criteria for the baseline standard and on who's ideas would it be written? I don't believe most of these ideas are do-able because of the fact that we all prioritise differently and have different ideas and wants.

------
*My paragraph: *_"For example, IF a breeder is inbreeding and therefore creating his/her own heightened need to test in order to breed for traits that help him WIN in a competition, or WIN in the department of ego boost when he beholds his 'perfect specimen', I would not consider THAT breeder one worth supporting. I do not consider the risks he is taking with another's life acceptible, nor do I consider the idea that he has created an inbred population that is at such a heightened incidense rate of problems that many tests HAVE to be done, acceptible. I don't consider the heightened cost, monetarily or in suffering, required to produce pups in this system acceptible either."_

*Your response: *


zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> again with the assumptions......


And pray tell me what offensive to you assumptions do you think that I implied in the paragraph for you to make that comment? They don't jive. 
---------




zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i didnt say squat about titles...this bit of your post's response belongs in another thread...i may start it later on...


Did I suggest that you said anything about titles? Again, what is said in posts is not always *just* in direct response the the poster replied to.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> hmmm....so those are the only possible tests for toy dogs are they? :suspicious:


Far from it, but they are the ones monitored by OFA and CHIC and the ones most often requested by those involved and sometimes required in a clubs code of ethics. Most clubs codes of ethics require none. Again, the high standards which some on these forums claim those in the fancy are practicing, are not high at all

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

debate is impossible when definitions differ. 

i define heavily inbred as 3 or above ancestors in common in the previous 4 to 5 generations. i find that calculating inbreeding coefficients is also a useful(albeit incomplete) tool in deterimining a standard for such thing.

as for assumptions..first let me note that i am only informing you of how your post read to me..meaning a request for clarification.

you seem to be assuming that im not aware of how things work...the point in my post is that things should work differently in ALL breeding situations. the entire arena is heavily flawed...regardless of whether it's a mix breeder or someone who breeds pures. its apparent to me that TOTAL overhaul is needed. this of course is based completely on the subjective point of view that if you are gonna go mucking around with LIVING BEINGS..it should be to their benefit FIRST.

general overview from where im standing..

we've got dogs, a species heavily dependant on humans. We made them what they are, its our responsibility to act in their benefit. Now there's two aspects to that. One is obviously health..the less obvious one is the niche they fill in the human sphere. they have to be able to fill it to succeed. personally i see the HUGE problems in every aspect of the dog world as evidence indicating we're doing a piss poor job. why are there so many strays for instance? One theory might be that a set of the population did not adequately fill a particular niche(which is no fault of the dogs.). Another is that population over reached resources. 

there's more but that works..

so looking at it from that standpoint...how does one reconcile the need to repeatedly breed to get to the dog that CAN fill the niche without being ill placed..you either make the results fit the place...or you make the place fit the results.............it seems we've been working to make the place fit the results...and failing. 

anyways...that's a rather *general* overview of how i see things..

i think that until we have better ways to make the results fill the niche...light inbreeding(or what one might call light linebreeding...its really in essence the same thing) is a feasable option in balancing things for now..people seem to fall on either side of the spectrum but never in the middle...theorectically if i start with the widest and healthiest population possible, utilize a scheme and a limit on common ancestry in the descendants of that population..balancing type to type with "line breeding" to set niche related traits and the occasional outcross to healthy populations to minimize exxaggeration(and to relate this back to the Op..shorty bulls are exxagerated..period) then i should end up with better overall dogs than most. but that's not what most breeders are doing. we need to better define the niches in which dogs live and find an appropriate balance between Need, Want, and Is it Good for the dog? There are working breeds that do this. problem with companions is that very few define companion dog as a job. 

anyways...im kinda bored with this. I wasnt trying to pick a fight with you. just obvious there is some misunderstanding. 

and ps. there's a difference between finding something offensive and actually being offended. at least to me. logic on the one hand, emotion on the other. if emotion starts complaining..i try to bring out the logic to clear the air.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> debate is impossible when definitions differ.
> 
> i define heavily inbred as 3 or above ancestors in common in the previous 4 to 5 generations. i find that calculating inbreeding coefficients is also a useful(albeit incomplete) tool in deterimining a standard for such thing..


If that is your definition then please do not make statements like the one you did earlier about heavily inbred and health in populations without explaining your definition. It differs greatly from that of most in dogs, as what you define as 'heavily inbred' is defined in many breeds as linebred, and in some still as distantly linebred (as long as the same ancestor is not three times before the fifth.)

This is a heavily inbred dog - 










This is a linebred dog (and his breeder describes him that way, even though he has a COI of 29+% which exceeds that of pups from full sibling or parent/offspring parings.) - 












zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> as for assumptions..first let me note that i am only informing you of how your post read to me..meaning a request for clarification.
> 
> you seem to be assuming that im not aware of how things work.....


I was not, but I'll note that you understood my post in that manner.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the point in my post is that things should work differently in ALL breeding situations. the entire arena is heavily flawed...regardless of whether it's a mix breeder or someone who breeds pures. its apparent to me that TOTAL overhaul is needed. this of course is based completely on the subjective point of view that if you are gonna go mucking around with LIVING BEINGS..it should be to their benefit FIRST......


And this is where we agree, and I have always known we do. Our theories in resolving this would differ, however.

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

sometimes i forget that many really heavy dog people tend to come from a background where their interest in dogs was nurtured by the show/working arenas first. i was a budding science nerd before i got really heavy into dogs. my first forays into a really heavy interest in dogs consisted of hanging around the vet college here and pestering the students and occasionally faculty.  its only recently that ive gotten into the other side of it..which does have intrinsic value...with some tweaks.

ETA: i was also fortunate in eventually locating several breeders and show/trial folks in my breed who have varying degrees of moderation allowed for in their scheme..and seeing the results is interesting.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I am curious what you guys think of the "Whole Human race traced back to one woman in africa (heavy inbreeding?)" thing, tho thats a bit more OT.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Keechak said:


> I am curious what you guys think of the "Whole Human race traced back to one woman in africa (heavy inbreeding?)" thing, tho thats a bit more OT.


are you talking about mitochondrial eve?

because there is some evidence of a genetic bottleneck a ways back in the human population...but mitochondrial eve is a bit of a misnomer..


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

A kind of plain english explanation is at this link:

http://www.suite101.com/content/who-is-mitochondrial-eve-a127250

_"In reality, Mitochondrial Eve isn't the only ancestor we share, as some have claimed. Nor was she an isolated woman who somehow avoided genes from other people. Mitochondrial Eve was simply someone who contributed a vital cell component – the DNA of the mitochondria – to all of her children, who then passed it to everyone in future generations . . . 

. . . Is Mitochondrial Eve the Only Common Ancestor?

Many people make the mistake of thinking that because humans all share the same mitochondrial DNA from this mysterious ancient woman, that means she is the only human ancestor. The easiest way to understand why this isn't the case is by looking at families today. Most people have cousins, individuals who share a grandparent. This doesn't mean that only that one grandparent contributed to their genes, however. . . . 


. . . . In the case of Mitochondrial Eve, these granddaughters continued to have daughters, granddaughters and generations of girls who had children with various other people in the community and the world for almost 200,000 years until their descendants counted in the billions. So the simplest way to think of Mitochondrial Eve is as a many-times great-grandmother of all of humanity. In reality, each person has hundreds or thousands of other great-grandmothers and grandfathers in her history, just as any family tree will show."_

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

yeah basically mitochondrial eve and y nuclear adam represent a break in a direct line. the way we know this is because only women pass on mitochondrial dna. and y nuclear adam was identified by y gene evidence. they're over a hundred thousand years apart in time period..so yeah...not really very special or indicative of much.

ETA: i should say the CURRENT mitochondrial eve and y nuclear adam...the title changes individuals dependant on the existing population.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

Why is it still, post after post and there has been no answer to the health test question?


----------



## QuidditchGirl (Apr 9, 2010)

tw1n said:


> Why is it still, post after post and there has been no answer to the health test question?


Or the "are you planning to breed this dog?" question.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

QuidditchGirl said:


> Or the "are you planning to breed this dog?" question.


The thing is I could care less about what the dog looks like, and if they breed it... *IF* the correct tests and precautions are being done to make this a healthy stable breed, more power to them. 

I just haven't seen anything pointing out the methods used to actually test, and improve these "mutts" into a healthy breed. Not even on the "co founders" kennel site does it mention health testing. How do you co-find, and create a breed without testing if it's even a good idea?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

tw1n said:


> The thing is I could care less about what the dog looks like, and if they breed it... *IF* the correct tests and precautions are being done to make this a healthy stable breed, more power to them.
> 
> I just haven't seen anything pointing out the methods used to actually test, and improve these "mutts" into a healthy breed. Not even on the "co founders" kennel site does it mention health testing. How do you co-find, and create a breed without testing if it's even a good idea?


tw1n, you have a point in your question, but do you really believe framing questions in this manner is the least bit constructive or invites any kind of an anwer from those you pose it to . . . then maybe that is not your intent.

Using this fine word, 'mutt', with a deliberately derogative tone in this manner as you have is insulting, and I believe quite purposely so, BUT the point about seeing health testing when someone is working on the foundations of a breed is important.

Would hope those in dogs would learn from their past mistakes.

I would actually enjoy learning more about what this group is doing, and perhaps helping to persuade some better practices and knowledge, however it looks like others are more intent to do other things. 

SOB


----------



## Moxie (Sep 9, 2010)

Did anyone ever answer which breeds were used to make one of these "shorty bulls"? I recall reading that there were five different breeds, but nobody seems to want to specify exactly which five beyond denying that French Bulldog was involved.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Moxie said:


> Did anyone ever answer which breeds were used to make one of these "shorty bulls"? I recall reading that there were five different breeds, but nobody seems to want to specify exactly which five beyond denying that French Bulldog was involved.


I really don't get the secrecy about that information people in this breed seem to have. Are they afraid someone will 'steal their recipe' or something? Because that doesn't make any kind of rational sense...


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> tw1n, you have a point in your question, but do you really believe framing questions in this manner is the least bit constructive or invites any kind of an anwer from those you pose it to . . . then maybe that is not your intent.
> 
> SOB


Well the questions been politly asked over and over and over again, and he just keeps saying they're healthy dogs. Forgive me for being annoyed he wont answer how he knows they're healthy. 

I personally would love to see that these dogs are health tested, and they've actually created a healthy bulldog like companion dog. But when questioned about it, he gets hostile, and rude, and just keeps repeating the same thing.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

tw1n said:


> I personally would love to see that these dogs are health tested, and they've actually created a healthy bulldog like companion dog.


Me as well. Hopefully they'll be open to some suggestions. 

I watched the Alaskan Klee Kai breed as it started up, and those that suggested the breed had little/no health difficulties and bred away often without even some basic tests . . . and now it is a different story. Even though I do believe MOST knowledge in a line comes from knowing the dogs, and tracking the dogs, I would hope those breeds starting today, with the resources we have, would want to skip this heartache by at least promoting the use of basic tests to their breeders. Again, some of the most common (heart, patella exams) are given by *vet practitioners.* It is as simple as getting them to fill out the appropriate paperwork (and paying for it).

In regards to structure, I'm not a fan of any of the heavier muscled shorter legged shapes so have no ability to comment here, BUT I hope some of what has been said prior on this post gets on board.

SOB


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> with the resources we have, would want to skip this heartache by at least promoting the use of basic tests to their breeders.


That pretty much sums it up...

So far his only reply has been how his dog would hand us ours, and our dogs butt's in the walmart parking lot.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> This is not true Zim, and you should know it. Heavily inbred populations are immune compromised. That cannot be called healthy. Inbred strains are always more susceptible to being wiped out by illness, to cancers, to allergies etc. Most have lower fertility and shorter lifespans than outbred counterparts. A quick look at how MHC (major histocompatibility complex) works in vertebrates, and it is easy to understand what is happening as homozygosity WEAKENS the immune system which works best when heterozygous.


I disagree. I will not say certain inbred strains don't suffer these problems and that inbreeding doesn't cause issue. Inbreeding depression can be seen to give way to a number of problems. For me to say that some inbred dogs / strains don't have those problems would be just as much of a generalization to say they always do. 

I've seen immunity issues like demodex and allergies in inbred dogs, I've also seen them in dogs which are not inbred. Including mixed breeds with immunity related health problems.

In APBT there are several lines which are heavily inbred an do not have those problems . Just as there are loosely bred dogs with an occurance of immunity or genetic health issues. 

I had a single dog with cancer NOT inbred. I've had numerous inbred without cancer or immune related issues. 

I know some which get cancer with frequences (though they are different types) similar in type, consective generations. Not all dogs of this strain will have cancer but there is more then enough cases for me to realize that it is a genetic problem. It can be caused by environmental factors but in this case I think not.

I know the lack of fertility and short lifespan is bunk. It might be true for some but it is not always true at all. I know a number of breeders and have done breedings myself and haven't seen this to be a problem. Litters of 6-10 pups is pretty much average, these same numbers are seen produced by inbred dogs. 



> To create heavily inbred populations, because even scientists do NOT know and can NOT know the genetic predispositions of the stock they start out with, there is huge LOSS and SICKNESS (80 - 90%) created in those populations, that are then culled to go forward with the healthier ones. Even once strains that manage to survive that culling process emerge they have weakened disease resistance, and that is a FACT.


80 - 90% loss and sickness, are you serious?
You are saying that when inbreeding is done it results in 80-90% becoming ill and/or dying? 

[/quote]You have to realise that some of us are well old enough to remember when 'types' were still being bred, and when we could still get type bred dogs as those breeders were NOT villified. I do not see the registry system as improvement.[/QUOTE]

What does registry have to do with it.

I've seen "caused suffering" and registry mentioned several times. Pedigree Dogs some people enjoyed that documentry.

I was just thinking my oldest dog is inbred though not that old (she's almost 9yrs) I don't believe she will suddenly come down with "inbred disease". 

I've seen that inbred dogs don't have a shorter lifespan or lack fertility compared to their counterparts in general. 

I'm more concerned with the lines and pedigree than the method used to create the dogs.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

What other breeds have gone into shorty bulls?


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

X-Man said:


> You hit the nail on the head with that one. That's why a Shorty Bull owner would probably be so defensive to a post like this. Were insults and assumptions are constantly been made.


Right, 'cause you've been a nice guy threatening dog attacks in walmart parking lots. 

Honestly you should be happy that all we're doing is showing a desire to want to make sure this breed is created correctly, and produces healthy dogs. Stop getting so upset about the fact that we actually care and worry about what could and will happen if stuff like health testing to determine fit breeding couples doesn't happen.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> I disagree. I will not say certain inbred strains don't suffer these problems and that inbreeding doesn't cause issue. Inbreeding depression can be seen to give way to a number of problems. For me to say that some inbred dogs / strains don't have those problems would be just as much of a generalization to say they always do.
> 
> I've seen immunity issues like demodex and allergies in inbred dogs, I've also seen them in dogs which are not inbred. Including mixed breeds with immunity related health problems.
> 
> ...


Spicey, you are giving anecdotal information, which is fine and good knowledge, but it is too small a sample size to make conclusions from. Yes, non-inbred animals get all these difficulties too and I stated that, but they get them in a much lower prevalence rate - bad luck on which genes matched up in those guys. I have a son that is about as outbred as a human can get that has had the same bad luck and is on medication for life or he'd be long dead. I do understand this.

Breeders inbreed/linebreed in the aim for more homozygous animals as they more predictably breed 'true', and there is a want and need of that *to a point*, but the risks of this aim need to be understood fully. When you increase homozygosity, the odds of recessive genes that might carry a difficulty pairing up increases. I believe all who breed dogs know this?

If someone had posted 'I know of highly inbred dogs that are healthy and long lived" I'd of said 'hell ya", cuz it is true that some do. It was the idea posted that 'highly inbred *populations*' thrive that my remarks were about.

What Zim posted was


> _"it is entirely possible to have a healthy heavily inbred *population*...what it depends on is what you start out with and how you proceed from that point"_


When a 'heavily inbred population' is mentioned, as was done, we are no longer speaking of a few dogs in a line here or there. I believe where the confusion might be is in what is considered 'highly inbred' as well. 

As soon as that terminology comes out we have to begin looking at populations other than dogs because there are not enough highly inbred dog populations studied, in enough numbers, to look at. Population geneticists study this, however, and have studied many other mammalian highly inbred populations and do know what the results are. 



Spicy1_VV said:


> I know the lack of fertility and short lifespan is bunk. It might be true for some but it is not always true at all. I know a number of breeders and have done breedings myself and haven't seen this to be a problem. Litters of 6-10 pups is pretty much average, these same numbers are seen produced by inbred dogs. .


Not bunk at all. It is absolutely proven. There were Beagle studies done (Scott and Fuller, 1965) that are mentioned in many breeding books that go into this. Again anecdotal comparisons of small samples are not scientific. On one point we agree as I am also not suggesting that EVERY inbred animal suffers or suffers obviously. There is always the exception. I am telling you that we do know the odds of difficulties DO greatly increase. This is because highly inbred populations have been long studied - just not commonly in dogs as that would be considered cruel. 

INBREEDING COEFFICIENT --- % OF PUPS DYING BY 10 DAYS OF AGE
0.00 - 0.25 ------------------------ 26.49 
0.251 - 0.50 ----------------------- 32.00
0.501 - 0.672 ---------------------- 51.07 
0.673 - 0.785 ---------------------- 74.36​http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/index.php?page=effects-of-inbreeding

_"Although highly inbred animal populations exist (mostly created by human intervention), it is questionable to say that any such populations “thrive.” More accurately, they manage to survive for awhile. Inbred laboratory animals (mice, beagles, cavies) exist in protected environments largely free from environmental stress or challenge. Isolated inbred wild populations like the celebrated wolves of Isle Royale or the Cheetah are in reality struggling and vulnerable, ripe for extinction. Very soon (by nature's timetable) they will no longer exist; nature is in no hurry either to create or to extinguish animal populations. 

That extremely inbred lab mice exist comfortably even in a protected environment is due largely to the fact that surviving strains have been successfully purged of many deleterious genes; their natural genetic load has been reduced by careful selection. *Part of that selection process necessarily involves the fact that many bloodlines have been culled or discarded, or have simply failed to survive the process.* *The purebred dogs that now display dramatic genetic diseases for which screening programmes are being developed, are simply a demonstration of the risks of the inbreeding/selection process*.* Is it right that ninety-five dogs should die for each five survivors of a stringent inbreeding/culling programme?* Is it worth that just to purge some part of the natural genetic load? Our companion animals are not lab mice and we should value their lives more than that." _​
http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=shared:canine_diversity_faq



Spicy1_VV said:


> 80 - 90% loss and sickness, are you serious?
> You are saying that when inbreeding is done it results in 80-90% becoming ill and/or dying?


Yes, on the 80-90% loss percentage. No I am not saying *an* inbreeding creates that kind of loss, or even a couple of generations of inbreeding. That does not give you yet a highly inbred strain. That loss rate pertains to continuous inbreeding and the creation of highly inbred strains of mammals (usually used for lab experimentation). That is the only place where we have taken homozygosity to its end point - where homozygous clones have been created and we know what their health is.

_"However, it is quite possible to weed out genetic faults in even the most inbred lines. Scientists do this all the time; they have produced strains of mice, rats, and other animals that are so inbred as to be genetically identical. Each animal in one of these strains is the identical twin (aside from sex) of every other animal of that strain. *These animals carry no lethal genes and are extremely healthy in every way except one. They must be kept in a nearly sterile environment, because their immune systems are not capable of fighting off a normal range of diseases. *
The immune systems of all animals are absolutely dependent on genetic diversity."_​
http://pawpeds.com/MCO/mchs/articles/lorimer.html

_"1. A random bred population of mice was subjected to inbreeding and the
changes of litter size, measured as the number of live young in first litters, were
followed.

2. The mean Utter size declined at a rate of 0-56 young per 10% increase of the
inbreeding coefficient.

3. Selection for large litters within the lines during the inbreeding did not
effectively reduce the rate of decline.

4. *Out of twenty lines *at the beginning of the inbreeding seventeen were lost by
the time the inbreeding coefficient reached 76%. Two more were lost later and one
survived indefinitely. The three lines that survived longest started at a level below
the mean and did not decline in litter size. The *one* that *survived indefinitely*
reached 99% inbreeding without dropping below the non-inbred control."_​
http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/research/disorders/documents/inbreeding_depression.pdf


_"Thus one could anticipate that the survivorship of inbred lines would be even less with a foundation stock fresh from nature. In summary, between 5% and 20% of lines survive after F reaches values above 0.80.

One of the myths about inbreeding is that there exists an inbreeding depression minimum, and that once a line succeeds in traversing safely this genetic purgatory, it is cleansed of deleterious genes. . . . . "_​
http://books.google.ca/books?id=NDQ...ge&q=20 lines inbreeding one survived&f=false

SOB


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

part two (yes more):yawn:



> You have to realise that some of us are well old enough to remember when 'types' were still being bred, and when we could still get type bred dogs as those breeders were NOT villified. I do not see the registry system as improvement.





Spicy1_VV said:


> What does registry have to do with it.


The registry system is the first time in the history of dogs where stud books have been closed (there are some exceptions). Closed stud books mean no longer can new/fresh/diverse genes be introduced. In a closed stud book there is an inevitable steady loss of genetic diversity over time. Breeds being kept within a closed stud book system become more and more inbred each generation, as opposed to what was the tradition in dog breeds and landraces, and that was that when a breeder saw fit to bring in new dogs (genes) that choice was his/hers. Hence there was always, in the past, allowance for breeds to continue on, and continue to be healthily diverse.



Spicy1_VV said:


> I've seen "caused suffering" and registry mentioned several times. Pedigree Dogs some people enjoyed that documentry..


Interesting you'd mention that Spicy, as I was studying canine genetics and population genetics, and on the Canine Genetics Yahoo list, and saying all of this years before 'that' documentary. I have a history in this, as my grandfather was a livestock breeder and dog breeder and studied the science of population genetics and diversity way back when (he died in the 50s) passing on his passion and knowledge to his children. I was raised up understanding the concepts of diversity - my uncle one of the early beefalo farmers. Besides dairy, black baldy (another hybrid) were what my family ran. After banging my head against many brick walls in conversations with those in dog breeding over 20 years hoping that some might instigate change, and seeing it only rarely take hold, I did like the documentary though. Cattle, sheep, most horse, pig and even cat breeders understand the need for diversity and to have allowances for new genetic material in their breeds. Dog breeders were the first I met that refused to recognize this.

As for the phrase 'caused suffering', that one is well older than the documentary as well. I believe it is an apt phrase. I have caused suffering (albeit accidentally but at least not carelessly) to my son, by choosing my husband as a mate. I have also caused him great joy at times, and created a smart and generous and caring young man - a science geek at that, who'd of thunk. That is a truth and I have no trouble owning it. What is your difficulty with the phrase?



Spicy1_VV said:


> I was just thinking my oldest dog is inbred though not that old (she's almost 9yrs) I don't believe she will suddenly come down with "inbred disease".
> 
> I've seen that inbred dogs don't have a shorter lifespan or lack fertility compared to their counterparts in general.
> 
> I'm more concerned with the lines and pedigree than the method used to create the dogs.


Again, Spicey, the comments I made were about inbred 'populations'. Ultimately, if you are breeding within a closed stud book club/registry, your breedings affect the breed population which will ultimately become more and more inbred. Population genetics are an incredibly worthwhile study for those breeding dogs.

I do know many breeders on the Canine Genetics list, and some even Cavalier breeders, that are doing their utmost to do their best at breeding healthy dogs and keeeping diversity in their lines. To show that they are not completely against setting traits through inbreeding, some have even inbred a litter here and on occasion when they thought it was necessry, but then they outbred following that *as a habit*. What is being spoken about is the habit of inbreeding, and continuous linebreeding, and the mentorship of that style of breeding, and how it can eventually affect populations. It is about the need to know 10 gen COIs and consider the affect of each mating a breeder does on the full population of a breed when those pups enter back into the population especially if that population is closed from fresh genetic input.

One girl that is one of the two 'most likely suspects' in spreading SM through the Cavalier breed has a linebred COI of 25+%. She had only two offspring. Her impact was not felt for 40 years as it looks like SM is created through a complicated set of recessives, (at least one protective that so far looks to be almost lost from the breed - replaced with a non-protective mutation) but now she is behind almost every dog in the breed. That was one breeder, producing two pups from one girl, and look at the impact.

SOB


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

X-Man said:


> that Shorty Bull will also hand him he's butt and he's dog's butt to him in *a Wal-Mart bag so they can rub it in their chest on the ride home* because the Shorty Bull can beat he's dog in weight pulling.


Ok, now, I know I'm not really "hip" or "with it," but... what? Is this like a common thing? Rubbing butts on chests? Is that like... what?


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

X-Man said:


> I never threatened a dog attack in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Somebody made a comment that a Shorty Bull that pulls 96X her weight will get her butt handed to her in on UKC weight pulling show and than he went on to say that he's dog can pull 76x he's weight. I said yes that the Shorty Bull will get her butt handed in an UKC weight pulling show but that Shorty Bull will also hand him he's butt and he's dog's butt to him in a Wal-Mart bag so they can rub it in their chest on the ride home because the Shorty Bull can beat he's dog in weight pulling. You only see what you want to see, that person started the hole thing but your blaming me for answering back.
> 
> And trust me you have to worry about me a lot more than you have to worry about my dog attacking. lol I Didn’t buy the dog so it can attack or protect me at all.


Forgive me for my inability to understand your horrible grammar.

Also, I haven't gone around picking fights in Wal-Mart parking lots for many many years... it's part of being an adult. So I think we'll be ok on that part.


----------



## tw1n (May 12, 2009)

For the record, Darkmoon is a she...


----------



## jess4525 (Aug 27, 2009)

I have also been following this thread. 

*X-Man, what breeds are mixed to create the shorty bull???????? *


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

jess4525 said:


> I have also been following this thread.
> 
> *X-Man, what breeds are mixed to create the shorty bull???????? *


I've been reading through the posts for awhile also, and trying to answer this question by looking at breeders' sites and other internet sources, and I second (actually, I think I am "twentying") this question:
*X-Man, or anyone else, what breeds are mixed to create the shorty bull???????? *


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

X-Man said:


> I'm not the creator of the breed, so I'm not entitled to say what breeds were used to create the Shorty Bulls because it is something that has been kept a secret and I really shouldn't be the one to let it out. Sorry!!


Why? Why is it kept secret? That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Why do they need to keep it a secret? That sounds like a scandal to me.

My breed has nothing to hide, they were created with a broad mix of Welsh bob tail, Collie, Rottweiler, Basque shepherd, and minute amounts of other random farm dogs.


----------



## Moxie (Sep 9, 2010)

X-Man said:


> I'm not the creator of the breed, so I'm not entitled to say what breeds were used to create the Shorty Bulls because it is something that has been kept a secret and I really shouldn't be the one to let it out. Sorry!!


Wait, so we're supposed to believe that the breeder is responsible and ethical, but they won't release their dogs' pedigrees? Oh, that's rich! What's the point of all of this testing you're claiming they (and you) do if they aren't going to release any of the results? This is so absurd it's almost unbelievable.


----------



## Root (Apr 10, 2010)

X-Man said:


> I'm not the creator of the breed, so I'm not entitled to say what breeds were used to create the Shorty Bulls because it is something that has been kept a secret and I really shouldn't be the one to let it out. Sorry!!


If someone really wanted to find out breed heritage they could have a DNA test performed.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

tw1n said:


> For the record, Darkmoon is a she...


*double checks* Yup still a female... Your correct there. I still can't understand why people see my screen name and think male... *shrugs*



X-Man said:


> It's just saying that the Shorty Bull will hand him he's butt. You know beat him in the weight pull track. Just like he said the Shorty Bull will get it's butt handed to him in the UKC weight pull show.


Whatever kid. Come on out to the UKC pulls, and since a "short bull" isn't an UKC breed, bring out your neutered mutt (It could pass easily for a French Bulldog though so you can LP him in that) and put your foot where your mouth is. Most dogs could beat my dog. He's a shelter rescue who I don't push that much since it's all for fun and nothing more. I expect at the larger pulls to have my butt handed to me since I'm in the same weight class as many of the smaller bulldogs are and those guys are monster pullers. I also expect to be beaten by the smaller dogs since it goes by percentage pulled and those little 5 to 10lb dogs are amazing. I'm just happy when he pulls his 20point pulls, whatever he does after that is just icing on the cake.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

Darkmoon said:


> *double checks* Yup still a female... Your correct there. I still can't understand why people see my screen name and think male... *shrugs*


It's not the screen name, it's the pits. They're such a "manly" dog, no woman would want one. *cough cough*


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

Root said:


> If someone really wanted to find out breed heritage they could have a DNA test performed.


DNA test are notoriously inaccurate. All other legitimate modern breeds' creation is well documented. Why is that "breed" such a secret? Why is the name registered (check breeders' websites)? How come that sounds like a money-making scheme?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Meshkenet said:


> How come that sounds like a money-making scheme?


Patent pending!


----------



## QuidditchGirl (Apr 9, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Patent pending!


Secret recipe!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

secrets? screams scams and most likely lies. 


Maybe i was mistaken in thinking that a true ethical breeder would keep no secrets...

i dunno...i want to buy a dog of a newer or in progress breed...Id like to do just that with the British Alaunt...a mix of Mastiff, Pit and Greyhound....but they're probably less far along and im completely able to be aware of their pedigrees and what exactly has gone into the Alaunt so far..i dont think id be trusting any breeder with some huge secret in regards to their dogs' breeding.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Just a curious thought hit my head as I read Zim's comment of secrets. Does anyone yet know the breeds that went into the Alaskan Klee Kai? I know I can give a good guess, but did the founder ever come out with it?

SOB


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Alaskan husky, a single Siberian husky, American Eskimo dog, and Schipperke is what I've heard. I am not sure if there were other "ingredients;" I am actually going to look into that more! I know the original creator kept it secret for some time. I'm not sure why. I'll find some of the articles I read when researching the breed and post them for you.

Here is Linda Spurlin's account of how she created the breed. She mentions a couple of breeds:



> Instead, the ancestors of the Alaskan Husky were a scruffy little Indian dog used by the people of interior Alaska. It is suspected that the whalebone dog sleds discovered in Savoonga, which anthropologists "guesstimate" to be nearly 5000 years old, were pulled by the great ancestors of today's Alaskan Husky. However, this little Indian dog did not gain much respect in the dog world until the last fifty years or so. During the first half of the century the Siberian Husky, for the most part, reigned supreme as leaders in the racing world. Then in the late 1940's, when dog sled racing began to become a profitable occupation, the tides turned and Alaskan mushers began in earnest to develop the little village Indian dog into the Alaskan Husky as we know it today. These are the ancestors of the Alaskan Klee Kai. The Alaskan Husky is a mixture of the best, and so was the creation of the Alaskan Klee Kai. I also added a small dose of Siberian Husky, and just the right amount of smaller dogs of similar conformation for developing my original stock.


I'm not sure when she actually identified the smaller breeds as Schipperke and American Eskimo; I haven't been able to find that info. It's common knowledge among AKK breeders, though. I see that breed list on a lot of breeder sites, in the Wikipedia article, and in general "meet the breed" features.

Edit: The Alaskan Klee Kai Association of America mentions the eskies:



> Q: Are the dogs and bitches that are being used for breeding able to reproduce themselves consistently or there is a large variation in type?
> 
> A: At this time, you could get any size and sometimes any color pup from any dog and bitch. Mostly they are being born black and white, grey and white, a few red and white and occasionally white (from the Eskies). We do not have a lot of pups going oversized (over 17 ½”), but there are still some.


Ah, here's Spurlin's reason for keeping it secret (from her FAQ page):



> "In your "World of the Alaskan Klee Kai" you make reference to 'not giving your grandma's secret recipes' in regards to not telling people what breeds you used to make up this dog of yours. Why is that?"
> Janet Ranee
> Houston, TX
> 
> When I first started having people coming into my backyard to see the little huskies, it was common for them to ask me what I 'put into them'. They couldn't seem to accept that this was a 'real' breed of dog, that ALL breeds of dogs were man made. Sighthounds, scenthounds, guardian breeds, herding dogs, working breeds, were all created by man for his own best interests- according to the task he needed help with at the time. And yet when I asked the people in return what breeds went into the making of whatever dog they owned, the majority of them looked shocked at the thought that their own breed had perhaps been created by other than God himself! Just because their breed was created several hundred years ago in Europe doesn't mean it wasn't created by man by mixing other existing breeds together for a specific purpose. So I began to joke about it and said that I just washed the dogs in hot water and they shrunk! Some laughed. Some apparently thought I was full of it! Then a woman made the comment that 'my grandmother doesn't give out her secret recipes, and neither do I"! I thought this was probably more appropriate than suggesting they shrunk in the dryer, so I began to use the comment. I simply saw no reason to try to explain all the breeds used in the creation of the Alaskan Klee Kai. Mostly, I suppose, because I was tired of the implication that they were 'just mutts'. Certainly the first one was an accident (and not my own either) but when you can reproduce the same dog consistently, you are on the road to creating a breed. There are several other American made breeds, such as the Boston Terrier, the Australian Shepherd, and the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog to name only a few. So although the Alaskan Klee Kai has been recognized as a breed by the United Kennel Club, the American Rare Breed Association, etc., I realize there are those who still worry about the ancestors of these little huskies. I decorate my home as I wish, without concern as to what my German ancestors would have done. Maybe in time people will just accept these little dogs as companionable lap warmers and stop worrying about their relatives.- L.S.


Can't say I fully agree with her. I think a breed developer should have no issues with identifying what went into the breed.

(And therefore I see absolutely no reason why the "shorty bull" people won't say what went into them. It does not make your "breed" look more mysterious or whatever you're going for. It makes it look like you have something to hide.)


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Crantastic said:


> I think a breed developer should have no issue identifying what went into the breed.


I think some people would keep it secret to preserve the 'romance' of the breed. I know many Crested people prefer to think their modern dogs have a pure, unbroken line back to Ancient China (a belief which is incredibly inplausible once you look at the sources of the breed's original foundation dogs). I kind of sense a similar thing in how Ms. Spurlin goes on about 5000-year old small dogs living with the Indians, which would have barely any direct genetic influence on the Klee Kai. More accurate to say that the romantic IMAGE of those small dogs inspired her to create the KK. But I will bet that in another 20 years, you will have some KK breeders claiming their dogs are _directly_ descendend from those ancient dogs!


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pai said:


> I think some people would keep it secret to preserve the 'romance' of the breed. I know many Crested people prefer to think their modern dogs have a pure, unbroken line back to Ancient China (a belief which is incredibly inplausible once you look at the sources of the breed's original foundation dogs). I kind of sense a similar thing in how Ms. Spurlin goes on about 5000-year old small dogs living with the Indians, which would have barely any direct genetic influence on the Klee Kai. More accurate to say that the romantic IMAGE of those small dogs inspired her to create the KK. But I will bet that in another 20 years, you will have some KK breeders claiming their dogs are _directly_ descendend from those ancient dogs!


I can easily see how that could be the case. I get the sense that, in a lot of dog things, the mysticism gets in the way of improvement.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Apparently people have seen her pedigrees, so the info about which breeds she used for the AKK probably came from those:



> "I recently saw on another website that you have dogs in your pedigrees that your Standards say are not allowed to be there. What do you have to say about this?"
> Shannon
> Renton, WA
> 
> You are correct in your observation. Since this newly developed breed was developed by myself, (and I kept good records), and was not created 500 years ago in another country where the records were eventually lost, I can see where people could easily be confused by the names on the pedigrees. Certain breeds, and colors, were used in the beginning to develop this breed. But it doesn't mean if I had it to do over again that I would do it the same way. It took many many generations of breeding, and culling, to make the Alaskan Klee Kai what it is today. Now after watching the breed develop over the years, it is much easier to look back and make observations.


I'm not sure how or where to see those pedigrees, though.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Crantastic said:


> Apparently people have seen her pedigrees, so the info about which breeds she used for the AKK probably came from those:
> I'm not sure how or where to see those pedigrees, though.


There's a database here, but I'm not sure how useful it would be without knowing the names of her foundation dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

How does one person go about creating an entire breed in this day and age? I'm just thinking the tremendous numbers of dogs required to get enough genetic diversity, fix traits, and culling, etc.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> How does one person go about creating an entire breed in this day and age? I'm just thinking the tremendous numbers of dogs required to get enough genetic diversity, fix traits, and culling, etc.


a lot of networking apparently...you could feasably maintain one specific line and get them to breed to type and have parallel lines. you'd need partners. and money.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> How does one person go about creating an entire breed in this day and age? I'm just thinking the tremendous numbers of dogs required to get enough genetic diversity, fix traits, and culling, etc.


Well, if I were doing it (and this is how I do it when I'm selective breeding in Petz ), I would write out a standard to start. You have to know where you're going before you start, because it's easy to dilly-dally around in the middle if you don't have a goal in mind. And then I guess it's like any other breeding program, really. Test your stock and search the population for dogs that will move you in the direction you want to go. The biggest challenges are going to be placing pups you don't want to breed and maintaining genetic diversity. Killing puppies and tight in-breeding aren't really acceptable practices anymore (which is as it should be). It would help to be fabulously wealthy.

I've thought about what you would need to start a sport-specific breed. There are some people doing it, I think. Blue... Pine? Spruce? Hill? Some kind of tree or natural landmark.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> (and this is how I do it when I'm selective breeding in Petz )


Lmao, you play petz!? We should do a poll here on how many people play/ed petz... That's how I met Xeph some 13-14 years ago. 

Anyways, I think it would be fairly simple to create a line of something by yourself, however an entire breed is another story.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

You'd need good breeders on board too. People willing to cross their healthy, pure bred dogs to another breed, knowing that there won't be returns until pretty far down the line.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Lmao, you play petz!? We should do a poll here on how many people play/ed petz... That's how I met Xeph some 13-14 years ago.
> 
> Anyways, I think it would be fairly simple to create a line of something by yourself, however an entire breed is another story.


Really?! That's about the same time I played it the first time around. I used to go online at 3 in the morning (because that's when no one would call while I was tying up the phone line ) and download breedz and clothez and toyz XD


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> Really?! That's about the same time I played it the first time around. I used to go online at 3 in the morning (because that's when no one would call while I was tying up the phone line ) and download breedz and clothez and toyz XD


That's too funny! I'm gonna pm you...


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Well, if I were doing it (and this is how I do it when I'm selective breeding in Petz ).


Wait wait, you can selectively breed and create new breeds in Petz?! How in-depth is it? I love games where you can do that; I need to look into those games now!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

They're really really old school games. The new ones suck and aren't worth your times. But yeah people have been selective breeding and hexing breeds in petz 3/4 for 10+ years. There's even online showing venues. The only reason that game was any fun was because of the online communities.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Petz person here too! I stareted with Dogz 2 and then got hooked, lots of different Breedz I downloaded


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pai said:


> Wait wait, you can selectively breed and create new breeds in Petz?! How in-depth is it? I love games where you can do that; I need to look into those games now!


It is surprisingly in-depth, especially for the time they were made. Its not really one of the intended uses of the game, but you can get some pretty solid results. You should totally check it out, I bet you'd really like it!


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Spicey, you are giving anecdotal information, which is fine and good knowledge, but it is too small a sample size to make conclusions from. Yes, non-inbred animals get all these difficulties too and I stated that, but they get them in a much lower prevalence rate - bad luck on which genes matched up in those guys. I have a son that is about as outbred as a human can get that has had the same bad luck and is on medication for life or he'd be long dead. I do understand this.


I knew it would be discredited because it is only anecdotal. I completely understand that. Though it is extremely relavent to me and influences my views because of the fact that it is my experience.

I know frequency is key and my sample size is small but it does deal with a large number of dogs over several generations. 

I believe humans are more likely due to not being selectively bred and lack of culling. Many people seem to have minor problems and some a bit more serious seem common enough though environment factors in. 

Back to dogs, I keep records on mine but can't on all others though when it comes to the line I do know a few other breeders well enough to know there stats. I know the dogs in the pedigrees generations back and the dogs within the litters. 

My "sample group" may only be a couple hundred dogs but it gives me an overall idea. I would love to be able to go over all my data and pull stats if I could ATM just for my own interest. 



> Breeders inbreed/linebreed in the aim for more homozygous animals as they more predictably breed 'true', and there is a want and need of that *to a point*, but the risks of this aim need to be understood fully. When you increase homozygosity, the odds of recessive genes that might carry a difficulty pairing up increases. I believe all who breed dogs know this?


That is true as far as genes. Unfortunately not all who breed know this nor do they know other things which they should.



> If someone had posted 'I know of highly inbred dogs that are healthy and long lived" I'd of said 'hell ya", cuz it is true that some do. It was the idea posted that 'highly inbred *populations*' thrive that my remarks were about.


I see what you are saying. One would have to define highly inbred population. I consider a line to be a popular and a line created/maintained with heavy inbreeding to be a highly inbred population. It might differ from person to person. As "highly inbred population" is kind of vague. Without definition I can't exactly agree or disagree if any such populations exist. 



> When a 'heavily inbred population' is mentioned, as was done, we are no longer speaking of a few dogs in a line here or there. I believe where the confusion might be is in what is considered 'highly inbred' as well.


I'm not speaking of a few dogs in within a line myself. I'm talking of numerous dogs. Maybe I implied it by speaking of one of my older dogs but she isn't alone, not an exception to the line.

Definitions are important I know what "heavily inbred" is IMO when I see the actual pedigree. I also consider the COI of the dogs. Mine are between 18 ish and 25%. (That's wrights BTW) 



> Not bunk at all. It is absolutely proven. There were Beagle studies done (Scott and Fuller, 1965) that are mentioned in many breeding books that go into this. Again anecdotal comparisons of small samples are not scientific. On one point we agree as I am also not suggesting that EVERY inbred animal suffers or suffers obviously. There is always the exception. I am telling you that we do know the odds of difficulties DO greatly increase. This is because highly inbred populations have been long studied - just not commonly in dogs as that would be considered cruel.


Sorry I didn't mean not true at all, I meant not always true. I see this isn't just about litter size or being able to reproduce, but viability. I find those stats sad, the % which died by 10 days. I should've said they had normal litters of 6 to 10 which thrived. 

Exceptions to me is a few dogs, a couple litters. Not the norm. I don't consider what I'm talking about as an exception here or there. When a line produces thriving litters.

They thrive for the length of an average lifespan. Not simply for awhile. They live an everyday, normal life. My dogs, the dogs I've bred, those before me or who dealt in the line do not live in a protected environment. They live in the real world. They do not succumb to disease, have a high mortality rate, ect.

In any sample group one must consider the individuals in the group being used. You could have different results in each group. Even though you inbred similar. 

* Is it right that ninety-five dogs should die for each five survivors of a stringent inbreeding/culling programme?*

I would not think so. One would need to seriously consider what they are even breeding for. If you had stats like that it'd be pointless to breed.



> Yes, on the 80-90% loss percentage. No I am not saying *an* inbreeding creates that kind of loss, or even a couple of generations of inbreeding. That does not give you yet a highly inbred strain. That loss rate pertains to continuous inbreeding and the creation of highly inbred strains of mammals (usually used for lab experimentation). That is the only place where we have taken homozygosity to its end point - where homozygous clones have been created and we know what their health is.


So how many generations? I'm speaking bloodline 4, 5, 6 generations where Inbreeding takes place. You don't create a line in 2 generations, that is only the beginning. 

80-90% does not justify even breeding, it is am extremely high mortality rate. 

It is true that you might have lab animals like that and on average dogs are not bred like that, so if they are not it doesn't seem to apply. The dogs could still have significant Inbreeding but not be as extreme. As well while we might not see clones (none I know of) there have been those that are extremely close, the DNA is very similar to the ancestor they are repeated bred upon, but not quote identical. Some we just don't know about, not all are DNA'd.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Wow petz changed lives.  It's the only reason I got 'into' dogs. It's the reason I joined online forums. It's the reason I got my first show dog (Beau) and thus got into papillons.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

I used to play Petz, too! I used to try to make the breeds I liked that weren't included on the list. Good times :biggrin1: I need to get an updated copy and start playing again!

I think I played Petz 3, both dogs and cats. I believe it was my mom's attempt to get me to shut up about wanting a dog when I was a kid, lol!


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> It is surprisingly in-depth, especially for the time they were made. Its not really one of the intended uses of the game, but you can get some pretty solid results. You should totally check it out, I bet you'd really like it!


The game I had when I was a kid that sparked my love of genetics and breeding was El-Fish (wow, almost 17 years ago now!), where you can selectively breed, well, FISH. And then watch them swim around in tanks. ...Yeah, I thought it was the coolest ever, I even made a website for it. It was also remarkably in-depth for it's era... I still play it from time to time, on a DOS emulator.

Is it just me or are there not any cool life-sims around anymore? I know of El-Fish, Creatures, and Petz... that makes 3 in the last decade or so? Bleh!


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Pai said:


> Is it just me or are there not any cool life-sims around anymore? I know of El-Fish, Creatures, and Petz... that makes 3 in the last decade or so? Bleh!


The sims, if your into breeding humans


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Pai said:


> Is it just me or are there not any cool life-sims around anymore? I know of El-Fish, Creatures, and Petz... that makes 3 in the last decade or so? Bleh!


I really wish there were more! I was talking about this to my boyfriend the other day (He's an aspiring video game programmer and a huge first person shooter fan) and he said there probably wouldn't be a market for it =P


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

There are quite a few text based genetics games out there. Dog Dayzz is the best I have found for creating new mixes of dogs tho it doesn't give you the ability to establish new breeds, and of course there are no awsome animations and you don't "pet" your dog or stuff like that and it doesn't bark at you.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Keechak said:


> The sims, if your into breeding humans


Booooring. I only play The Sims to decorate and landscape the houses, lol! I don't think I ever actually played them properly for any length of time.



> I really wish there were more! I was talking about this to my boyfriend the other day (He's an aspiring video game programmer and a huge first person shooter fan) and he said there probably wouldn't be a market for it =P


Yeah, simulation games are not big sellers, I guess. Spore was supposed to be more like that, I think, but it ended up pretty much getting dumbed down to nothing. It has a cool creature design tool, though.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Pai said:


> Booooring. I only play The Sims to decorate and landscape the houses, lol!
> 
> 
> Yeah, simulation games are not big sellers, I guess. Spore was supposed to be more like that, I think, but it ended up pretty much getting dumbed down to nothing. It has a cool creature design tool, though.


My mom and I used to build and design our dream houses on the Sims :biggrin1:


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Keechak said:


> The sims, if your into breeding humans


LOL, you win an internet Keechak.



Laurelin said:


> Wow petz changed lives.  It's the only reason I got 'into' dogs. It's the reason I joined online forums. It's the reason I got my first show dog (Beau) and thus got into papillons.


I can trace the reason I am the nerd I am today back to 4th grade, when David Shafer told me I should buy "Marlfox" from the bookfair.



Pai said:


> The game I had when I was a kid that sparked my love of genetics and breeding was El-Fish (wow, almost 17 years ago now!), where you can selectively breed, well, FISH. And then watch them swim around in tanks. ...Yeah, I thought it was the coolest ever, I even made a website for it. It was also remarkably in-depth for it's era... I still play it from time to time, on a DOS emulator.
> 
> Is it just me or are there not any cool life-sims around anymore? I know of El-Fish, Creatures, and Petz... that makes 3 in the last decade or so? Bleh!


Oh man, it was a Maxis game? Do you remember when Maxis was putting out all those goofy Sim- games, like SimAnt and SimWorld and SimNoun?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Oh man, it was a Maxis game? Do you remember when Maxis was putting out all those goofy Sim- games, like SimAnt and SimWorld and SimNoun?


I liked SimLife and SimAnt! I still have SimAnt in the box on my shelf here, actually... I could never make an ecosystem in SimLife that didn't end up having a mass extinction of all plants and animals, though, so I guess I'd make a pretty crappy god. I never got into SimWorld because it didn't have animals in it. =P
It's wierd though, because Maxis was so huge back then, yet the genre they were so instrumental in making popular never seemed to stick after their decline.

And lol @SimNoun.



> I can trace the reason I am the nerd I am today back to 4th grade, when David Shafer told me I should buy "Marlfox" from the bookfair.


Oh, I remember when I started reading those... the new book back then was 'Salamandastron'. I never read past 'Martin the Warrior', though. Apparently he's still cranking em out!


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> I can trace the reason I am the nerd I am today back to 4th grade, when David Shafer told me I should buy "Marlfox" from the bookfair.


Oh my goodness! My nerdiness began around age 9 or 10 when I got a copy of The Long Patrol from a garage sale! I've read all of them up until Rackety Tam :biggrin1: My absolute favorite fictional character is still Russa Nodrey, though!


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

*SOB* 

I see what you are saying about closed registry. In my breed its not like that. AST lines and SBT can be brought in. 

I know there are other breeds/registries where such things are possible.

If a registry were to allows other dogs in certain breeds how much does it matter if the breed was started from a few individuals? It is still not a huge amount of diversity?

How is each (every?) Generation more inbred what exactly do you mean? There are various lines and unrelated dogs in closed registries?

I don't have access to my info, which is on my computer (dont have internet so sad) so I can't bring up my 10 gen COI info. I only know the 4 gen for several which I mentioned in my other post.

Taking into consideration impact of a breeding on an entire breed could be wise, but at the sametime most don't have to worry of their dog being behind nearly every dog of the breed.

*SOB* 

I see what you are saying about closed registry. In my breed its not like that. AST lines and SBT can be brought in. 

I know there are other breeds/registries where such things are possible.

If a registry were to allows other dogs in certain breeds how much does it matter if the breed was started from a few individuals? It is still not a huge amount of diversity?

How is each (every?) Generation more inbred what exactly do you mean? There are various lines and unrelated dogs in closed registries?

I don't have access to my info, which is on my computer (dont have internet so sad) so I can't bring up my 10 gen COI info. I only know the 4 gen for several which I mentioned in my other post.

Taking into consideration impact of a breeding on an entire breed could be wise, but at the sametime most don't have to worry of their dog being behind nearly every dog of the breed.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Spicy, many of the breeds that are in closed registries no longer have lines left with unrelated dogs - each and every line will often go back to the same dogs, and these can be lines world over. 

In regards to every generation becoming more inbred it is due to tight selection criteria (often competitively driven) and popular sire syndrome mostly. To maintain as much diversity each generation as the one before, when your population is closed, females and males have to be used about equally, AND no one individual can contribute in high numbers as that means others are excluded. That is just not what happens in the competitive system we currently have, so diversity is lost. It also CAN'T happen as some dogs SHOULD be excluded - however there is a balance that is not being met. The study linked below shows that, in the UK, only 5% of Labrador males and 10% of Golden Retrievers sired more than 100 individuals each. That is very warped, and in 20 years those males will be the ones behind every lab and every Golden as their grandpups and greatgrandpups etc. breed on and meet up in lines. Whatever deleterious genes they had will begin to show then.

The Kennel Club (UK) looked at this a few years ago. This study explains things very well.

_"To address the lack of such studies we have exploited one of the world's most extensive resources for canine population-genetics studies: the United Kingdom (UK) Kennel Club registration database. We chose 10 representative breeds and analyzed their pedigrees since electronic records were established around 1970, corresponding to about eight generations before present. We find extremely inbred dogs in each breed except the greyhound and estimate an inbreeding effective population size between 40 and 80 for all but 2 breeds. *For all but 3 breeds, >90% of unique genetic variants are lost over six generations, indicating a dramatic effect of breeding patterns on genetic diversity*."_​
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/short/179/1/593

While I understand that most don't believe that their dog can make an impact on the full breed, I gave the Cavalier female example to show that any dog can. She was an obscure female. She had one Champion offspring, and another that was used for a few litters. She died young after just that one litter. From her two offspring came numerous champions, and their get were exported world round. Her influence spread from there.

No, this won't happen with most . . . but it CAN happen with any single dog that contributes offspring back into the breed.

So, hold onto the ability to outcross if you can. It is a healthy, healthy attitude for a club to embrace this and I'm glad your breed still allows it. The JRTCA still maintains an open stud book as well, and I wish more would model after what they do. A single outcross into a breed every few generations can make a HUGE impact . . . especially when they can bring in alleles that have been lost, or prevent the loss (drift) of alleles that shouldn't be lost.

This is exemplified by the individual Pointer that brought in a dominant normal allele for metabolism of uric acid to allantoin, where that had been lost in the rest of the Dalmation population.

I've been on the other side of things, sitting on breeder lists (mostly toy breeds) where the most common mentored way to begin a line and 'stamp your style' involves mentored grandfather to grand-daughter pairiings - saw this but a month ago with a relative newcomer to a breed. Some breeds have more of a custom of this than others and I'd like to give a shout out to some top Tibetan Spaniel and Papillon breeders who make a special effort to understand and mentor practices that better suit maintaining diversity.

SOB


----------



## jess4525 (Aug 27, 2009)

Keechak said:


> The sims, if your into breeding humans



I love the Sims!!!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> That's how I met Xeph some 13-14 years ago.


Oh no! My secret is out! LOL!



> It's the only reason I got 'into' dogs.


That's kinda how I got started wanting to show real dogs *blush*


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Xeph said:


> Oh no! My secret is out! LOL!
> 
> 
> That's kinda how I got started wanting to show real dogs *blush*


It's okay Xeph... we nerds totally understand.


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

So I gues we'll never know the shorty bull recipe... this thread has gone a weird way.


----------



## SR80 (Feb 10, 2021)

CWBullyBreedRescue said:


> I am fairly new to this breed - I'm fairly sure it's a new breed. I'm having a hard time finding any breeders. But I think I have fallen in love all over again.
> 
> I have been contemplating getting a new dog - sometime within the next few years, after I get my own place, ect. And I'm seriously thinking about this kind. Chances are I will have to get one from a breeder, since the people that do have them are likely going to do anything to hang onto them - I know I would. And if I found an older one for sell, it'd be a lot of money, and I'd rather get a puppy to make sure it's raised right.
> 
> ...


We'll you definitely are correct about how amazing these guys are... They are truly amazing dogs. With that being said it's critical that you find a really legitimate breeder who has much experience with this "specialty breed" of dog. By definition I guess you could say, like a person stated below that this is a mutt. BUT THAT IS STRICTLY BY DEFINITION ALONE.. Hence my reasoning 4 finding a legitimate breeder. (I have one out of Colorado if needed, I live in southern CA and met in Northern CA to physically pick mine up. I would never think to ship a puppy) Anyways the breeder is key due to making sure you pick only the top notch of dogs in each breed, it's taken them many many years to get it just perfect, been selective breeding for best health, characteristics, behaviors etc... I'm an experienced dog owner, previous informal dog rescue/animal rescuer for over a decade I have experience with both pure bred and mutts. I honestly had much more issues with my pure bred over mutts. Just saying.. But that's not surprising and you'll actually see many ppl saying that. Anyways again if you've done the pocess correctly when creating this amazing dog than you'll end up with that result. Not always I'm sure they've had issues but now that it's been over 25 years of perfecting their skills and breeding strictly for best health,, characteristics,, behavior,, demeanor etc I've got to say that I feel so blessed to of been introduced to the breeder I used because I got the most awesome dog imaginable. But as obvious dog lovers I'm sure we all feel& say that. Lol. It truly doesn't matter about breed per say dogs of all breeds that are raised right gift is humans with so much more than we could possibly ever give them in return... Priceless.... Oh yeah speaking of price, this dog does have a hefty price tag, that actually supersedes any one of the 3 breeds it's made of. Again that depends on your breeder and their legitimacy. I'm sure you can get one for a thousand or 2 but idk how much id depends on the breeder and their legitimacy.. just a little bit of info 4 u.. If u want any specific info just ask..


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

This thread is eleven years old and the original poster hasn't been here since the day after it was posted. I'm closing it to future replies to avoid confusion, but please do join in our current discussions or start your own thread if you'd like!


----------

