# Breeding out da in APBTs



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I personally do not think breeders of APBTs should purposely breed away from DA, I think in doing so you lose the traits that make the APBT an APBT and just end up with an Amstaff, even though Amstaffs are not yet completely rid of dog aggression..

Science has shown with the Russian Fox experiment that when breeding for or against one trait you inadvertently effect many others. And while APBTs will eventually become a different dog since we can no longer breed for gameness, i believe we should try to keep the breed as true to the original type as we legally can, and i think by deliberately breeding away from DA you will loose everything that makes an APBT who he is and ultimately end up with Amstaff type

*MEANING DO YOU THINK ALL RESPONSIBLE APBT BREEDERS SHOULD BE BREEDING OUT DA*


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

What is gameness? 

I'm not saying I know anything at all about pitties, because I don't...

but, there are so many cardi breeders who don't breed specifically for herding... and yet most cardigans still, after years of show breeding, have the ability to herd sheep. 

I was told that friendly dogs make bad herders, but that's actually been the opposite of what happened in my case. My 11 month old will try to jump in the arms of new people because she honestly thinks everyone is there to pet her. 

So, are you sure that breeding away from DA will affect everything you think it will?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think that a breed evolving as human needs/desires change is not a bad thing---that's what made the breeds what they are, after all. However, I do think that breeding for one trait while ignoring other traits is not going to end well. So I guess my opinion is that moving gradually toward that direction would be good, but aggressively breeding against DA too quickly would be a bad thing.

A question---when you say you want the breed to remain "true to original type", what do you consider "original"? How far back?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

TheOtherCorgi said:


> What is gameness?
> 
> I'm not saying I know anything at all about pitties, because I don't...
> 
> ...


Gameness is pretty much the willingness to fight no matter what is thrown in your way or how unlikely it is for you to win.


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

Every breed has their bugaboos. I know we have ours, including health and temperament. Most cardigans are reactive because they're all purpose farm dogs turned herders. Mine are friendly reactive, but still reactive. 

I'd say if someone doesn't like that aspect of a pitties temperament, they'd be better off getting a dog from some other breed. 

I tell people if they don't like an alarm barking, heavily shedding dog, that cardigans aren't for them.

I suck at writing posts. I really do. lol


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

I'm confused. Are you saying that DA is included in a 'package' of traits?

And if you're saying it's a good idea to breed _towards_ it, how would breeders objectively measure the fruits of their endeavour? there is no venue that I'm aware of.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

petpeeve said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying that DA is included in a 'package' of traits?
> 
> And if you're saying it's a good idea to breed _towards_ it, how would breeders objectively measure the fruits of their endeavour? there is no venue that I'm aware of.


I feel when people breed away from da I also feel they somewhat breed away from the drive and tenacitity in the breed. I not saying just because a dog is da it should be bred, but I do not think dogs should be removed from the breeding program who are da.


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

I had a breeder once tell me that genetics were like groceries on a shelf that sat beside each other and that it's hard to select for only one trait with out knocking everything else off the shelf. 

She is one of the old time breeders and is out of the game now.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

So it's a continual balancing act. Desirable traits which are inadvertently lost during the process can be brought back in. Can't they?


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I think if we look at it genetically, it makes sense that it can be very difficult to breed out DA as genes that account for behavior and mindset and tied very closely together. Some genes are also linked, and behavioral genes tend to exist in bunches.

I am one that disagrees with breeding out the DA. Herding isnt removed from herding dogs. Nor retrieving from retrievers. DA, as I've seen it in the breed, tends to be coupled closely with that kind of intense *all-around* drive that the APBT possesses. DA is far from HA, so when people say, "I wish APBTs werent so ____" I just tell them another breed would be best because the APBT needs people who accept that characteristic and manage the dogs safely and responsibly.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Why does the dog have to stay as true to original type as possible?

The way I see it, if people want the original type, they will continue to breed for it. If that's not desirable anymore, people will breed what they do want. If people love many traits of APBT but the DA makes them too difficult to own (because of crate and rotate, not being able to take training classes, etc) then I don't see why they shouldn't try to breed away from it. It doesn't have to be the only thing they are breeding towards, of course.


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

I prefer a conservative approach to culling dogs from the breeding program...reducing genetic diversity is something I'm not a fan of. 

Is there an age that dog aggression is usually expressed? Like maybe the dog has to reach maturity? Or, does it turn on at any time? 

If so, you could just wait and see and not breed until you're sure that the dog won't be dog aggressive. 

Are there levels of dog aggression in pitties?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> Why does the dog have to stay as true to original type as possible?
> 
> The way I see it, if people want the original type, they will continue to breed for it. If that's not desirable anymore, people will breed what they do want. If people love many traits of APBT but the DA makes them too difficult to own (because of crate and rotate, not being able to take training classes, etc) then I don't see why they shouldn't try to breed away from it. It doesn't have to be the only thing they are breeding towards, of course.


Yep, this.

When something exists in a dog or breed that turns so many people away from it that it is endangering the breed on a whole, I see absolutely nothing wrong with breeding toward what people do want, and can responsibly and safely own. That's what selective breeding is: breeding dogs to fit into our lives and to fill roles that we want to be filled. If there are people out there who still want 'game' ABPTs, they will be bred, regardless of whether or not people are also working toward breeding DA out.

Frankly speaking, the idea appeals to me. They're an awesome dog who is danged close to perfect for many people, except that. Could they get something else? Yep. Unfortunately, those almost-but-not-quite dogs are being put down all over because of DA an unsuitability for families who are prepared to deal with that, or are able to deal with that, and just plain lack of single dog homes who can manage consistently. If the next role the majority of the breed fills is as a family pet instead of a hog dog? 

WHO CARES? 

It's not like being a catchdog makes a dog better, more valuable, more worthy, or more fit than the dog playing fetch in the backyard. We've got a lot more backyards than we dog hog hunters.

People breed for what they want and like. If 'family pet' is what they want and like, well. The hunters will still be breeding their own dogs for working ability, just like they've always done.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Okay first no one is breeding game pit bulls unless they are fighting dogs period. You can have dogs from game lines but unless they are proven no way of knowing whether or not they are game. You don't seem to be understanding my question correctly, There is already a less da bully breed the ast and the ambully if you want something less likely to be da why not get one of those breeds. My question is ahould da be bred out entirely, I have encountered many people who think all breeders should be breeding away from da and if you are not that is irresponsible , that is what I am talking about. But regardless in the large scale when you breed away from da I think the dog you end up with is no longer apbt


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

I think it might be a good to breed out the highly DA dogs,they really have no purpose today and even old time fighting dogs like the Colby dogs where often not highly DA. That it was possible to have a dog that was highly driven,game and only fight if challenged or in the pit. Such dogs do not make good pets,sporting or working dogs because of this trait and is not helping the Pit bulls image. They are hard to contain being they will chew through almost anything just to get at another dog,I've read of these dogs practically killing themselves to get at another dog. These dogs are also always euthanized instead of given second chances,their set up for a lot of failure unless owned by semi-professionals. I also wouldn't be against some breeders breeding out as much DA as the Staffy or Bull terrier,but keeping to the original conformation and drive.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> Why does the dog have to stay as true to original type as possible?
> 
> The way I see it, if people want the original type, they will continue to breed for it. If that's not desirable anymore, people will breed what they do want. If people love many traits of APBT but the DA makes them too difficult to own (because of crate and rotate, not being able to take training classes, etc) then I don't see why they shouldn't try to breed away from it. It doesn't have to be the only thing they are breeding towards, of course.


Agree with this. 

I think breeding pit bulls with less dog aggression or even without dog aggression at all is absolutely not a bad thing. In fact, I think intentionally breeding dogs for their da is... not a good idea in and of itself. Personally I like the look of an APBT better than that of the Amstaff. However, if as you say (Adjecyca1) the AKC's Amstaff has been bred for a friendlier temperament... I'd prefer one of those dogs over an APBT any time.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Okay first no one is breeding game pit bulls unless they are fighting dogs period. You can have dogs from game lines but unless they are proven no way of knowing whether or not they are game.


So how do breeders choose breedings to maintain the "original purpose" of the dog? Do they just breed known DA dogs and hope that's the same as gameness? I guess I don't even understand how breeders could breed to the original purpose if the original purpose is illegal and not an option. It's one thing to say that spaniel breeders should only breed dogs who can hunt, but it seems silly to say APBT breeders can only breed to maintain gameness when they have no way of testing that.



> You don't seem to be understanding my question correctly, There is already a less da bully breed the ast and the ambully if you want something less likely to be da why not get one of those breeds. My question is ahould da be bred out entirely, I have encountered many people who think all breeders should be breeding away from da and if you are not that is irresponsible , that is what I am talking about. But regardless in the large scale when you breed away from da I think the dog you end up with is no longer apbt


I understand your question, I just don't see why it matters I guess. If people want to breed it out, fine. If people don't mind DA and select for another trait (hog hunting maybe) then that's fine too. If someone is breeding specifically for DA then I would ask "why?" but otherwise, why does it matter if people breed for what suits them better?


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

I guess, if you can only really test for DA/ gameness by fighting the dogs, how could you really even breed for this without breaking Laws?

(I thought the original design was for gameness in catching wild animals, etc on a farm, then this was translated into pitt fighting so that came later...)...


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

So if my dog doesn't display DA it's not a true/game APBT?

And how can I know if I am breeding towards a "game" pitty if I can only test that through illegal dog fighting? What's the point?

Can a dog not be tested as, say a hog hunter, still get along with dogs and be an APBT?


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

There is no way to truly prove game (as defined by dogmen) without fighting a dog. No way.

Although there are varying opinions on this from some enthusiasts, An APBT is still an APBT without being DA. There are what are called "hot" dogs (highly DA) "lukewarm" dogs (DA or slightly DA) and "cold" dogs (no DA).

In modern times, I'd say the point of breeding in gamebred lines is to keep the spitfire and never-cry-uncle attitude in the breed.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Melle said:


> There is no way to truly prove game (as defined by dogmen) without fighting a dog. No way.
> 
> 
> In modern times, I'd say the point of breeding in gamebred lines is to keep the spitfire and never-cry-uncle attitude in the breed.


Right I would think you could achieve this by testing dogs that hunt wild hogs and panthers, coyotes, etc....


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Yes, I am also confused. If gameness is basically, a drive to never quit and keep going...why can that only be tested one specific way? Why is say hunting, invalid?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

BernerMax said:


> Right I would think you could achieve this by testing dogs that hunt wild hogs and panthers, coyotes, etc....


 No because it is not a fight as the other animal is not a willing participant, there are usually multiple dogs, and your dogs generally do not have to overcome injuries and keep fighting


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> No because it is not a fight as the other animal is not a willing participant, there are usually multiple dogs, and your dogs generally do not have to overcome injuries and keep fighting


Hmm, from what I've seen with hog hunting, um yeah the other animal is a "willing participant" and they do have to overcome injuries. 

But I'm not sure why that would be a desirable trait if you don't hunt or fight your dog? Seems like a difficult thing for most people to deal with.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> I think it might be a good to breed out the highly DA dogs,they really have no purpose today and even old time fighting dogs like the Colby dogs where often not highly DA. That it was possible to have a dog that was highly driven,game and only fight if challenged or in the pit. Such dogs do not make good pets,sporting or working dogs because of this trait and is not helping the Pit bulls image. They are hard to contain being they will chew through almost anything just to get at another dog,I've read of these dogs practically killing themselves to get at another dog. These dogs are also always euthanized instead of given second chances,their set up for a lot of failure unless owned by semi-professionals. I also wouldn't be against some breeders breeding out as much DA as the Staffy or Bull terrier,but keeping to the original conformation and drive.


I have to disagree in a one dog home how is a highly DA dog that much trouble, and even in a multi dog home all you need is a good chain spot. I witnessed GSDS doing the same thing you mentioned to get at another dog, or animal.. Even with no DA tons of High drive dogs who chew through things if they knew another animal is around, you do not need to be some kind of professional trainer to own a highly da dog, you just need to know the truth about APBT, i would be greatly saddened if the APBT was reduced to what most Bull terriers and staffy bulls are today temperament wise. And the people producing these dogs PROPERLY aren't going to let them end up in the wrong hands we are talking about WELL BRED dogs not byb dogs. And while there were SOME dogs who knew the difference between being on in the pit and out that doesn't mean that the genes responsible for DA are dormant and the genes connected to that DA are dormant.. Lots of people consider most of the colby dogs today to be amstaffs and they were used as the foundation for the amstaff breed..


Most responsible owners would just put a dog like that on a chainspot

And a responsible breeder breeding away from DA is going to do nothing for those byb mutts who get into the hands of someone with no knowledge or experience and can't control the breed, There will still be DA byb mutts, and it's THEIR owners who are the problem not the responsible apbt owners


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> So how do breeders choose breedings to maintain the "original purpose" of the dog? Do they just breed known DA dogs and hope that's the same as gameness? I guess I don't even understand how breeders could breed to the original purpose if the original purpose is illegal and not an option. It's one thing to say that spaniel breeders should only breed dogs who can hunt, but it seems silly to say APBT breeders can only breed to maintain gameness when they have no way of testing that.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your question, I just don't see why it matters I guess. If people want to breed it out, fine. If people don't mind DA and select for another trait (hog hunting maybe) then that's fine too. If someone is breeding specifically for DA then I would ask "why?" but otherwise, why does it matter if people breed for what suits them better?


We can't breed for the original purpose but i believe we should try as much as we can to keep the tenacity, aggression, and drive in the APBT.. What i am asking is do you think *ALL* APBT breeders should be breeding away from DA

And if you want a dog who is not DA but desire a bully breed why not just get into amstaffs or ambullies to begin with (though both breeds are still VERY prone to DA there are a few breeders trying to breed away from it)?

Okay once again i said it's not possible to breed for gameness today, and all i am saying is to breed healthy dogs with the correct temperament and drive whether they are DA or not


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Hmm, from what I've seen with hog hunting, um yeah the other animal is a "willing participant" and they do have to overcome injuries.
> 
> But I'm not sure why that would be a desirable trait if you don't hunt or fight your dog? Seems like a difficult thing for most people to deal with.



I have not seen a SINGLE boar who was a willing participant,the hogs are simply defending themselves HOG hunters have said this to me too, and the dogs do not have to overcome injuries and the exhaustion that they would in a pit fight, pit fights could go on for HOURS how long have you seen a pit bull go against one hog for?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

CrimsonAccent said:


> So if my dog doesn't display DA it's not a true/game APBT?
> 
> And how can I know if I am breeding towards a "game" pitty if I can only test that through illegal dog fighting? What's the point?
> 
> Can a dog not be tested as, say a hog hunter, still get along with dogs and be an APBT?


Sigh, once again your APBT is not game unless it's been proven, whether or not your dog is APBT is based on it's line


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, I guess to understand, I'd have to know what you think is wrong with Bull Terriers and Staffies. What have they been "reduced to", in your opinion?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Well, I guess to understand, I'd have to know what you think is wrong with Bull Terriers and Staffies. What have they been "reduced to", in your opinion?


The show bull terriers and staffies do not have the temperment or energy i am looking for that is all.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I have not seen a SINGLE boar who was a willing participant,the hogs are simply defending themselves HOG hunters have said this to me too, and the dogs do not have to overcome injuries and the exhaustion that they would in a pit fight, pit fights could go on for HOURS how long have you seen a pit bull go against one hog for?


Thats just sounds terrible to put a dog through (I dont enjoy watching Fight sports ie Boxing either)... not sure I would want to perpetuate that....

And it sounds like people are wanting the meanest, best fightin' dog on the block....

(trying to keep an open mind here)...

I kinda leanin towards the line of thinking that a dog that will fight to the death to protect its family is the most game ....vs fighting for fighting's sake...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Adjecyca1 said:


> We can't breed for the original purpose but i believe we should try as much as we can to keep the tenacity, aggression, and drive in the APBT.. What i am asking is do you think *ALL* APBT breeders should be breeding away from DA
> 
> And if you want a dog who is not DA but desire a bully breed why not just get into amstaffs or ambullies to begin with?
> 
> Okay once again i said it's not possible to breed for gameness today, and all i am saying is to breed healthy dogs with the correct temperament and drive whether they are DA or not


No, I don't think ALL breeders have to breed away from DA. Pretty sure all of my posts said I don't care if they do or don't and they can breed for what traits they want. I've answered your question a couple times but I feel like you're determined to argue with me?

Would the breed be totally different if they bred out DA? That's impossible to know


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

BernerMax said:


> Thats just sounds terrible to put a dog through (I dont enjoy watching Fight sports ie Boxing either)... not sure I would want to perpetuate that....
> 
> And it sounds like people are wanting the meanest, best fightin' dog on the block....
> 
> ...


 It's not about wanting to keep the meanest best fighting dog, a dog can be game and LOSE, it's all about the heart in the dog, and the trait is admirable..
*

Just saying if you want a bully breed, avoid DA, why not get a Amstaff or an Ambully to begin with*


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> No, I don't think ALL breeders have to breed away from DA. Pretty sure all of my posts said I don't care if they do or don't and they can breed for what traits they want. I've answered your question a couple times but I feel like you're determined to argue with me?
> 
> Would the breed be totally different if they bred out DA? That's impossible to know


 I am not determined to argue with you, it just seemed like you were like "why does it matter if some people do it", and that's not really my point people ALREADY did it and got the Amstaff my question is SHOULD ALL BREEDERS do it, and you just keep saying why does it matter if some people do which is why i thought you didn't understand what i was asking...

It's impossible?? But we got the Amstaff by doing EXACTLY THAT breeding away from DA, so why is it a stretch to think if all breeders did this we would get a breed similar to the Amstaff and not an APBT,i am not against amstaffs, they can be good dogs they have energy, but not the kind of energy i desire, and when i hear from owners who own Amstaffs and APBTS for sports, APBTS always seem to out do their amstaffs as a far as drive and energy goes, while Amstaffs are content with less exercise


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I sit on the fence for this specific point, b/c I believe that it is apples and oranges, except for the extremes:
1. I'm going off a sample of only 50 or so individual bullies of different variety...
2. We've helped train many rescues, 'mutts', etc. in different families in a Humane Society environment ( therefore, Not a scientific study).
3. Most dogs that were well-socialized with other dogs, were not DA. But we had 5 different extremes.
A. One sweet girl Pit was exposed to lots of dogs when young, and she would back off from aggression. Her parents were DA!
B. One large male intact bully played well, and would not initiate, but would also Not back off from aggression.
C. One medium, intact Pit did not fight, and played well, but would escalate and play too roughly, drawing blood ... but not DA.
D. One large, neutered, bluenose Staffy played well, but had some unpredictable resource guarding issues (DA?), and would snark 
AND draw blood.

I believe that you can 'socialize' DA out of a specific individual, if you get the puppy early and specifically work on DA. I accept that my experience is limited and that others have tried this with some individuals and failed. Therefore, if the goal is to "breed out" DA, I agree that failed individuals should be pulled form the breeding pool.... But in my limited experience, that isn't the best approach:

As far as I know, any breed can easily have individuals that are both DA and HA. A [fear] aggressive Labrador retriever or Golden Retriever can seem as scary as a wolf, b/c these breeds are typically very gentle. But poor upbringing can result in reactive dogs. 

.... In some cases, maybe the owners, trainers, or the breeders might be removed from the breeding pool ?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

There are also few good examples of the breed,refusing to breed da dogs, would make the TRUE apbts you can breed a much much smaller group of dogs..

If a dog is SOOOOOO da that no amount of training can prevent it from not acting like a lunitic in front of other dogs, that perhaps that specific animal should not be bred, but MOST da in APBTS is very manageable, and high drive tends to come with da in a lot of breeds not just APBTs, A JRT breeder i knows says her best hunters are usually her most DA dogs


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I don't see how breeding away from DA is going to make a dog breed lose drive. There are plenty of breeds with high drive that are also known to be typically dog friendly.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I don't see how breeding away from DA is going to make a dog breed lose drive. There are plenty of breeds with high drive that are also known to be typically dog friendly.


The entire foundation of this breed was to be a fighting dog, fighting dogs is what made them who they are, breeding away from that is going to change the breed in more than one way.. It would be like breeding the herding instinct out of a border collie, is that what some people want? Sure but i think it would be a terrible loss if *all* border collie breeders bred away from the herding instinct, which in turn, would effect other breed characteristics.. How can one breed away from DA, and not change the other aspects of what makes a pit bull a pit bull.. YES there are other breeds that can be high energy and not da, but i want a PIT BULL not a lab


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

My view is that removing the DA from a breed as extensively terrier high-drive as the APBT is not going to reduce the dog from wanting to engage in combat if challenged. "Last to start the fight, first to end it." The tenacity and drive are really what power the APBT through challenges. Weight pull to fighting. It will not back down. These are dogs that take the task they set themselves to as THE task of the hour.

I agree with one point for sure - the AmStaff is the result of leaning towards breeding out DA. Compare the working drives of the breeds. The APBT is extremely drive-y, and it's that mental drive that allows ADBA APBT's to push through weeks of working out to reach that chiseled form. Someone on another forum did an experiment where they attempted the same with their AmStaff's and their dogs didn't want to do nearly as much as the APBTs did.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

As the previous owner of 2 APBT's, my opinion is that NO, da should NOT be bred out of pitbulls or you will just have another bully breed. This breed was built on a foundation of "gameness" and they should remain "game" however game is not ONLY a dog's willingness to fight to the death, but to never give up on whatever task is at hand. And I feel that if da is bred out of an apbt it will affect their over all gameness. I am NOT in favor of dog fighting but In favor of keeping a breed as close to its roots as possible.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

As the previous owner of 2 APBT's, my opinion is that NO, da should NOT be bred out of pitbulls or you will just have another bully breed. This breed was built on a foundation of "gameness" and they should remain "game" however game is not ONLY a dog's willingness to fight to the death, but to never give up on whatever task is at hand. And I feel that if da is bred out of the apbt it will affect their over all gameness. I am NOT in favor of dog fighting but In favor of keeping a breed as close to its roots as possible.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

Melle said:


> My view is that removing the DA from a breed as extensively terrier high-drive as the APBT is not going to reduce the dog from wanting to engage in combat if challenged. "Last to start the fight, first to end it." The tenacity and drive are really what power the APBT through challenges. Weight pull to fighting. It will not back down. These are dogs that take the task they set themselves to as THE task of the hour.
> 
> I agree with one point for sure - the AmStaff is the result of leaning towards breeding out DA. Compare the working drives of the breeds. The APBT is extremely drive-y, and it's that mental drive that allows ADBA APBT's to push through weeks of working out to reach that chiseled form. Someone on another forum did an experiment where they attempted the same with their AmStaff's and their dogs didn't want to do nearly as much as the APBTs did.


How can you say that breeding out DA won't reduce the dogs want to engage a challenge?? That's insane...it's for that reason many retired champion fighting dogs were used for breeding to carry on the same gameness and "tenacity" as the dam or sire had. It's not all about terrier characteristics or else all terriers would be as driven an pitbulls.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

MOST working terriers are very high drive dogs, but i have also noticed MOST working terriers tend to be DA/its very common in the breed


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> It's not all about terrier characteristics or else all terriers would be as driven an pitbulls.



Most are.

Have you ever met a working JRT?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

TheOtherCorgi said:


> What is gameness?
> 
> I'm not saying I know anything at all about pitties, because I don't...
> 
> ...


An ACD can out herd or work any "show bred" herding dog. Because within the ACD breed there hasn't yet been that split btw "show" and herding / working breeders. Right there there are breeders who show more and work their stock less then I would like to see. 

Although in some aspects breeding out DA would be a good thing I guess ... But not at the price of losing other desirable or important traits


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Pit bulls were not originally bred to fight other dogs and deliberately breeding a dog that can get itself and other dogs and potentially even people hurt or killed because you're old fashioned and want to preserve "gameness" is selfish and not in the dog's best interest unless you really like BSL and dead dogs. Why anyone would want to preserve a trait with such a potential for negative consequences and such a disturbingly violent past is beyond me. There's no use for it. I don't see why you can't breed toward a drive for the breed's original function (bull baiting) as that has a use today in hog hunting and such whereas breeding dogs that want to tear each other apart does not and only makes for an unpredictable and likely unhappy dog.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> Pit bulls were not originally bred to fight other dogs and deliberately breeding a dog that can get itself and other dogs and potentially even people hurt or killed because you're old fashioned and want to preserve "gameness" is selfish and not in the dog's best interest unless you really like BSL and dead dogs.


 Um YES Pit bulls were originally bred to fight other dogs, what makes you think they are not? And for the 1,000th time it has NOTHING to do with Gameness, gameness is dead/dying in the breed, it has to do with keeping the APBT and apbt. Do you know how many other breeds are prone to da?? And DA doesn't make a dog more likely to hurt a person at all.. But if da is SOOOO bad why don't we just breed animal aggression out of all dogs bred to hunt/fight/kill/maim other animals, because obviously animal aggression is such a huge issue that it is uncontrollable... BSL isn't a problem because of DA, BSL is a problem because of irresponsible owners and breeders of these dogs.. A dog being DA does not make them more likely to attack a person


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> t. I don't see why you can't breed toward a drive for the breed's original function (bull baiting) as that has a use today in hog hunting and such whereas breeding dogs that want to tear each other apart does not and only makes for an unpredictable and likely unhappy dog.


 The breed wasn't originally used for bull baiting BULL dogs were used for bull baiting, PIT BULLS were bred and made in the PIT by crossing bull dogs with terriers (i think the now extinct English white terrier). When bull baiting was legal APBTS were not created yet. APBTS were created because bull baiting became illegal so they started fighting dogs in the pit
And DA dogs are FAR from unpredictable they are in fact very very very predictable. When you know your dog is DA, you KNOW it wants to fight other dogs, what is hard to predict? And unhappy GET REAL, that's like saying a JRT is unhappy because it wants to kill rats


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

So... still not entirely sure the traits you all are describing (never giving up fighting thru to the death) can only be measured via aggression to other dogs..... I actually do think that drive can be measured in other ways than fighting another dog (whats the difference with a lone LGD- like an Anatolian, which is known for their aggression-- killing a coyote in defense of its Flock?)....


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

BernerMax said:


> So... still not entirely sure the traits you all are describing (never giving up fighting thru to the death) can only be measured via aggression to other dogs..... I actually do think that drive can be measured in other ways than fighting another dog (whats the difference with a lone LGD- like an Anatolian, which is known for their aggression-- killing a coyote in defense of its Flock?)....


I never said drive can only be measured in fighting other dogs, i just think breeding away from aggression in this breed can inadvertently breed away from other qualities of the breed (since you know multiple genes tend to correlate with each other), Anatolian Shepherd dogs also have a tendency to be da (since you know they were bred to kill predators)


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I have no problem with people breeding out certain traits in breeds. Most of the market is a pet market. They don't need BCs with huge herding drives, or pits with DA. They want the good characteristics of a breed, but with a more pet friendly attitude. An Aussie that doesn't have drive to herd is still an Aussie. They wiggle their butt, they are still highly intelligent, and they will still be ready for an evening walk. If they are breeding responsibly, who cares? You can continue to support the DA breeder while others can support the other. Both will continue to exist as long as there is a want. 

I understand wanting to preserve a breeds original roots. There is nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with wanting to make a change.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

Foresthund said:


> I think it might be a good to breed out the highly DA dogs,they really have no purpose today and even old time fighting dogs like the Colby dogs where often not highly DA. That it was possible to have a dog that was highly driven,game and only fight if challenged or in the pit. Such dogs do not make good pets,sporting or working dogs because of this trait and is not helping the Pit bulls image. They are hard to contain being they will chew through almost anything just to get at another dog,I've read of these dogs practically killing themselves to get at another dog. These dogs are also always euthanized instead of given second chances,their set up for a lot of failure unless owned by semi-professionals. I also wouldn't be against some breeders breeding out as much DA as the Staffy or Bull terrier,but keeping to the original conformation and drive.


Well put for the most part


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Adjecyca1;2877130 Anatolian Shepherd dogs also have a tendency to be da (since you know they were bred to kill predators)[/QUOTE said:


> I know we have one (an anatolian cross)-- its just that its not their primary drive and def would not be to my taste to have a dog in which that is their primary drive-- I am not convinced breeding away from DA could adversely effect drive in the pitt(maybe they could measure this?) -- I think a really game hog dog is my def of drive, but then it may or may not be a game dog in you alls opinion....


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I have no problem with people breeding out certain traits in breeds. Most of the market is a pet market. They don't need BCs with huge herding drives, or pits with DA. They want the good characteristics of a breed, but with a more pet friendly attitude. An Aussie that doesn't have drive to herd is still an Aussie. They wiggle their butt, they are still highly intelligent, and they will still be ready for an evening walk. If they are breeding responsibly, who cares? You can continue to support the DA breeder while others can support the other. Both will continue to exist as long as there is a want.
> 
> I understand wanting to preserve a breeds original roots. There is nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with wanting to make a change.


If you don't want DA and simply want a pet why not get an Ambully or an AST WHOSE ALREADY BEEN BRED AWAY FROM DA??? And also would make a better household pet for the average owner overall anyway


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

No the breed wouldn't be TOTALLY different, but if I ever get another pit I want it to be as close to "old school" roots as possible.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

CptJack said:


> Most are.
> 
> Have you ever met a working JRT?


 Not saying that terriers don't have drive, but let's be serious, when it comes to drive, tenacity, gameness, and fearlessness...Most would agree that true APBT's are at the top of the list. Let's not be partial to our own breeds.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I have to disagree in a one dog home how is a highly DA dog that much trouble, and even in a multi dog home all you need is a good chain spot. I witnessed GSDS doing the same thing you mentioned to get at another dog, or animal.. Even with no DA tons of High drive dogs who chew through things if they knew another animal is around, you do not need to be some kind of professional trainer to own a highly da dog, you just need to know the truth about APBT, i would be greatly saddened if the APBT was reduced to what most Bull terriers and staffy bulls are today temperament wise. And the people producing these dogs PROPERLY aren't going to let them end up in the wrong hands we are talking about WELL BRED dogs not byb dogs. And while there were SOME dogs who knew the difference between being on in the pit and out that doesn't mean that the genes responsible for DA are dormant and the genes connected to that DA are dormant.. Lots of people consider most of the colby dogs today to be amstaffs and they were used as the foundation for the amstaff breed..
> 
> 
> Most responsible owners would just put a dog like that on a chainspot
> ...


Well chains are becoming more and more controversial and illegal,and more and more people are living in apartments and rentals. Most people prefer flimsy tie outs over real chains anyways. Around here most apartments do not take pits,the rare ones that do end up crowded with other dogs. Therefore at the complex I lived at for a year I knew one somewhat DA Pit I knew had to be re-homed because the kids kept letting it lose and it would go attack my dog. The other more heavily DA Pit there was kept inside or on the deck 24-7 and when it got out one day it was a bloody mess. I was on the verge of getting kicked out myself for having a somewhat DA dog,I wish he wasn't. Most people don't know how to handle such dogs and end up getting rid of them or it ends up in one of the dozens of yearly attacks by Pits on other animals. 

Some breeders are good and are very choosey who they go with,but most I looked at where really not and only cared about money. I tested it and found I am capable of getting a dog of close fighting bloodlines without questions asked. I kinda wish it stayed to only a small few and that most where more pet quality,in fact I feel it is going that direction anyways.
I know it's not a sure thing you can breed too lesser DA dogs and end up with a Highly DA dog,still I don't think that highly DA dog should also be bred.
Sure some extra DA GSD's may have that behavior but it is much less common,The most sever and frequent cases where always Pits or perhaps American bulldogs. Chewing through metal cages and concrete,jumping out of second floor windows,bashing their heads into walls ect. I hope that the people that would get those dogs than would have the financial and home security to own them,I`m not sure why such a risk is so important to the breed.
--------------------------------
JRT what weigh up to 12lbs,and APBT can weigh up to 65lbs. Kind of a big difference.

-----------------
If I can find a lighter built Staffy with drive I would go for it. I found some can be pretty impressive dogs still. I don't really care about tough street appeal and a good one would make a fine pet. Yes it is about the toughest dog on the block in a way,sense may Pit people consider any dog that's not dead game a coward,weak and not worth owning. Plus the desire for powerful jaws and crushing bites tend to come in second place in value in a dogman. A pit that has both of those and wrestling ability is considered an ace, a dog that can do a lot of damage quickly but will also keep fight when the chips are down. I've read of dogs that could crush bones and kill larger dogs within minutes heavily paraded as well as ones that will try to scratch with those broken legs and last breaths. Why this is wanted outside of dog fighters is the romanticism of such a dog. It doesn't really hold much value in anything legal.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> If you don't want DA and simply want a pet why not get an Ambully or an AST WHOSE ALREADY BEEN BRED AWAY FROM DA??? And also would make a better household pet for the average owner overall anyway


Sorry but eww (most) Ambully. I would agree that people should go for the AST first, however, I still don't see the issue with a responsible APBT breeder that is breeding out DA.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Sorry but eww (most) Ambully. I would agree that people should go for the AST first, however, I still don't see the issue with a responsible APBT breeder that is breeding out DA.


I believe the question is...Should ALL APBT breeders breed out DA?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> Well chains are becoming more and more controversial and illegal,and more and more people are living in apartments and rentals. Most people prefer flimsy tie outs over real chains anyways. Around here most apartments do not take pits,the rare ones that do end up crowded with other dogs. Therefore at the complex I lived at for a year I knew one somewhat DA Pit I knew had to be re-homed because the kids kept letting it lose and it would go attack my dog. The other more heavily DA Pit there was kept inside or on the deck 24-7 and when it got out one day it was a bloody mess. I was on the verge of getting kicked out myself for having a somewhat DA dog,I wish he wasn't. Most people don't know how to handle such dogs and end up getting rid of them or it ends up in one of the hundreds of yearly attacks by Pits on other animals. Some breeders are good and are very choosey who they go with,but most I looked at where really not and only cared about money. I tested it and found I am capable of getting a dog of close fighting bloodlines without questions asked. I kinda wish it stayed to only a small few and that most where more pet quality,in fact I feel it is going that direction anyways.
> I know it's not a sure thing you can breed too lesser DA dogs and end up with a Highly DA dog,still I don't think that highly DA dog should also be bred.
> Sure some extra DA GSD's may have that behavior but it is much less common,The most sever and frequent cases where always Pits or perhaps American bulldogs. Chewing through metal cages and concrete,jumping out of second floor windows,bashing their heads into walls ect. I hope that the people that would get those dogs than would have the financial and home security to own them,I`m not sure why such a risk is so important to the breed.


 *MOST* Pit bulls are not so DA that they are bashing their heads into walls, i do not know how many dogs you are basing this off of, but i know of SOOOOOOOOOO many highly da APBTs who do not maim themselves 24/7 trying to get out, and to make it seem that DA is causing these dogs to become completely unruley break out of any home they are kept in, and are completely impossible to control because this is simply untrue to say the least. I can tell you right now i know of FAR more GSDs who busted themselves up trying to get out of a crate for various reasons than APBTS. Which breeders did you talk to? I talked to a insanely large amount of breeders when i was searching for my APBT puppy, and there were actually only a select few from gamelines who didn't ask me much in the line of questions but those same people have also known me for the past few years... The Average person isn't getting a well bred dog or a dog from gamelines to act like if good breeders or people breeding game line apbts started breeding away from DA the problem of pit bull types killing pets would be diminished is just dead wrong, because the average person is getting some bully MUTT of craigslist or from the shelter, who someone just decided to breed because they can.Breeding away from DA isn't going to stop those people from being irresponsible with their dogs, and breeding away from DA, unless you breed away from prey drive entirely, wont stop a loose dog from attacking a cat or any other animal....Even if it is not normally DA dogs act differently when they are lose


JRTS were just an example there are PLENTY of large breeds that are prone to DA


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> The breed wasn't originally used for bull baiting BULL dogs were used for bull baiting, PIT BULLS were bred and made in the PIT by crossing bull dogs with terriers (i think the now extinct English white terrier). When bull baiting was legal APBTS were not created yet. APBTS were created because bull baiting became illegal so they started fighting dogs in the pit
> And DA dogs are FAR from unpredictable they are in fact very very very predictable. When you know your dog is DA, you KNOW it wants to fight other dogs, what is hard to predict? And unhappy GET REAL, that's like saying a JRT is unhappy because it wants to kill rats



Imagine being unable to interact with other humans because every time you do you feel the need to be violent toward them. Dogs are VERY social animals and never ever getting to even remotely interact with others of their species without some form of stress or danger is imo cruel.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> Imagine being unable to interact with other humans because every time you do you feel the need to be violent toward them. Dogs are VERY social animals and never ever getting to even remotely interact with others of their species without some form of stress or danger is imo cruel.


So what about people who have only one dog homes? What about the hundreds of other breeds prone to da? Having a DA dog is Cruel to the dog? Guess i better go put my two dogs down, because having a life full of love, treats, exercise, and training but no doggy interaction is such a CRUEL life to sentence them to, they could Never ever ever be happy with only a human to interact with not ever


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> So what about people who have only one dog homes? What about the hundreds of other breeds prone to da? Having a DA dog is Cruel to the dog? Guess i better go put my two dogs down, because having a life full of love, treats, exercise, and training but no doggy interaction is such a CRUEL life to sentence them to, they could Never ever ever be happy with only a human to interact with not ever


I am a one dog home but my dog can still see and/or meet another dog without feeling the need to kill them, such as on walks, at the dog park, or at petco.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> I am a one dog home but my dog can still see and/or meet another dog without feeling the need to kill them, such as on walks, at the dog park, or at petco.


My dogs can SEE other dogs with out going crazy and trying to kill them, my dogs are perfectly content having only ME in their life and not other dogs, my dogs are not lacking anything because they do not have 'doggy friends' Pit bulls do not NEED doggy friends, they are content with just people.. To compare humans needing human interaction to a PIT BULL dog interaction is a huge stretch.

I honestly do not believe ANY breed of dog NEEDs a doggy friend, and i don't think dogs are sitting around thinking "OH MY LIFE IS LACK SO MUCH CAUSE I HAVEN'T EVER HAD A DOGGIE FRIEND, I WISH MY HUMAN WOULD TAKE ME TO MEET DOGGY FRIENDS"

and i am sure Dyno isn't thinking "OH I HATE MY LIFE SO MUCH BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE OTHER DOGS, I FEEL SO CONFLICTED, THIS CRUEL CRUEL WORLD D:"


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I keep seeing people compare it to herding drive and I have done so too but there's a big difference in preserving dogs performing useful and legal functions vs preserving something like dog fighting. BCs need herding drive because people still use them and rely on them for their livelihoods. You can't compare it to something that was blood sport and is now illegal.

Anyways, I think it's going to be up to pit bull people to decide what direction the breed needs to be going in. I don't really see the point in trying to preserve loads of dog aggression in a breed but then I see DA as a trait I very much want to avoid. But then again I wouldn't get a bully breed so it's probably a moot point.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I keep seeing people compare it to herding drive and I have done so too but there's a big difference in preserving dogs performing useful and legal functions vs preserving something like dog fighting. BCs need herding drive because people still use them and rely on them for their livelihoods. You can't compare it to something that was blood sport and is now illegal.
> 
> Anyways, I think it's going to be up to pit bull people to decide what direction the breed needs to be going in. I don't really see the point in trying to preserve loads of dog aggression in a breed but then I see DA as a trait I very much want to avoid. But then again I wouldn't get a bully breed so it's probably a moot point.


 You can make the comparison because it is a breed trait,And is part of what the breed is,and breeding against that trait changes the entire dog.. I am sure there were plenty of people who did rely on their fighting dogs for their livelihoods. Whether or not what they were originally bred for is illegal is besides the point in my opinion


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> My dogs can SEE other dogs with out going crazy and trying to kill them, my dogs are perfectly content having only ME in their life and not other dogs, my dogs are not lacking anything because they do not have 'doggy friends' Pit bulls do not NEED doggy friends, they are content with just people.. To compare humans needing human interaction to a PIT BULL dog interaction is a huge stretch.
> 
> I honestly do not believe ANY breed of dog NEEDs a doggy friend, and i don't think dogs are sitting around thinking "OH MY LIFE IS LACK SO MUCH CAUSE I HAVEN'T EVER HAD A DOGGIE FRIEND, I WISH MY HUMAN WOULD TAKE ME TO MEET DOGGY FRIENDS"
> 
> and i am sure Dyno isn't thinking "OH I HATE MY LIFE SO MUCH BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE OTHER DOGS, I FEEL SO CONFLICTED, THIS CRUEL CRUEL WORLD D:"


Roxie doesn't even want doggie friends, so you're definitely putting words in my mouth.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> Well chains are becoming more and more controversial and illegal,and more and more people are living in apartments and rentals. Most people prefer flimsy tie outs over real chains anyways. Around here most apartments do not take pits,the rare ones that do end up crowded with other dogs. Therefore at the complex I lived at for a year I knew one somewhat DA Pit I knew had to be re-homed because the kids kept letting it lose and it would go attack my dog. The other more heavily DA Pit there was kept inside or on the deck 24-7 and when it got out one day it was a bloody mess. I was on the verge of getting kicked out myself for having a somewhat DA dog,I wish he wasn't. Most people don't know how to handle such dogs and end up getting rid of them or it ends up in one of the dozens of yearly attacks by Pits on other animals.
> 
> Some breeders are good and are very choosey who they go with,but most I looked at where really not and only cared about money. I tested it and found I am capable of getting a dog of close fighting bloodlines without questions asked. I kinda wish it stayed to only a small few and that most where more pet quality,in fact I feel it is going that direction anyways.
> I know it's not a sure thing you can breed too lesser DA dogs and end up with a Highly DA dog,still I don't think that highly DA dog should also be bred.
> ...


Yeah what they said, squared.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> Roxie doesn't even want doggie friends, so you're definitely putting words in my mouth.


 How am i putting words in your mouth? You said having a DA dog was CRUEL, i don't see how it's cruel because dogs do not NEED doggy friends, and dogs can be completely happy and content without doggy friends


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> I believe the question is...Should ALL APBT breeders breed out DA?


Should ALL be breeding DA APBT? I believe that is up the breeder and the market they are breeding for.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> How am i putting words in your mouth? You said having a DA dog was CRUEL, i don't see how it's cruel because dogs do not NEED doggy friends, and dogs can be completely happy and content without doggy friends


roxie is content without doggy friends, but she doesn't feel the need to attack them when she sees them and can therefore go to the dog park and events without risk. if you take a da dog to petco for instance there is a risk.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I just really don't view dog aggression as a big deal, or something 'scary' in a breed, perhaps this is because every single dog i ever owned was DA to an extent *shrugs*.. I know i will never buy from a breeder breeding away from da, and the pit bull puppy that i will be getting in November will be bred DA or not if he proves himself and passes his health testing...


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> roxie is content without doggy friends, but she doesn't feel the need to attack them when she sees them and can therefore go to the dog park and events without risk. if you take a da dog to petco for instance there is a risk.


 So because there is a risk if my dog goes to petco my dog is therefor unhappy and living a CRUEL existence?


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Xeph just posted a link to the Scotsman (tail docking article) and there is an article just below on aggregating deaths by dogs -- Pitt bulls killed the most SIXTY SIX people vs, say 9 in malumutes and huskies (who were higher up on the Kill list than Dobermans....)....

So not sure that this type of aggressiveness isnt associated with aggression against humans as well....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Adjecyca1 said:


> You can make the comparison because it is a breed trait,And is part of what the breed is,and breeding against that trait changes the entire dog.. I am sure there were plenty of people who did rely on their fighting dogs for their livelihoods. Whether or not what they were originally bred for is illegal is besides the point in my opinion


If the original purpose is illegal then you can't legally preserve the breed the way it originally was because you can't test it as it was in the past. I know with herders you can have a dog that shows some instinct but not until it's on stock for a while would you know how much talent the dog has for the work. 

Since you can't test pit bulls now legally you either people are illegally testing them or the breed is going to change because the purpose is changing. I don't really see a way around that.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

BernerMax said:


> Xeph just posted a link to the Scotsman (tail docking article) and there is an article just below on aggregating deaths by dogs -- Pitt bulls killed the most SIXTY SIX people vs, say 9 in malumutes and huskies (who were higher up on the Kill list than Dobermans....)....
> 
> So not sure that this type of aggressiveness isnt associated with aggression against humans as well....


Okay one it's PIT BULLS only one T and two animal aggression is not linked to human aggression at all, if that were the case ALL breeds bred to maim or kill other animals would be more likely to be human aggressive.Heck the fact that dogs are predators to begin with. My two dogs are VERY dog aggressive but i trust them with myself and people who know how to act, my severly DA dog was in a play and had contact with over 500 different people..,.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> If the original purpose is illegal then you can't legally preserve the breed the way it originally was because you can't test it as it was in the past. I know with herders you can have a dog that shows some instinct but not until it's on stock for a while would you know how much talent the dog has for the work.
> 
> Since you can't test pit bulls now legally you either people are illegally testing them or the breed is going to change because the purpose is changing. I don't really see a way around that.


I said in my original post that Pit bulls ARE CHANGING because we can not breed for gameness any longer, but i also feel we should try our best to preserve the APBT the best we can legally


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

The thing I wish they would breed out of them is the popularity this type of dog is having. I know that what is in the shelter is bully mixes most of them but so many in shelters and such a hard adult breed of dog to adopt out. 

Breeding out DA in this breed? I care more about the right kind of owner owning this dog than whether or not DA is bred out of them..


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

luv mi pets said:


> The thing I wish they would breed out of them is the popularity this type of dog is having. I know that what is in the shelter is bully mixes most of them but so many in shelters and such a hard adult breed of dog to adopt out.
> 
> Breeding out DA in this breed? I care more about the right kind of owner owning this dog than whether or not DA is bred out of them..


I agree with this point very much very where I turn it seems someone is getting a bully mix that they aren't prepared for or want for the wrong reasons... I truly wish this breed will fade out of the spot light and no longer be the "in breed" to own


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> So because there is a risk if my dog goes to petco my dog is therefor unhappy and living a CRUEL existence?


yeah, because you can't take your dog out in public unless you're the type of person not to care about other people's dogs and potentially people themselves.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> I am NOT in favor of dog fighting but *In favor of keeping a breed as close to its roots as possible.*


I'm genuinely curious about this---why is what people wanted from a dog breed at some other point in history more valid than what people want in a dog breed now? What's the value in keeping a breed as close to its roots as possible?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I'm genuinely curious about this---why is what people wanted from a dog breed at some other point in history more valid than what people want in a dog breed now? What's the value in keeping a breed as close to its roots as possible?


Because it is what I want now an In the future I want a high drive tenacious APBT, there are already very similar breeds for people who want a bull breed but want to avoid da.. What's wrong with me wanting the APBT we see today to survive into the future ?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Nothing if that's what you like, and what enough other people like to keep a market for those dogs. But preserving a breed as close to its roots as possible just because. . .well, I don't even know the reasons. Nostalgia? I don't get it.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> yeah, because you can't take your dog out in public unless you're the type of person not to care about other people's dogs and potentially people themselves.


Um I can take my dogs in public why don't other people care about keeping their dogs leashed for their own safety? I don't bring my dog to petco or places where there will be a heck of a lot of dogs but I take my dogs to a lot of places, my dog is only a threat to yours if your dog is off leash and runs right up to my dog.. My dogs aren't going to hurt a person while out on a walk period


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I don't see how you can breed for or breed out DA in a breed, if you never somehow measure the amount of DA in your breeding dogs.

Obviously they are not going to fight the dogs. So are you going to take the dog out in public to meet other dogs, then measure how badly it tries to get to other dogs to attack them? Measure what each dog's threshold/distance for wanting to attack other dogs is?

DA can't be measured unless you actually have the dog around other dogs, which is going to involve risk if you're going to breed for DA as a trait. I assume no breeder actually does this, they don't measure how DA a dog is before breeding it, to make sure they get just the right amount.

So what if breeders breeding for gameness and drive, are actually just breeding for gameness and drive, and this is not actually related to how DA the dog is at all? No one can know if it's related if the dogs aren't tested. If you have a pit bull and you say it's "fine around other dogs" and doesn't try to kill them on sight, then how do you even know your dog is DA? Maybe your dog just has gameness and drive.




BernerMax said:


> Xeph just posted a link to the Scotsman (tail docking article) and there is an article just below on aggregating deaths by dogs -- Pitt bulls killed the most SIXTY SIX people vs, say 9 in malumutes and huskies (who were higher up on the Kill list than Dobermans....)....
> 
> So not sure that this type of aggressiveness isnt associated with aggression against humans as well....


Stats like these have to be viewed in context. 

1. How many more pit bulls are there in the US than huskies and malamutes? 
2. DA doesn't mean HA, so even if a breed is prone to DA, doesn't make it more likely to also be HA. In fact, bully breeds are known to be people friendly. 
3. The person who would get a pit bull is more likely to be of a certain "type" than a person who gets a husky.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

TheOtherCorgi said:


> What is gameness?


This is gameness.... And breeding away from DA will DESTROY it.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't think people should be breeding specifically for da, but if a dog happens to be da but passed its health testing and excels in all other areas I do not think the dog should automatically be culled..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I keep seeing people compare it to herding drive and I have done so too but there's a big difference in preserving dogs performing useful and legal functions vs preserving something like dog fighting. BCs need herding drive because people still use them and rely on them for their livelihoods. You can't compare it to something that was blood sport and is now illegal.
> 
> Anyways, I think it's going to be up to pit bull people to decide what direction the breed needs to be going in. I don't really see the point in trying to preserve loads of dog aggression in a breed but then I see DA as a trait I very much want to avoid. But then again I wouldn't get a bully breed so it's probably a moot point.



DA translates into a useful function...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> I am a one dog home but my dog can still see and/or meet another dog without feeling the need to kill them, such as on walks, at the dog park, or at petco.


 Dog aggression can be managed...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

But wouldn't that still change the breed breeding for catch dogs vs fighting dogs? To some extent?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> But wouldn't that still change the breed breeding for catch dogs vs fighting dogs? To some extent?


No.... ALL of the best catch dog lines originally came right out of the fighting dog lines.... 

And saying a pit bull is DA is basically a misnomer...... They are Animal Aggressive.... Always have been..... IT was never just other dogs they wanted to fight....


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

luv mi pets said:


> The thing I wish they would breed out of them is the popularity this type of dog is having. I know that what is in the shelter is bully mixes most of them but so many in shelters and such a hard adult breed of dog to adopt out.
> 
> Breeding out DA in this breed? I care more about the right kind of owner owning this dog than whether or not DA is bred out of them..


Yes, this.

There are so many Pit/Pit mixes in the shelters around here. There are so many people who are unfit to own a Pit, especially one that is responsible bred.

Not going to get much into if DA should or shouldn't be bred out. I don't have any knowledge on this topic, so I'll out of that part of the discussion.

Question- How should we being preserving the APBT (legally)? Beside breeding for DA in the APBT, because that's what we're discussing about.I know nothing about this.... So, it may be a really stupid question


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Not to be insulting but this is like Border Collie talk...

Doge is not real doge unless he can do what ye olden doge could do. 

To answer the question, breeders don't have to breed one way or another. I think their dogs would be more marketable if they retained drive but dropped the DA aspect. I guess it's interlinked with the pittie's whole personality? I personally do not want to own a DA prone dog. "Too much work" for me. No APBT, no Akitas, no Malamutes. Beautiful dogs with good temperaments otherwise but I lose half of the fun if I'm always afraid my dog will chomp another dog. 

I much prefer the look of an APBT over the Amstaff or Bull Terrier. So that's why I would want an APBT. If the pitties weren't prone to dog aggression, I think I'd want one more. They are quite handsome.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> Not to be insulting but this is like Border Collie talk...
> 
> Doge is not real doge unless he can do what ye olden doge could do.


AND ONLY SUPER SPECIAL PEOPLE WHO ARE REAL DOG OWNERS LIKE YE OLD DOG OWNERS WHO ARE MAGICAL AND SPECIAL AND HAVE SPECIAL SKILLS CAN OWN THEM! NOT MERE MORTALS! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW (Breed trait that exists in several breeds) MAKES THEM IMPOSSIBLE TO OWN AND ONLY OWNERS WHO ARE SPECIAL OWNERS CAN OWN THEM!!!

Yeah. Me too. It's baloney.

Do I think pits are overbred and over represented? Yes. Do I think everyone's the right owner for them? No. I also do not think everyone's the right owner for chihuahuas and pugs or german shepherds or labs or -

Legislation and public perception take some special consideration. Otherwise, they're dogs and they are special and awesome as dogs and a breed, but they possess not one single, solitary, trait that is not present in other dogs and they are not more special, awesome, or difficult to own than any other dog breed used in hog hunting that has a tendency toward DA.

...I have a major, major hate for this attitude. Obviously.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Hear hear, CptJack.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

i just cant wrap my head around why you would deliberately breed a dog aggressive dog, especially if youre going to use it with other dogs in hunting. i just... why???


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

CptJack said:


> *AND ONLY SUPER SPECIAL PEOPLE WHO ARE REAL DOG OWNERS LIKE YE OLD DOG OWNERS WHO ARE MAGICAL AND SPECIAL AND HAVE SPECIAL SKILLS CAN OWN THEM! NOT MERE MORTALS! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW (Breed trait that exists in several breeds) MAKES THEM IMPOSSIBLE TO OWN AND ONLY OWNERS WHO ARE SPECIAL OWNERS CAN OWN THEM!!!*
> 
> Yeah. Me too. It's baloney.
> 
> ...


 When did i once say they were impossible to own? Or make it seem as though they were exceptionally difficult to own??? It seems that most of the people arguing the other side has made them seem hard to own because of their animal aggression.. I personally do not view animal aggression as that big of a deal, or that hard to deal with... But if you can't be RESPONSIBLE with a da dog than no you shouldn't have one, but not once did i act like that bolded statement so i do not know where you are getting that from...


All i am saying is that i want the breed survive and that i do not think it is irresponsible to breed a da dog. What's so wrong with wanting to keep the breed around in the form i know today? You want a bully breed who is less likely to be da and probably a better house pet for the average person? Those dogs are out there, why do ALL apbt breeders need to change so that their dogs are suitable for what the 'average household' wants


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Adjecyca1 said:


> All i am saying is that i want the breed survive and that i do not think it is irresponsible to breed a da dog. What's so wrong with wanting to keep the breed around in the form i know today? You want a bully breed who is less likely to be da and probably a better house pet for the average person? Those dogs are out there, why do ALL apbt breeders need to change so that their dogs are suitable for what the 'average household' wants


I'm not sure you're reading everyone's posts closely? You seem to be arguing against something that's not being said. Everyone actually *is* answering your question, but you're just missing it. Most of the posters here have said that there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to keep the breed as true to its roots as possible. We've also said that we see nothing wrong with breeding away from DA if someone loves the other traits of the breed but would like to reduce DA for various reasons. People breed for different things and as long as someone out there is breeding for the type of dog you want, then who cares what the other breeders are doing? As long as they're health testing, breeding dogs with stable temperament, and being responsible about it all, why does it bother you?

Not a single person has said that all breeders should breed away from DA. Most posters have said that if someone wants to use DA dogs in their breeding program, that's fine and their own decision. But we also support someone who would want to breed away from DA. Breeds change to adapt to needs, and I don't think it's far to say "Well, just get a different breed." People find breeds they love for various reasons, and I don't have any problem with them wanting to breed towards or away from a particular trait if it would make the breed function better for them and for others.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Not ALL APBT breeders have to change their ways. They only have to change if they want to cater to a wider market. I personally think that the breed would appeal to more people and be easier to manage if they weren't prone to DA. But that's just me because I like going to training classes and dog parks occasionally and daycare and having puppy play dates and owning more than one dog without having to crate and rotate. But they don't have to if they don't want to. 

This is why breed splits occur. Why are there ~8 types of GSDs* and 3 types of BCs? Because some want Barbie Collies, some want Sporter Collies, and some want "teh real doge ye olden cray cray Burder Coolly" that only cool people who've had a million years doge experience and own over 9,000 sheep can own. 

*I don't actually know how many breed splits the GSD has.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

Adjecyca1 said:


> *MOST* Pit bulls are not so DA that they are bashing their heads into walls, i do not know how many dogs you are basing this off of, but i know of SOOOOOOOOOO many highly da APBTs who do not maim themselves 24/7 trying to get out, and to make it seem that DA is causing these dogs to become completely unruley break out of any home they are kept in, and are completely impossible to control because this is simply untrue to say the least. I can tell you right now i know of FAR more GSDs who busted themselves up trying to get out of a crate for various reasons than APBTS. Which breeders did you talk to? I talked to a insanely large amount of breeders when i was searching for my APBT puppy, and there were actually only a select few from gamelines who didn't ask me much in the line of questions but those same people have also known me for the past few years... The Average person isn't getting a well bred dog or a dog from gamelines to act like if good breeders or people breeding game line apbts started breeding away from DA the problem of pit bull types killing pets would be diminished is just dead wrong, because the average person is getting some bully MUTT of craigslist or from the shelter, who someone just decided to breed because they can.Breeding away from DA isn't going to stop those people from being irresponsible with their dogs, and breeding away from DA, unless you breed away from prey drive entirely, wont stop a loose dog from attacking a cat or any other animal....Even if it is not normally DA dogs act differently when they are lose
> 
> 
> JRTS were just an example there are PLENTY of large breeds that are prone to DA


Ive owned many dogs in my life, I used to breed miniature schnauzers and am a certified vet assistant....i say all of that to say that i have seen more DA small/toy breeds than large breed dogs. But people tend to think thats more acceptable because of the size.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

I dunno. I'm just sooooo grateful that DA is not a concern in the breeds I'm drawn to. Such a contentious issue, apparently.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

Adjecyca1 said:


> So what about people who have only one dog homes? What about the hundreds of other breeds prone to da? Having a DA dog is Cruel to the dog? Guess i better go put my two dogs down, because having a life full of love, treats, exercise, and training but no doggy interaction is such a CRUEL life to sentence them to, they could Never ever ever be happy with only a human to interact with not ever


I have agreed with most of your comments on this thread, however i have a question. Are you saying that your 2 dogs are not able to interact with ANY other dogs...even each other?


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

I would LOVE it if they would breed non-DA pits. I love EVERYTHING about a pit bull, minus the DA.

I also think that perhaps it is necessary to change the breed's traits now since they have the ongoing stigma against them.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> Not ALL APBT breeders have to change their ways. They only have to change if they want to cater to a wider market. I personally think that the breed would appeal to more people and be easier to manage if they weren't prone to DA. But that's just me because I like going to training classes and dog parks occasionally and daycare and having puppy play dates and owning more than one dog without having to crate and rotate. But they don't have to if they don't want to.
> 
> This is why breed splits occur. Why are there ~8 types of GSDs* and 3 types of BCs? Because some want Barbie Collies, some want Sporter Collies, and some want "teh real doge ye olden cray cray Burder Coolly" that only cool people who've had a million years doge experience and own over 9,000 sheep can own.
> 
> *I don't actually know how many breed splits the GSD has.


This.

If you want to keep breeding pits with gameness, that's fine, but I think there is also a demand for the pit personality minus DA. Pits are great dogs in so many other aspects, I see nothing wrong with breeding a more friendlier line from them.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

Willowy said:


> I'm genuinely curious about this---why is what people wanted from a dog breed at some other point in history more valid than what people want in a dog breed now? What's the value in keeping a breed as close to its roots as possible?


Because if you change the traits and characteristics of the dog, then you change the breed entirely. If you dont want a PITBULL and all that it was ORIGINALLY bred to be, than why get one in the first place...just get a breed that was bred to have the traits that you want. People shouldnt try to change a breed of dog for your their own wants and satisfaction.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

taquitos said:


> This.
> 
> If you want to keep breeding pits with gameness, that's fine, but I think there is also a demand for the pit personality minus DA. Pits are great dogs in so many other aspects, I see nothing wrong with breeding a more friendlier line from them.


Than get an Am Staff! Basically the same dog, minus DA...there you go, problem solved!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> Because if you change the traits and characteristics of the dog, then you change the breed entirely. If you dont want a PITBULL and all that it was ORIGINALLY bred to be, than why get one in the first place...just get a breed that was bred to have the traits that you want. People shouldnt try to change a breed of dog for your their own wants and satisfaction.


But. That is *exactly* what people have always done - change a breed for their own wants and satisfaction. That's why we have breeds in the first place.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Nothing if that's what you like, and what enough other people like to keep a market for those dogs. But preserving a breed as close to its roots as possible just because. . .well, I don't even know the reasons. Nostalgia? I don't get it.


If you're going to change the 'roots' then change the name too! We may as well breed out aggression in every animal in America and put them in zoos!


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> Than get an Am Staff! Basically the same dog, minus DA...there you go, problem solved!


I haven't met a 100% purebred AmStaff from a good breeder, ever (only shelter pits, amstaff-x, etc.), so I don't know what the level of DA is in a well bred AmStaff... but my last foster dog was an AmStaff-x, and she is extremely leash reactive, and is dog selective. I had successfully introduced her to my dog (I guess you could call him a "dominant" neutered male, but 7 lbs so a little insecure) and my last foster (large greyhound x husky female, super docile and awesome doggy social skills), but she was not okay with any dog without proper introductions and proper management. After dealing with several bully type dogs, I am in general extra careful with them because I do find that they display some form of DA.

I have been looking into the Staffordshire Bull Terrier too (they're SO cute!) but I have seen them having some level of DA too.

At the end of the day, my dog is 7 lbs... I cannot have a dog that I cannot trust 100% around him to not hurt. As much as I love the bully breeds, in all honesty I don't think they would be compatible (although my first foster a pit bull mix, was really great with small dogs and pups) with my dog for the most part. The play styles, the size difference, etc. is too different but I am generalizing here. Who knows, maybe there will be a bully mix who will be awesome and gentle with small dogs in my future  For now I am looking into non-bully breeds (mini Aussies/standard Aussies are at the top of my list right now) with the same zest for life.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> But. That is *exactly* what people have always done - change a breed for their own wants and satisfaction. That's why we have breeds in the first place.


No, other breeds were used to create another breed entirely. If youre going to change the breed to conform to what you want then change the name. Dont call it a pitbull. There's ALREADY a more dog friendly "Pitbull"... its called an Am Staff.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I just cannot wrap my head around why you would deliberately breed for DA. You say you have to have DA to have good hog dogs but I disagree. Dachshunds are not inherently DA, for instance, but they are bred to fight with badgers. BADGERS. Animals that are at least twice their size and much more aggressive.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> No, other breeds were used to create another breed entirely. If youre going to change the breed to conform to what you want then change the name. Dont call it a pitbull.


That's a really simplified and not very true story of breed creation. For the most part, breeds started as "types" that were them split to create other breeds based on what people wanted. The idea of true "breeds" is such a new concept anyway. Until the 1800s, nobody really bred dogs of any "breed" - they just bred dogs that did the kind of work they liked and had the temperament they wanted. 

All spaniels were basically the same breed, but then some split out for use in water and others were used for land hunting. Then the land spaniels further split into sizes because some people found value in larger or smaller dogs, and some split out by region as the Welsh landowners wanted a slightly different type of dog than the English. From there the the American cocker was developed for people who wanted something different. Nobody "bred different breeds together" to create the spaniel breeds, rather they naturally bred apart different types of dogs depending on what people wanted. Despite the different types, these dogs weren't called separate breeds until dog shows developed. Nobody gave them different names *just* because they were different lines with different specialties, but because they wanted to show the dogs have them recognized as distinct in physical type. It didn't make much sense to show a 20lb cocker against a 50lb springer. This type of breed development was extremely common until recently when we had enough established breeds that people started mixing them together to create something new.

As RabbleFox said, there are many types of GSDs and border collies to fit what people want to do with them (in addition to many other breeds), but they are called the same name. So what? Why can't everybody breed the type of dog that works for them?


----------



## prntmkr (Jan 17, 2009)

Most, but not all BRT's, retain a healthy modicum of protectiveness. On one end of the spectrum, there are lines which, due to breeding practices (breeding solely for show and/or simply poor breeding), have all but totally lost this quality. At the other end, there are BRT's which, even with the finest of training and best of socialization, if you place your hand on the owner, your arm will be ripped off at the shoulder...

As for me, I feel it's sad to have our magnificent breed stripped of that quality for which it was originally bred; I do not want a large, black, hairy Golden Retriever. On the other hand, it's important for us, that our dogs be safe, reliable members of the family ... 

An argument can be made for either end of the protectiveness spectrum. And I don't want to take this thread off course but, similarly, one can discuss entire (show/pet) lines of retrievers which can no longer retrieve, guardian breeds which are prone to timidity, terriers with low prey drive etc.

Back to the ABPT, the quality of _dog aggression _or _gameness_ evokes a far more visceral/emotional response than, for example, _protectiveness_ or _retrieving_ ability. Not many people in our society need their dogs to face down wild hogs; most retrievers will never get to touch, let alone, retrieve, water fowl. In fact, most Golden owners are not prepared to handle the intelligence, energy level and drive of a working retriever. 

Many dog owners are looking for a bland, low energy/drive companion dog. And the reality is that there are those who would want an APBT, but not want to deal with "excessive" d/a. It may be other qualities of the "breed" they admire, or simply the appearance; this may be frowned upon by the purists, but is it any less valid than those who get this kind of dog simply for the "tough-guy" status?

When all is said and done, perhaps this is simply an issue of show vs working lines? And, perhaps, it is here that lies the bright future for the APBT purists. As long as people need these dogs to work (hunting wild hogs, for example), the future of the game bred APBT would seem to be secure. As for the rest of society, a "kinder, gentler" version of the breed would seem to be in order. JMO.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Kayota said:


> I just cannot wrap my head around why you would deliberately breed for DA. You say you have to have DA to have good hog dogs but I disagree. Dachshunds are not inherently DA, for instance, but they are bred to fight with badgers. BADGERS. Animals that are at least twice their size and much more aggressive.


On the same line of thought -- isn't DA and other forms of aggression considered different? like Animal aggression, dog aggression, human aggression, etc.?

Not necessarily agreeing with Kayota 100% here (because doxies for example have been bred nowadays more as pets, so I am sure if you get a working line, they might be more feisty, and I have not met a single doxie who enjoyed the company of other dogs -- just tolerated it), just wondering about the differences since we both don't understand how it's the same thing


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

My mom's Dachshunds loved each other and Roxie. Just throwing that out there  They aren't hunting line though, both were BYB.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

prntmkr said:


> Back to the ABPT, the quality of _dog aggression _or _gameness_ evokes a far more visceral/emotional response than, for example, _protectiveness_ or _retrieving_ ability. Not many people in our society need their dogs to face down wild hogs; most retrievers will never get to touch, let alone, retrieve, water fowl. In fact, most Golden owners are not prepared to handle the intelligence, energy level and drive of a working retriever.
> 
> Many dog owners are looking for a bland, low energy/drive companion dog. And the reality is that there are those who would want an APBT, but not want to deal with "excessive" d/a. It may be other qualities of the "breed" they admire, or simply the appearance; this may be frowned upon by the purists, but is it any less valid than those who get this kind of dog simply for the "tough-guy" status?
> 
> When all is said and done, perhaps this is simply an issue of show vs working lines? And, perhaps, it is here that lies the bright future for the APBT purists. As long as people need these dogs to work (hunting wild hogs, for example), the future of the game bred APBT would seem to be secure. As for the rest of society, a "kinder, gentler" version of the breed would seem to be in order. JMO.


I like the following qualities of a pit bull:
- Their friendliness towards people
- How they basically pine for your attention -- they are so eager to please and love their owners so much
- How affectionate they are -- giant cuddle bugs!
- Their energy level -- and most seem to have a very good "off" switch
- Their intelligence (I find them very easy to train, super quick to pick up on r+ training, and the ones I have worked with generally tend to be very handler sensitive)
- Their courage

I am sure there are lots of people who agree with the above. Not everyone who wants a non-DA pit bull wants them solely for looks 

But yes, I agree with everything you have said


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Kayota said:


> My mom's Dachshunds loved each other and Roxie. Just throwing that out there  They aren't hunting line though, both were BYB.


Yeah I have seen some doxies that like the dogs they know, but just don't care for dogs that they meet (which is fine, there is nothing wrong with that... but that is not the same level of friendliness as a dog who after meeting a strange dog, engages them in play, you know?). They're much more aloof towards "strange" dogs and I do find doxies in general tend to be more suspicious.


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

On a similar note...

if/when I breed (which will be at least two years from now) I am afraid that my dogs will be too drivey for the average pet person. Yeah, they *have* an off switch, but they're still very smart dogs who get very bored easily. 

I don't necessarily think that you'd have to be a behavioral expert to have a cardigan, but people would have to be willing to except the responsibility of extra socialization and also provide some kind of outlet for the dog, whether it be obedience, agility, or just whatever. 

It's alot of responsibility to decide how to preserve a breed. 

I don't have any good answers.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

taquitos said:


> Yeah I have seen some doxies that like the dogs they know, but just don't care for dogs that they meet (which is fine, there is nothing wrong with that... but that is not the same level of friendliness as a dog who after meeting a strange dog, engages them in play, you know?). They're much more aloof towards "strange" dogs and I do find doxies in general tend to be more suspicious.


Yeah they are. So are Chihuahuas lol, Roxie has her suspicious face for sure.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> Because if you change the traits and characteristics of the dog, then you change the breed entirely. If you dont want a PITBULL and all that it was ORIGINALLY bred to be, than why get one in the first place...just get a breed that was bred to have the traits that you want. People shouldnt try to change a breed of dog for your their own wants and satisfaction.


Hogwash. The "original" dogmen changed the breed all they wanted. They bred for what they wanted when they wanted and didn't worry about breed purity or other such nonsense. There is nothing more valid about their "original" wants and satisfaction than about modern wants and satisfaction. 

And, well, fine, change the name too if it makes you feel better. Doesn't change anything other than the name.

Dog breeds are completely a human construct. There is absolutely NO other reason for discrete dog breeds to exist other than humans wants and satisfaction.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Kayota said:


> Yeah they are. So are Chihuahuas lol, Roxie has her suspicious face for sure.


Yeah that's true lol. Maybe that's why Meeko is sometimes wary/suspicious... but it is really only with larger dogs and strangers lol! He LOVES small dogs. He will try to engage them in play the moment he sniffs them lol but he's a little weird/awkward with his playing so a lot of dogs get confused haha.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

TheOtherCorgi said:


> On a similar note...
> 
> if/when I breed (which will be at least two years from now) I am afraid that my dogs will be too drivey for the average pet person. Yeah, they *have* an off switch, but they're still very smart dogs who get very bored easily.
> 
> ...


I think there are more people willing to deal with drive and outlets than dog aggression. 

Not every breed is for everyone but I think there are highs and lies to every reed. Example: some Cardis are more "pet bred". They make great show dogs, companions, therapy dogs. Done Cardis are "working bred". They herd, they jump, they run, they've got drive. Is the former cardi less of a cardi simply because he is not like the latter cardi?

Dogs come on a spectrum, temperament wise. I see nothing wrong with playing with that spectrum to get a high drive, nonDA pittie. 

If I want a pittie with no DA, I don't want an Amstaff. Two different breeds. That's like saying, "If you can't handle a wacky working bred border collie, get an Aussie/ Rough Collie." Uhhh... I said I wanted a BC. Not any other breed. Just because I don't want exactly what you want to see in a breed doesn't mean I can't own that breed. 

What a fun discussion!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

RabbleFox said:


> Just because I don't want exactly what you want to see in a breed doesn't mean I can't own that breed.


This exactly.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I know a good number of people that have working bred (like actual sheep work) border collies as just pets or as pets and sport dogs. I've been offered working bred dogs already and I'm just a sport person who hasn't a border collie yet. 

I also have never heard working people talk or brag about how 'crazy' their dogs are or soooo hard to own. That's generally sport people. 

Yes they do prefer to sell to working homes. Makes sense to me. That way they can see what they're producing in a working sense across the whole litter.

I don't see this attitude people are talking about with working border collie people.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I don't see this attitude people are talking about with working border collie people.


Maybe people are using working people and sporting people interchangeably in this case?


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

^Mainly what offends me about the wBC peeps is that if you aren't breeding a wBC you aren't breeding BCs. Which I don't think is true. I think they are all Border Collies. 

If you don't own a wBC, then you don't own a *real* BC. Least that's what I've been told.

eta: Nah. Sporters are different from workers. Sporters apparently don't have an off switch? 

To be fair, if I were to get a border collie, I would most likely go with a working bred type. But there is a lot of drama attached to BCs.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I'm neutral. I see both sides. I really admire gamebred APBTs and their determination and I'd love one or two one day when I can move out and get a place and a proactive fence and a responsible outdoor set up

BUT

Nina's at least half APBT and I'm pretty happy no DA has come out yet because I live in a residential suburban yard and we enjoy taking walks and have had off-leash dog encounters.

I don't see why not there shouldn't be a breed split. Some say "petbull" as a derogatory term but as long as it wasnt a complete reform of the breed, I'm very welcome to it. Especially since I want multiples. And a GSD. And an Aussie.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

RabbleFox said:


> eta: Nah. Sporters are different from workers. Sporters apparently don't have an off switch?


I meant working *people* and sporting *people* were being used interchangeably. I should have clarified that. I think there are sports people who say that you must have a working bred BC or it's not a BC, even though they aren't really working their dog in the true sense if they are just doing sports. But then I don't know true working BC people, only sports people.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Yes there is drama. There is always drama.

A lot of people do confuse working and sporting bred and people have different definitions of each. I know people in real life who brag about their dogs being working bred but their dogs come from some of the big name sports kennels that pop out 8 litters a year (or more).



> ^Mainly what offends me about the wBC peeps is that if you aren't breeding a wBC you aren't breeding BCs. Which I don't think is true. I think they are all Border Collies.
> 
> If you don't own a wBC, then you don't own a *real* BC. Least that's what I've been told.


I get it. I do. It took me a while but I do get where they're coming from. It's just a very different culture than show breeds, which is what Im used to. I disagree that the dogs aren't border collies but then again I think it'd be better with a different name.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

taquitos said:


> I haven't met a 100% purebred AmStaff from a good breeder, ever (only shelter pits, amstaff-x, etc.), so I don't know what the level of DA is in a well bred AmStaff... but my last foster dog was an AmStaff-x, and she is extremely leash reactive, and is dog selective. I had successfully introduced her to my dog (I guess you could call him a "dominant" neutered male, but 7 lbs so a little insecure) and my last foster (large greyhound x husky female, super docile and awesome doggy social skills), but she was not okay with any dog without proper introductions and proper management. After dealing with several bully type dogs, I am in general extra careful with them because I do find that they display some form of DA.
> 
> I have been looking into the Staffordshire Bull Terrier too (they're SO cute!) but I have seen them having some level of DA too.
> 
> At the end of the day, my dog is 7 lbs... I cannot have a dog that I cannot trust 100% around him to not hurt. As much as I love the bully breeds, in all honesty I don't think they would be compatible (although my first foster a pit bull mix, was really great with small dogs and pups) with my dog for the most part. The play styles, the size difference, etc. is too different but I am generalizing here. Who knows, maybe there will be a bully mix who will be awesome and gentle with small dogs in my future  For now I am looking into non-bully breeds (mini Aussies/standard Aussies are at the top of my list right now) with the same zest for life.


 Yes, lots of people are generalizing breeds. Each dog has its own personality and you cannot generalize, especially mixed breeds and foster dogs. You are right in your decision to not get a bully breed as a companion for your small dog if you don't want to constantly ssupervise, not because small dogs aren't DA, but because if there is an incident there will be less damage done to the dog. I have an Alapaha Bulldog and a shi tzu. My shi tzu attacks my bulldog every chance she gets for no reason. My bulldog always turns the other cheek, thank goodness. But it just goes to show that bully breeds are not always the aggressor.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> Yes, lots of people are generalizing breeds. Each dog has its own personality and you cannot generalize, especially mixed breeds and foster dogs. You are right in your decision to not get a bully breed as a companion for your small dog if you don't want to constantly ssupervise, not because small dogs aren't DA, but because if there is an incident there will be less damage done to the dog. I have an Alapaha Bulldog and a shi tzu. My shi tzu attacks my bulldog every chance she gets for no reason. My bulldog always turns the other cheek, thank goodness. But it just goes to show that bully breeds are not always the aggressor.


Well I think it's important to understand the breed(s) and their natural/genetic behavior, so generalization does help to an extent, but definitely not when people say things like "ALL bully breeds are dog aggressive" or "ALL golden retrievers are docile", etc.

In my particular case, it is not just about the "amount of damage". It is more about the fact that bully type breeds (and other terriers) have that "gameness" that people are talking about. If there were a scuffle of sorts, I do think pit bull type dogs have the ability of going from 0 to 100 in a matter of seconds and tend to have a lower threshold for starting a full on fight. I have had to separate my AmStaff-x foster from a dog fight and it was one of the most difficult things to do (didn't have a break stick with me, which was stupid of me). I just see the situation as too high risk with breeds where DA is genetically more likely to occur.

I know my dog's personality. He has food guarding issues, and he is insecure when around larger dogs. I know for a fact that he would do better with another larger dog who is gentler, more nurturing, and not as assertive with other dogs  If there was an older pit (~4 years old) who fit the bill, I would definitely adopt. I just don't think it's responsible to adopt without considering the tendencies of bully breeds (and of course, my own dog).

My dog definitely doesn't attack "without reason", but I need a dog that will be more tolerant, and one that I can rely on to not attack with the slightest provocation.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I don't think people should be breeding specifically for da, but if a dog happens to be da but passed its health testing and excels in all other areas I do not think the dog should automatically be culled..



Ok well this did not come through in your other posts....

I am with JohnnyB on this one-- on gameness and drive, that it incorporates DA (it is part of aggression in general) just not seeing eye to eye on the breeding only for DA thing.... 

I really admire the Fila breed myself...
(they could come in handy for our situation)...


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Um YES Pit bulls were originally bred to fight other dogs, what makes you think they are not? And for the 1,000th time it has NOTHING to do with Gameness, gameness is dead/dying in the breed, it has to do with keeping the APBT and apbt. Do you know how many other breeds are prone to da?? And DA doesn't make a dog more likely to hurt a person at all.. But if da is SOOOO bad why don't we just breed animal aggression out of all dogs bred to hunt/fight/kill/maim other animals, because obviously animal aggression is such a huge issue that it is uncontrollable... BSL isn't a problem because of DA, BSL is a problem because of irresponsible owners and breeders of these dogs.. A dog being DA does not make them more likely to attack a person





Adjecyca1 said:


> The breed wasn't originally used for bull baiting BULL dogs were used for bull baiting, PIT BULLS were bred and made in the PIT by crossing bull dogs with terriers (i think the now extinct English white terrier). When bull baiting was legal APBTS were not created yet. APBTS were created because bull baiting became illegal so they started fighting dogs in the pit
> And DA dogs are FAR from unpredictable they are in fact very very very predictable. When you know your dog is DA, you KNOW it wants to fight other dogs, what is hard to predict? And unhappy GET REAL, that's like saying a JRT is unhappy because it wants to kill rats



Pit bulls weren't originally bred for dog fighting. They were bred for baiting small animals like badgers and catching rats in a pit for betting and making money. Like some sort of sick carnival game. Then they started fighting then against each other. It was an after thought, not an original purpose. 

The white terrier was a "white man's" dog. They were owned by wealthy white men and lived in the home with wealthy children. It wasn't some ghetto dog fighting, ripping out each others throats at first, BS. That happened later. Manchester terriers were the start of that I believe.

Okay, found what I was looking for:

http://retrieverman.net/tag/manchester-terrier/

Basically, the pit bull comes from bulldog and terrier crosses, leading to what is known as the "bull terrier". The gentlemen in those days wanted white dogs, like the white terrier and white bull terrier because "colored dogs" carried racial meaning. (So ridiculous). The Manchester terrier was used to make colored bull terriers. The "colored dogs" were owned by peasants and the poor. The white terriers and bull terriers, the "white cavaliers" were owned by the wealthy white gentlemen. They eventually had color added in, and are what we know now as the Bull Terrier. The "colored dogs" owned by the poor and peasants became what is now known as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The white terrier had nothing to do with dog fighting, the Bull Terrier was a crappy fighter.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> Not saying that terriers don't have drive, but let's be serious, when it comes to drive, tenacity, gameness, and fearlessness...Most would agree that true APBT's are at the top of the list. Let's not be partial to our own breeds.


I don't have much more to contribute to this thread as others are more well-versed in dog breeds than I am but CptJack doesn't own any JRTs lol.

And both sides are guilty of bias, but I feel like we aren't talking about the same thing if one side believes APBT were intended to fight each other/other dogs and one side believes they went against other animals. Two different kinds of situations and definitions of "game" isn't it?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

CrimsonAccent said:


> I don't have much more to contribute to this thread as others are more well-versed in dog breeds than I am but CptJack doesn't own any JRTs lol.


Not a single one.

And I'm not sorry about that, either. They'd be a *horrible* match for me. A pit I could live with - a JRT? Lol, no.

And I didn't mention the breed I DO have as being 'game'. Because they're not. They're the terrier version of marshmallows - I mean they kill things and all, and can be quite determined in doing so, but again: terrier version of marshmallows.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> I'm not sure you're reading everyone's posts closely? You seem to be arguing against something that's not being said. Everyone actually *is* answering your question, but you're just missing it. Most of the posters here have said that there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to keep the breed as true to its roots as possible. We've also said that we see nothing wrong with breeding away from DA if someone loves the other traits of the breed but would like to reduce DA for various reasons. People breed for different things and as long as someone out there is breeding for the type of dog you want, then who cares what the other breeders are doing? As long as they're health testing, breeding dogs with stable temperament, and being responsible about it all, why does it bother you?
> 
> Not a single person has said that all breeders should breed away from DA. Most posters have said that if someone wants to use DA dogs in their breeding program, that's fine and their own decision. But we also support someone who would want to breed away from DA. Breeds change to adapt to needs, and I don't think it's far to say "Well, just get a different breed." People find breeds they love for various reasons, and I don't have any problem with them wanting to breed towards or away from a particular trait if it would make the breed function better for them and for others.


Actually people HAVE said that all breeders should breed away from DA, one person even said having a DA dog is 'cruel' to the dog, the post i was responding to made it seem that i was saying ALL breeders need to keep their breed close to the roots which is not what i am saying the breed has already changed in many ways...I never said it bothered me, but it has already been done, and me saying 'just get another breed' works VERY well in this situation because an Amstaff was created DIRECTLY FROM THE APBT TO BE LESS DA, so it sounds like it's EXACTLY what someone is looking for if they want an APBT but want to avoid DA or want a dog more compatible with average life styles


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

RabbleFox said:


> I think there are more people willing to deal with drive and outlets than dog aggression.
> 
> Not every breed is for everyone but I think there are highs and lies to every reed. Example: some Cardis are more "pet bred". They make great show dogs, companions, therapy dogs. Done Cardis are "working bred". They herd, they jump, they run, they've got drive. Is the former cardi less of a cardi simply because he is not like the latter cardi?
> 
> ...


Actually it's more like if you can't handle a working bred border collie get a show bred...


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Pit bulls weren't originally bred for dog fighting. They were bred for baiting small animals like badgers and catching rats in a pit for betting and making money. Like some sort of sick carnival game. Then they started fighting then against each other. It was an after thought, not an original purpose.


Sources????


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Actually it's more like if you can't handle a working bred border collie get a show bred...


I've heard plenty of reports of show bred dogs being very high energy and not any better for a first time owner than a working bred dog. It's not like show bred dogs are automatically super low drive lazy couch potatoes.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> I've heard plenty of reports of show bred dogs being very high energy and not any better for a first time owner than a working bred dog. It's not like show bred dogs are automatically super *low drive lazy couch potatoes.*


Not once did i say that at all....

But show bred border collies are *not* at the same level as working B.Cs for the most part, and a show bred BC may be a good choice for someone who does not think they can handle a working bred border collie...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Not once did i say that at all....
> 
> But show bred border collies are *not* at the same level as working B.Cs for the most part, and a show bred BC may be a good choice for someone who does not think they can handle a working bred border collie...


I'm saying that isn't true - not from what BC people have told me. I have heard that the show bred dogs can be just as high energy, but don't necessarily have an off switch or the focus to channel the drive that the working dogs do. It's easy to assume they make a better pet, but it's not necessarily correct.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> I've heard plenty of reports of show bred dogs being very high energy and not any better for a first time owner than a working bred dog. It's not like show bred dogs are automatically super low drive lazy couch potatoes.


And it's not like "I would like a LOWER energy border collie, for a border collie" is a thing that indicates that the person shouldn't own a border collie! It's not the same thing as wanting a low energy dog - and honestly, I know SEVERAL working line BCs living quite happily in pet homes, where the closest thing to a job they have is very, very casual agility once in a while, walks on leash, and fetch. I also know some showline bcs that are neurotic, hyperactive, hard to focus/poor attention span, MESSES. If I wanted a BC that was going to be decent in a home and maybe (maybe not) do sports with, at this point I'd go to a freaking sheep farm before a show breeder, and I'd go to the show breeder before the sports breeder.

You do not need to be able to handle the most extreme version of a breed to own the breed, and they ARE STILL THE SAME BREED even if they are not the most intense representations of it, ffs.

I get the working/show divide with BC people, I do - I actually understand where this comes from - but I still think it's baloney. As much as I prefer bigger, working, RT, I'm not going to claim that the 8lb verisons aren't actually RT. People breed for what they want and while I even had a rant here arguing the other side because it upset me when it was a breed I cared about and I was afraid of losing the parts of the breed *I* love - 

I'm one person. People are gonna breed what they want. That doesn't change the versions you don't care from into another breed. It doesn't make the versions you do like The One True Version, even if it's the one that's supposedly been around the longest. This is not a job; there are no perks for seniority.

A bc that doesn't herd - Still a bc.
A lab that doesn't retrieve - still a lab.
A beagle that's gunshy and has no nose - still a beagle.
a rat terrier with no prey-drive - still a rat terrier.
an apbt? STILL AN APBT.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Not once did i say that at all....
> 
> But show bred border collies are *not* at the same level as working B.Cs for the most part, and a show bred BC may be a good choice for someone who does not think they can handle a working bred border collie...


One of the highest BC I know is a show line dog.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> I'm saying that isn't true - not from what BC people have told me. I have heard that the show bred dogs can be just as high energy, but don't necessarily have an off switch or the focus to channel the drive that the working dogs do. It's easy to assume they make a better pet, but it's not necessarily correct.


 I have had BC people tell me the exact opposite, i have also worked with show BCs and Working BCs in agility, and not to say show BCs do not have energy they do, but they are not as high energy as the working bred dogs i have personally worked with...

But geez with the nit picking, the only reason i said that to begin with was in response to this statement " "If you can't handle a wacky working bred border collie, get an Aussie/ Rough Collie." Uhhh... I said I wanted a BC. Not any other breed. Just because I don't want exactly what you want to see in a breed doesn't mean I can't own that breed. "
All i am saying is there is an OPTION very similar to the APBT if someone wants to avoid DA they can get an AST

I am not trying to debate border collies i have no interest in the breed, i only used border collies as an example because that is the breed they chose in that statement


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I have had BC people tell me the exact opposite, i have also worked with show BCs and Working BCs in agility, and not to say show BCs do not have energy they do, but they are not as high energy as the show bred dogs i have personally worked with...
> 
> But geez with the nit picking, the only reason i said that to begin with was in response to this statement " "If you can't handle a wacky working bred border collie, get an Aussie/ Rough Collie." Uhhh... I said I wanted a BC. Not any other breed. Just because I don't want exactly what you want to see in a breed doesn't mean I can't own that breed. "
> All i am saying is there is an OPTION very similar to the APBT if someone wants to avoid DA they can get an AST



You know when multiple people telling you that you're wrong - you're not suddenly right because of your individual experiences.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

CptJack said:


> You know when multiple people telling you that you're wrong - you're not suddenly right because of your individual experiences.


um I have had multiple *border collie* people telling me the opposite of what you are all saying, lots of people tell me APBTS were nanny dogs that doesn't mean they are right, just because more than one person has a different opinion than me doesn't magically mean i am wrong..


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think it just comes down to individual dogs and lines. I've met some BCs of all types that are very laid back and also some that were nuts. It's also pretty impossible to tell a sport bred dog vs a working bred dog unless you ask.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> One of the highest BC I know is a show line dog.


The most insane, neurotic, over the TOP, hard to live with dogs I know is a show line BC. OF ANY BREED. That dog gave me nightmares and nearly put me off the breed. Then I got exposed to some of the working dogs and pups around and... I'm sure there are some crazy ones, but frankly an OCD dog without an attention span (or the ability to sit still, ever)'s not great for herding/doing work. Amazingly, herding a flock of sheep does NOT take 12 hours of constantly running for the dog, and sometimes they have to turn off, or they just harass the livestock. Who knew?

So, yeah, if I do go BC in the future? I'm going to one of the farms around here that breeds their own dogs. Maybe not the textbook reputable, but that's my best shot of getting the dog I want.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I think it just comes down to individual dogs and lines. I've met some BCs of all types that are very laid back and also some that were nuts. It's also pretty impossible to tell a sport bred dog vs a working bred dog unless you ask.


I asked. Maybe it's a local thing, maybe it's a popular breeder thing, I don't know -

But I know if I get a BC, as I said above, it'll be from someone working and breeding their own working stock to provide dogs for THEIR farm. Not titled, not field trialed, not even registered possibly, but I know who has what I want - 

And they're the people who are using their dogs to move livestock.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Adjecyca1 said:


> All i am saying is there is an OPTION very similar to the APBT if someone wants to avoid DA they can get an AST


But obviously if people are trying to breed non-DA APBT that means the AST isn't the same thing to them. There is something they see in the APBT that they like better, but they would prefer less or no DA, so they are breeding for it. Why is that so awful? I still don't understand why that makes you upset.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> But obviously if people are trying to breed non-DA APBT that means the AST isn't the same thing to them. There is something they see in the APBT that they like better, but they would prefer less or no DA, so they are breeding for it. Why is that so awful? I still don't understand why that makes you upset.


Where did i say it makes me upset? It would make me upset if ALL breeders did this... ANd i don't know of any APBT breeders breeding away from DA, i asked the question because many people have said they think ALL apbt breeders SHOULD be breeding away from DA.. I do not know ANY APBT breeders breeding away from DA, ONLY AST/Ambully/ and a small amount of Pitter staff breeders


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Where did i say it makes me upset? It would make me upset if ALL breeders did this... ANd i don't know of any APBT breeders breeding away from DA, i asked the question because many people have said they think ALL apbt breeders SHOULD be breeding away from DA.. I do not know ANY APBT breeders breeding away from DA, ONLY AST/Ambully/ and a small amount of Pitter staff breeders


Well, then it's kind of a moot point. There is NO way you'd ever get all breeders of any breed to agree on anything, LOL. Even if everybody else in the world agreed they should all do something, they wouldn't---every breeder has their own vision for what they want.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Well, then it's kind of a moot point. *There is NO way you'd ever get all breeders of any breed to agree on anything, LOL. Even if everybody else in the world agreed they should all do something, they wouldn't---every breeder has their own vision for what they want*.


 Do you think i don't know this? It's a simple hypothetical question...


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

The 'nanny dog' comment made me think of something I heard recently. I have a classmate who grew up in the Caucasus area in Russia and her family had a Caucasian ovcharka. You know, those dogs who are known to be very powerful, intimidating, serious hard ass guard dogs that tend to be very aggressive and intolerant. 

I was super surprised when my classmate told me what nickname they were known by: baby dogs. 

I was like "are you kidding me?" and the answer I got was "yeah, people get them for their young kids." 

So that's a totally different side to a breed I'll admit I had certain preconceptions about. Many people will have different experiences with a breed, which doesn't mean any one of them has a more 'valid' opinion than the next person. Different people can have different views on what a certain breed is for and what characteristics it should have. 

In this case, people who feel a Caucasian ovcharka belongs on a farm or on a property as a guard dog, and other people who feel a Caucasian ovcharka is a suitable pet for children. In the case of the APBT, people who feel da is part of what makes an APBT, and other people who feel that an APBT can do without the da.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

CptJack said:


> AND ONLY SUPER SPECIAL PEOPLE WHO ARE REAL DOG OWNERS LIKE YE OLD DOG OWNERS WHO ARE MAGICAL AND SPECIAL AND HAVE SPECIAL SKILLS CAN OWN THEM! NOT MERE MORTALS! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW (Breed trait that exists in several breeds) MAKES THEM IMPOSSIBLE TO OWN AND ONLY OWNERS WHO ARE SPECIAL OWNERS CAN OWN THEM!!!
> 
> Yeah. Me too. It's baloney.
> 
> ...


Thank goodness for common sense.

Additionally, Adjcecya it really seems like you came in here looking for a fight. 99% of responses have been "breed and buy what you find desirable as long as you can do so safely" yet you seem so determined to pin that "YOU SAID ALL APBT BREEDERS SHOULD GET RID OF DA" on someone.

Personally I would be thrilled to own a Pit without the DA. I'm not in the market for a dog now but it is definitely a consideration for the future should the right circumstances pop up. I find an explicit preference for DA strange and an unnecessary safety risk in a city crowded with dogs, but if people want it, can find a way to breed for it without game testing and can handle it safely, well then its not really my business.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Sources????


I like this site:

http://game-bred.com/index.html


From everything I've read on there, the impression I got was that the bull terrier mixes were used for baiting. Maybe not baiting bulls and bear, since bulldogs were used for that. After those became illegal, people still had dogs baiting small animals, like badgers and they had rat pits. Then, dog fighting went mainstream. Baiting was around for a LONG time and a lot more popular. Dog fighting was around for a lot longer than "pit bulls" too but just not as mainstream or popular until later on. There's no reason for me to believe that dog fighting was the sole and original purpose of bull terrier mixes. They were used for baiting and dog fighting but not JUST for dog fighting and it wasn't the only REASON why they were created, just something people started doing with them.

Also, from that site... the pit bull is apparently more terrier than it is bulldog and most of the best fighting dogs were also the best ratters. I thought that was interesting. So, maybe since gameness can't be tested wit dog fighting it can be tested with ratting? (To clarify, the best ratters = best fighting dogs so maybe that could be a clue to whether or not a dog would have made a good fighting dog if that were still legal... just thinking out loud)


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

aiw said:


> Thank goodness for common sense.
> 
> *Additionally, Adjcecya it really seems like you came in here looking for a fight. 99% of responses have been "breed and buy what you find desirable as long as you can do so safely" yet you seem so determined to pin that "YOU SAID ALL APBT BREEDERS SHOULD GET RID OF DA" on someone.*
> 
> Personally I would be thrilled to own a Pit without the DA. I'm not in the market for a dog now but it is definitely a consideration for the future should the right circumstances pop up. I find an explicit preference for DA strange and an unnecessary safety risk in a city crowded with dogs, but if people want it, can find a way to breed for it without game testing and can handle it safely, well then its not really my business.


 I really didn't though O_O and i am not pinning that on anyone, there WERE individuals who said they think it should be bred out, and there was an individual who said it was CRUEL for a dog to be DA..

People kept asking why I Had a problem with individual breeders doing something and i felt the need to repeat myself that i do not have a problem with any single person breeding away from DA, but my question is should ALL breeders be doing it, and everyone just said "well some people can why do YOU have a problem with it?" I don't have a problem, it's already been done before and that is all i was trying to say, i wasn't asking people if they think it is okay for *some* breeders to breed away from da


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I like this site:
> 
> http://game-bred.com/index.html
> 
> ...


Gameness wouldn't not be able to be tested with ratting at all..but ithat is interesting information that i did not know


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> The breed wasn't originally used for bull baiting BULL dogs were used for bull baiting, PIT BULLS were bred and made in the PIT by crossing bull dogs with terriers (i think the now extinct English white terrier). When bull baiting was legal APBTS were not created yet. APBTS were created because bull baiting became illegal so they started fighting dogs in the pit
> And DA dogs are FAR from unpredictable they are in fact very very very predictable. When you know your dog is DA, you KNOW it wants to fight other dogs, what is hard to predict? And unhappy GET REAL, that's like saying a JRT is unhappy because it wants to kill rats


" gameness" is what makes pitties good at hog hunting. Breeding out DA and switching to breeding for hog hunting wouldn't be such a bad thing ... But breeding out the instinct to "go after" things I don't think is right or justice to the breed.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> " gameness" is what makes pitties good at hog hunting. Breeding out DA and switching to breeding for hog hunting wouldn't be such a bad thing ... But breeding out the instinct to "go after" things I don't think is right or justice to the breed.


But could you breed out the DA without effecting the animal aggression in general?


Another point i want to make about breeding away from DA, is that it would be rather hard considering there is already such a small amount of APBTS worth breeding, than to make that even smaller by only breeding cold dogs, and in your case OwnedbyACDs you would end up needing to make it even smaller by only using the dogs good at hog hunting...


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Gameness wouldn't not be able to be tested with ratting at all..but ithat is interesting information that i did not know


Why? The pit bull is said to have gotten is gameness from terriers. So, what makes terriers game? They weren't used for dog fighting originally and people still considered them game (apparently) So, either the definition had changed or that's incorrect and gameness didn't exist in the dog world until dog fighting was created...and terriers were never considered game... although I've found multiple sources saying otherwise.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> " gameness" is what makes pitties good at hog hunting. Breeding out DA and switching to breeding for hog hunting wouldn't be such a bad thing ... But breeding out the instinct to "go after" things I don't think is right or justice to the breed.


Exactly, focus on the things that are still legal. I think a good dog should be bred regardless of DA (depending on how bad it is) but if terriers are what made the breed what it is than focus on the things terriers are good at. Ratting for example. Hog hunting is another great way to prove the dog is still a capable dog, regardless of whether or not you want to refer to that as gameness. Whatever made people refer to terriers as being game, it wasn't dog fighting and dog aggression to begin with.

Okay, and this is where my confusion over the definition of game and gameness comes from:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_(dog)

There's two different definitions depending on "fighting breeds" our "working terriers". Well fighting is illegal so that definition should be scrapped. Gameness does not just equal a dog fighting till the death in the pit and that's not acceptable anymore so that definition of it should no longer be used. You can prove gameness according to the "working terrier" definition for the APBT through legal means.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Why? The pit bull is said to have gotten is gameness from terriers. So, what makes terriers game? They weren't used for dog fighting originally and people still considered them game (apparently) So, either the definition had changed or that's incorrect and gameness didn't exist in the dog world until dog fighting was created...and terriers were never considered game... although I've found multiple so


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

> The terms "Game" and "Gameness" -
> 
> It has come to my attention lately that MANY people use these terms incorrectly. I have recently read comments such as "They had to use a breeding stand, that must be one game bitch" or "That's one game dog right there, he pulled xxxxlbs" ect....
> 
> ...



I think this is a good read, it's what most APBT people are talking about when they refer to gameness, you can't really compare a dog who is fighting another dog for 2 hours to one who kills rats.. I am sure a lot of the dogs who cured out in the pit wouldn't cur out with rats


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> And it's not like "I would like a LOWER energy border collie, for a border collie" is a thing that indicates that the person shouldn't own a border collie! It's not the same thing as wanting a low energy dog - and honestly, I know SEVERAL working line BCs living quite happily in pet homes, where the closest thing to a job they have is very, very casual agility once in a while, walks on leash, and fetch. I also know some showline bcs that are neurotic, hyperactive, hard to focus/poor attention span, MESSES. If I wanted a BC that was going to be decent in a home and maybe (maybe not) do sports with, at this point I'd go to a freaking sheep farm before a show breeder, and I'd go to the show breeder before the sports breeder.
> 
> You do not need to be able to handle the most extreme version of a breed to own the breed, and they ARE STILL THE SAME BREED even if they are not the most intense representations of it, ffs.
> 
> ...


Uh ... What? A herding dog with no drive to herd??? A beagle with no nose? A JRT with no hunting instinct? Sure they pop up in a litter every once and a while but under NO circumstances should they be bred ... Ever!


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I edited my above post. There's two definitions for gameness... Not going to rewrite the whole thing. Gameness in the pit fighting world no longer exist except to outlaws and thugs. Gameness in the working terrier world still exist and in that case, yes a pit bull type dog and any other breed can prove itself through acceptable test. Whether that's good enough for the Dogmen in are current culture and time, I could honestly care less. It's time for those people to leave the 1800s behind and stop dragging down the breed.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I edited my above post. There's two definitions for gameness... Not going to rewrite the whole thing. Gameness in the pit fighting world no longer exist except to outlaws and thugs. Gameness in the working terrier world still exist and in that case, yes a pit bull type dog and any other breed can prove itself through acceptable test. Whether that's good enough for the Dogmen in are current culture and time, I could honestly care less. It's time for those people to leave the 1800s behind and stop dragging down the breed.


Well if you noticed in the beginning of my post i said we could no longer breed APBTS for gameness(as in the desire to never quit no matter what obstacles they face) Most people with APBTS know that, that kind of gameness is dead/dying in the breed


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

I think that through the magic of time dog breeds evolve to a different look. The APBT of today will look different than the APBT of tomorrow. Yesterdays pitbull terriers look similar but different. I was googling images of pitbull history when I came across this picture. Had to laugh because of the thread mentioning JRT and APBT. Isn't that a JRT on the right with all the bully dogs. That JRT must of had enough gameness to be in with that crowd.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Yes, but they can still be bred for gameness according to working terrier standards. I'm not exactly understanding what's wrong with that?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Yes, but they can still be bred for gameness according to working terrier standards. I'm not exactly understanding what's wrong with that?


I am not saying anything IS wrong with that, i am saying they can not be bred for the Gameness most APBT people are talking about when they refer to the word game, which is the gameness that APBTS were bred for, and is the trait most APBT people admired


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Walked into work today and everybody had to tell me about the dog fight that happened in the lobby yesterday. Guy with pitbull sitting waiting for a room and in walks a golden. The pitbull lunges at the dog, the collar breaks and the PB is biting the Golden. PB's owner lifts the PB up by the chest and by doing so is lifting up the golden. The PB has got a good hold on the Golden's hind leg. Finally a tech and an assistant are able to break the dog's grip and get the PB into the room. Lots of things wrong with this episode. BTW the golden was okay and only the owner of the PB was bit due to him reaching around his dog from behind. 

Why did this PB owner only have one of those flimsy plastic buckled collar on his dog? Where was his bite stick? The PB owner should have left his dog in the car till a room was ready if his dog is so reactive to other dogs. Why did the PB owner allow his dog to act like this? The PB owner clearly not educated enough about this breed and yet is taking this dog out in public without the knowledge or right gear to own such a dog.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

luv mi pets said:


> I think that through the magic of time dog breeds evolve to a different look. The APBT of today will look different than the APBT of tomorrow. Yesterdays pitbull terriers look similar but different. I was googling images of pitbull history when I came across this picture. Had to laugh because of the thread mentioning JRT and APBT. Isn't that a JRT on the right with all the bully dogs. That JRT must of had enough gameness to be in with that crowd.


It could be a fox terrier (back before they STOPPED breeding for "gameness" in that breed) and yes many terriers were VERY game ... Before the "split" btw "show" and "working" happened


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Which is a good thing considering that gameness is pretty much referring to a dog that won't back down from fighting another dog in a pit. Not exactly something that should even concern an ethical person in this day and age. I could personally care less about that gameness in any dog I own. Much prefer the acceptable "working terrier" kind which existed before dog fighting and has continued to do so since and which made the pit bull what it really is. That's what is important. A temporary change in definition to fit into the fighting world and is now "dead" shouldn't really matter. 


Anyways, going back to DA. Reading about the Kerry Blue Terrier which was apparently a fighting dog in Ireland. They used to be really dog aggressive and the breeders seem to have bred away from that some. Still DA but not AS bad and they seem doing okay despite the change in breeding away from DA.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> It could be a fox terrier (back before they STOPPED breeding for "gameness" in that breed) and yes many terriers were VERY game ... Before the "split" btw "show" and "working" happened


 Hard to tell in that picture. I can not find any info on that picture.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

luv mi pets said:


>


Well I do know for sure those are not pitties lol. Unless one of the more obscure dogs is, most of them are bulldogs and mini bulldogs (yes they were a breed). The dog farthest to the left is most definitely a bulldog.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Well I do know for sure those are not pitties lol. Unless one of the more obscure dogs is, most of them are bulldogs and mini bulldogs (yes they were a breed). The dog farthest to the left is most definitely a bulldog.


That's why I said bully dogs. I was googling images of pitbull history and this picture appeared. The picture also had me chuckling thinking of that game 'Which one is not like the others?'

If you look and google pit bull history images even back in the day it seemed the 'pit bulls' had different looks. Not a 'stamp' so to say.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OT, I guess. . .but it seems like a lot of "APBT people", no matter how much they protest in order to sound legal, have a great deal of admiration for dog fighting. Ugh.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> OT, I guess. . .but it seems like a lot of "APBT people", no matter how much they protest in order to sound legal, have a great deal of admiration for dog fighting. Ugh.


You can admire the dogs involved without justifying dogfighting


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> You can admire the dogs involved without justifying dogfighting


Every pit bull forum I've been on has talked about dog fighting in a roundabout way.

And the story above is exactly my point, by the way.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Uh ... What? A herding dog with no drive to herd??? A beagle with no nose? A JRT with no hunting instinct? Sure they pop up in a litter every once and a while but under NO circumstances should they be bred ... Ever!


 Um, why not? If that's what someone wants. What makes one person's desires more important that another person's?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> You can admire the dogs involved without justifying dogfighting


 You can admire the dogs but the near-worship of gameness and other fighting qualities as evidenced in that article is somewhat beyond that.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I most likely frequent those APBT forums being referenced.

In the depth of the communities, to my experience, the admiration surrounds the heart of the dogs and how far they went to persevere and triumph over their opponent even when all odds were against them. Nothing wrong with admiring the dogs attitude, and being forthright about the past. But I've never seen anyone say dogfighting was good, respectable, etc.

What I've seen that comes remotely close is discussion of how the key trait most fanciers love the breed, being game, will most likely die out because there is no way to find out if a dog possesses that trait through and through..


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Melle said:


> What I've seen that comes remotely close is discussion of how the key trait most fanciers love the breed, being game, will most likely die out because there is no way to find out if a dog possesses that trait through and through..


 How can they love the trait if there's no way to know if the dog possesses it?

From what I've seen I think a lot of them would fight dogs if it were legal (and in fact may do so without admitting it somewhere that could be seen). The underlying current of regret over inconvenient laws is pretty strong.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Willowy said:


> How can they love the trait if there's no way to know if the dog possesses it?
> 
> From what I've seen I think a lot of them would fight dogs if it were legal (and in fact may do so without admitting it somewhere that could be seen). The underlying current of regret over inconvenient laws is pretty strong.


Because you can pretend your dog has that trait?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I think APBT people need to look at a dictionary to see what the legitimate meaning of gameness means. Maybe, personal opinion has it that dog fighting is the best, most perfect, only, most legitimate, etc way to test gameness in the APBT but that's not really how it works for any other other breed and it's not legal anymore... So that's just too damn bad and they need to get over it and get off their high horse.

Even in the friggin bully breed world there are the most ridiculous arguments, "oh my Staffordshire Bull Terrier would rip your pit bull to pieces" etc... Like seriously? It's the most obnoxious and annoying thing about pit bull people, I just want to slap them.

ETA: that was a direct quote from a comment on a video of a staffy & pit playing tug, no joke. It's just ridiculous how immature and stupid some people are.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

Here's the tricky thing about game: is that for dogmen, it referred specifically to situations of adversity in a fight.

To be honest, I admire never-cry-uncle but I'm not much into "if the dog backs out because it has a broken leg it's not game" thing. I don't really like that. When the topic rises on the more hard-core of those forums (one I tend to stray from) I'm on the fence. To me, if Nina were to defend herself against another animal if she *needed* to is enough game. In my mind, I appreciate defense and not giving up, but nothing to the extent that people on that forum push for. I guess the way I think of it, if I were in a situation where I had to resort to protecting myself and I didn't stop until I knew I was safe, I'd call that game honestly. I don't see a need for a dog to be any more "game" than that.

So I tend to disregard the whole "game vs. gamebred" thing. 

I think I know which forum specifically you're talking about. Mixed bag of members. Some seem to stay, pretty safe to say, on the legal side. Others leave questionable comments on news posts about fighting rings busted. I stay away from there. I have my suspicions and it does make me uncomfortable.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> i just cant wrap my head around why you would deliberately breed a dog aggressive dog, especially if youre going to use it with other dogs in hunting. i just... why???


They are animal aggressive... Not limited to dogs... And they could not and would not do their job if they were not..... And they do not bother the other dogs. They are kept on leash until the hog is bayed.... At that point they ignore the other dogs.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Melle said:


> Here's the tricky thing about game: is that for dogmen, it referred specifically to situations of adversity in a fight.
> 
> To be honest, I admire never-cry-uncle but I'm not much into "if the dog backs out because it has a broken leg it's not game" thing. I don't really like that. When the topic rises on the more hard-core of those forums (one I tend to stray from) I'm on the fence. To me, if Nina were to defend herself against another animal if she *needed* to is enough game. In my mind, I appreciate defense and not giving up, but nothing to the extent that people on that forum push for. I guess the way I think of it, if I were in a situation where I had to resort to protecting myself and I didn't stop until I knew I was safe, I'd call that game honestly. I don't see a need for a dog to be any more "game" than that.
> 
> ...


Pretty much in agreement. Dogmen took gameness to an extreme. What they considered a game APBT was a dog that would continue to scratch until the very end and not go hide in the corner. It wasn't even about being able to kill another dog, hardest bite, or anything like that. The "gamest" dog in a fight could lose. So, a dog dragging itself across the pit with out it's back legs functioning and half its jaw missing and getting itself killed would have been more game then a good fighter who took down it's opponent in one bite. Seriously, how is that important in this day in age? What proof is there that a dog without any natural normal reaction to pain and the "fight or flight" response makes it a better APBT than a dog that can take down boar, pull a van, etc. Honestly, I'm not looking for a dog that's too stupid to realize that it's going to get itself killed. That's not courageous or admirable, it's idiotic and unnatural.

ETA: oh and there are definitely people on those forums that fight their dogs. Even the people that don't fight support them because they think it's the only way to preserve the gameness of the APBT. I've even read people talking about how gameness in the APBT is what makes them so good with humans and kids because of game dogs not being aggressive (dog or human) and more stable. Um, yeah... In pretty sure there is a news article available online of one of Colby's best fighting dogs killing his nephew.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Pretty much in agreement. Dogmen took gameness to an extreme. What they considered a game APBT was a dog that would continue to scratch until the very end and not go hide in the corner. It wasn't even about being able to kill another dog, hardest bite, or anything like that. The "gamest" dog in a fight could lose. So, a dog dragging itself across the pit with out it's back legs functioning and half its jaw missing and getting itself killed would have been more game then a good fighter who took down it's opponent in one bite. Seriously, how is that important in this day in age? What proof is there that a dog without any natural normal reaction to pain and the "fight or flight" response makes it a better APBT than a dog that can take down boar, pull a van, etc. Honestly, I'm not looking for a dog that's too stupid to realize that it's going to get itself killed. That's not courageous or admirable, it's idiotic and unnatural.


Exactly. And the thing is, that kind of game, "dead game," is/was viewed as the best. Now, usually we (generally/iguratively speaking) want to continue favorable traits in subsequent generations of our dogs. But how is a trait that gets a dog killed favorable...especially when the dog with that "best trait" gets killed in the pit? It wouldn't get passed on at all! It doesn't make sense.

I know this thread is about DA and not dogfighting but that just got stuck in my head.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

We can all dance around the meaning of gameness, possible hidden meanings, etc...

But to experience it is something different. 

Feral hogs come in all colors shapes and sizes. Most are not a big deal. and a good many, you could catch without a catch dog. I have done it. More than once.....

But when you wade into chest high palmettos, briars, Ti ti. etc. And finding your 45 dog latched to to the side of a 250# boar with three inch tusks and two inch whetters.... And you have to either secure or dispatch the hog.... The brush is so thick and nasty you cannot run three feet without tripping. And if you could run if the hog gets free, it could run you down anyway. If the hog gets loose, and comes after you, he is going to open you up. You also have a strike dog and anywhere from two to five bay dogs in the same thicket.. Dogs you have spent blood sweat, tears and cash developing them into the pack that they are, could get torn apart as well. The hog is so tall that if he stands up and raises his head, your dogs rear feet are barely on the ground...


So gameness... Knowing... That your catch dog, no matter what.... Is NOT going to let go of the hog. No matter how many times he gets driven into the ground, rubbed against a tree, drug the the briars or sawgrass.... He is just not going to let go.... That is gamenesss....


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> They are animal aggressive... Not limited to dogs... And they could not and would not do their job if they were not..... And they do not bother the other dogs. They are kept on leash until the hog is bayed.... At that point they ignore the other dogs.


and yet you can have other breeds that aren't DA that are aggressive enough to hunt. funny that.


----------



## Kyndall54 (Apr 26, 2013)

Kayota said:


> and yet you can have other breeds that aren't DA that are aggressive enough to hunt. funny that.


I agree. There are boar hunting dogs that work in packs and are not da. Weren't dogos specifically bred for this?


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Melle said:


> I most likely frequent those APBT forums being referenced.
> 
> 
> What I've seen that comes remotely close is discussion of how the key trait most fanciers love the breed, being game, will most likely die out because there is no way to find out if a dog possesses that trait through and through..


Nah, humans being like they are -- I dont think dog fighting is going away anytime soon (sadly, its too cruel to contemplate)....


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

BernerMax said:


> Nah, humans being like they are -- I dont think dog fighting is going away anytime soon (sadly, its too cruel to contemplate)....


Which makes one wonder; if you bought an APBT from 'gamebred' lines specifically because you want an APBT that has that 'gameness' quality you love in the breed... would you indirectly be supporting dog fighting?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> How can they love the trait if there's no way to know if the dog possesses it?
> 
> From what I've seen I think a lot of them would fight dogs if it were legal (and in fact may do so without admitting it somewhere that could be seen). The underlying current of regret over inconvenient laws is pretty strong.


They can admire the trait in the dogs that created the breed they have now? I admire game dogs, but i would never ever be able to fight my dogs EVER legal or not, and i know a ton of people who feel the same way as me.

I am sure if some people looked at some of the drawings i did, they might say the same thing about me but it is simply untrue


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> Because you can pretend your dog has that trait?


I don't know a single person even hog hunters who refers to their dogs as anything but being from game lines UNLESS they live in another country


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Avie said:


> Which makes one wonder; if you bought an APBT from 'gamebred' lines specifically because you want an APBT that has that 'gameness' quality you love in the breed... would you indirectly be supporting dog fighting?


LOL NO because game LINES doesn't equal GAME DOG, come on people 90% of the dogs at ADBA shows barely have a scratch on them.. And the ones that do got hurt in accidents. Some of the people i know with game line dogs have dogs CUDDLING on the couch with other dogs.. Game line doesn't automatically equal dog aggressive, and certainly doesn't mean you are supporting dog fighting get real. A lot of the dogs aren't even HIGHLY da, are some? Yes but i know a decent bit of dogs that are good with dogs in the house, or decent with dogs the opposite sex at least for awhile things can always go sour.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm not at home in those terms, no need to jump on me. I meant if you bought a puppy from 'proven' dogs.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> LOL NO because game LINES doesn't equal GAME DOG, come on people 90% of the dogs at ADBA shows barely have a scratch on them.. And the ones that do got hurt in accidents. Some of the people i know with game line dogs have dogs CUDDLING on the couch with other dogs.. Game line doesn't automatically equal dog aggressive, and certainly doesn't mean you are supporting dog fighting get real. A lot of the dogs aren't even HIGHLY da, are some? Yes but i know a decent bit of dogs that are good with dogs in the house, or decent with dogs the opposite sex at least for awhile things can always go sour.


I used to look at Cane Corso sites/ breeder web pages alot-- and somehow stumbled upon a Pit Bull site, and well, thats not what that breeder (too long ago to specify) would have you think...
the brags on DA and gameness really did make me wonder who he was selling to and how they tested their dogs.....
but it was just advertizing right?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

BernerMax said:


> I used to look at Cane Corso sites/ breeder web pages alot-- and somehow stumbled upon a Pit Bull site, and well, thats not what that breeder (too long ago to specify) would have you think...
> the brags on DA and gameness really did make me wonder who he was selling to and how they tested their dogs.....
> but it was just advertizing right?


 I can't speak on all breeders, i have seen some breeders of 'game line' dogs that i wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole but to make a generalized statement that buying from game line supports dog fighting is just WRONG, most of the people( I know) breeding gameline dogs do not claim their dogs to be 'game'.

These dogs are from OFRN
http://www.southerninfernokennels.com/


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I can't speak on all breeders, i have seen some breeders of 'game line' dogs that i wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole but to make a generalized statement that buying from game line supports dog fighting is just WRONG, most of the people( I know) breeding gameline dogs do not claim their dogs to be 'game'.
> 
> These dogs are from OFRN
> http://www.southerninfernokennels.com/



I love that website ( and love the red nosed pits too, I did not know people were breeding selectively for them)-- and Yes that is the def of gameness that I see is pretty true to this breed- one that can incorporate DA but is not neccessarily only DA.....
And no I did not say that all breeders breeding for gameness are illegally dogfighting-- but ya gots to wonder about the ones that are bragging, and there is no hunting references just alot of metal studs and leather and tough dog stuff, ya got to wonder what kinda gameness they talking about and how they know...( I have that book by that odd guy Carl .... Gladiator Dogs, he is a real enthusiast, and does a chapter on pit bulls)....


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

luv mi pets said:


> I think that through the magic of time dog breeds evolve to a different look. The APBT of today will look different than the APBT of tomorrow. Yesterdays pitbull terriers look similar but different. I was googling images of pitbull history when I came across this picture. Had to laugh because of the thread mentioning JRT and APBT. Isn't that a JRT on the right with all the bully dogs. That JRT must of had enough gameness to be in with that crowd.


Great Pic btw!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> They can admire the trait in the dogs that created the breed they have now? I admire game dogs, but i would never ever be able to fight my dogs EVER legal or not, and i know a ton of people who feel the same way as me.


 Why would you admire gameness if it's _all about fighting_, a cruel and illegal activity? Even if you wouldn't fight YOUR dogs, would you support fighting or glorify it in any way? Although if you're drawing pictures of dog fights (if done in a positive light) you are glorifying it.

I guess some of my ancestors worked in canneries or textile factories when they were kids, maybe that made my line "tough", I don't know. And I can admire the fact that some of those kids were super tough and didn't die or lose limbs. But I'm not going to go around bragging that my kid is so tough that he could work in a cannery, or admire the factory owners for making kids tough, or say it was great when the kids were so tough that they could keep on weaving after losing a hand in the machines. The past was cruel and stupid. Especially to women, children, minorities, and animals (if you were an adult white dude you had it pretty good). No reason to hang on to that kind of thing.

I think I'm beginning to see that BSL is about a lot more than "pit bulls will eat our children".


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> and yet you can have other breeds that aren't DA that are aggressive enough to hunt. funny that.


Aside from the Dogo, there is no modern breed in general terms (there are individual dogs that will, but obtaining one is very hit or miss) that remains an effective boar hunter in the role of a catch dog. 

Additionally... As a catch dog, in general terms, there is no breed that comes close to being nearly as effective as pits. And I have seen them all tried over the years. Including, American Bulldogs, Dogos, Filas, Jadgterriers, Patterdales, Great Danes, Am Staffs, Bull Terriers, Staffie Bulls, Presas, etc. 
But here is the thing..... Someone made the silly notion that Am Staffs are not DA... I have no clue where they got that idea. I have been around Am Staffs my entire life. The lean nearly as heavily towards dog aggression as APBT.... 

And all of the above dogs mentioned above from a working line with the temperament to be an effective catch dog is going to LEAN HEAVILY towards dog aggression. 

And here is what happens......

It is NOT that Pits are tougher, stronger, or somehow magical... The ARE NOT.

In the days before the cut vests no one would have considered the larger breeds. They are too slow and not agile enough. They get all cut up and can be easily killed. And yes I know some of these big breeds were used in Europe and even South America. But boar hunting in those places was a game of the wealthy. And dogs lives were sold cheap. Hog hunting as originated in the South was a working man's blue collar game. They could not afford to be replacing dogs on a regular basis. 

Even with cut vests, the bigger slower dogs lack the agility and stamina. They get hurt or killed sooner or later. 

Pit Bulls from the right lines possess the combination of speed, agility, stamina, tenacity and gameness to do the job and do it well. That it the reason they are the undisputed king when it comes to catch dogs. Bigger is not better in catch dogs. 

Of the other breeds, Dogos, Amstaffs, Jagds, and Patterdales would be the next choices. But again in lines with dogs that can do the job you are not getting away from the DA.... Its like Ice Cream... It all is fattening and sweet. But each flavor tastes a a little different. 

You are not going to get away from DA when it comes to catch dogs.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I personally think they should breed out DA and I think that responsible breeders are doing just that. There is no legal reason to need a dog that is dog aggressive. I also believe that you can still have a dog that is all the other wonderful things that a Pit Bull is, without it being dog aggressive. In an effort to save a breed where thousands of people are fighting to get rid of it altogether, I would think responsible owners and breeders would work to make any change necessary to keep the breed.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

When we refer to breeders, are we talking about UKC dogs or ADBA dogs?

For most ADBA breeders, I think they've just left the breed as is. Not trying to take DA out or necessarily keep it in. UKC might be a different story.

ADBA breeders, good ones, tend to stay out of the spotlight. A lot of times you'd have to go looking around and asking about them and their dogs at an ADBA show as opposed to finding a website for their dogs or anything. The only reputable ADBA-type sites I have found were two, one of them being a retired OFRN breeder.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

^I don't think any breeder can "leave the breed as is". The point of breeding us make a better dog next time round. Bigger, smaller, different ear set, better rear angulation, more game, less drivey, etc, etc. 

Any breeder who is leaving the breed as is isn't doing the breed justice, IMO. There is always room for improvement. Even without meaning to, most breeders change their breed in small ways amongst their lines. Any time a person introduces artificial selection, it changes the game up. Purposeful breeding must have a purpose. Dog must be better than previous dog to be a success. 

I also completely agree with Inga. Like I said earlier, APBT would be far more marketable if they didn't have such strong DA tendencies.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

By "leaving the breed as is" I meant they aren't deliberately trying to remove or add DA to it. The way it seems concerning the ADBA dogs, DA is talked about as just being part of the breed. Some dogs have it or don't have it but when someone comes around asking about how they would do with the breed, responses are usually along the line of "Expect the DA and get a breakstick and responsibly contain the dog." Just kind of being a part of the breed. I guess I mean there seems to be a "Just how things are" attitude.


----------



## prntmkr (Jan 17, 2009)

Apologies if this has already been brought up but ...

Assuming the average APBT owner is not involved 
in hunting feral hogs or fighting dogs, 
of _what possible advantage _is DA in a family pet? 

Why wouldn't breeders, breeding for show/pet, 
and not any kind of work 
(which, I assume, is the overwhelming majority of dogs)
*not* want to breed out DA in their lines?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Why would you admire gameness if it's _all about fighting_, a cruel and illegal activity? Even if you wouldn't fight YOUR dogs, would you support fighting or glorify it in any way? Although if you're drawing pictures of dog fights (if done in a positive light) you are glorifying ".


I admire gameness because being game is going against the strongest instinct which is self preservation.its about more than just fighting its about the heart of the dog. First of all none of the pictures I have drawn were of fights just the individual dogs used in them.Even if I did though, what is the difference between drawing a dog fight for historical purposes or just because snarling dogs are FUN to draw, than drawing bull baiting, or a gladiator?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

prntmkr said:


> Apologies if this has already been brought up but ...
> 
> Assuming the average APBT owner is not involved
> in hunting feral hogs or fighting dogs,
> ...


most APBT breeders I know breed for sport and think breeding away from da will change the breeds drive


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> . Someone made the silly notion that Am Staffs are not DA... I have no clue where they got that idea. I have been around Am Staffs my entire life. The lean nearly as heavily towards dog aggression as APBT....


 Are you talking about me? I never said they were NOT da, but Amstaffs were created because the AKC wanted to separate the dogs from dog fighting and breed away from DA, I know more dog friendly Amstaffs than APBTS, and the Amstaff breeders i do know try to breed away from DA.. BUT ALL bully breeds are prone to DA even Ambullies, and ALL breeds of dogs can have individuals who are DA obviously


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Are you talking about me? I never said they were NOT da, but Amstaffs were created because the AKC wanted to separate the dogs from dog fighting and breed away from DA, I know more dog friendly Amstaffs than APBTS, and the Amstaff breeders i do know try to breed away from DA.. BUT ALL bully breeds are prone to DA even Ambullies, and ALL breeds of dogs can have individuals who are DA obviously


I think he was referring to the member who suggested that I look into AmStaffs if I like pits but not the DA, not you


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

taquitos said:


> I think he was referring to the member who suggested that I look into AmStaffs if I like pits but not the DA, not you


I suggested that as well, because amstaffs were created trying to get away from the fighting roots of the APBT, and while yes a lot of them ARE da, there are more Amstaff breeders breeding away from DA than there are APBT breeders, i have stumbled across a decent number of breeders who say on their sites they are trying to breed away from DA..

But i wasn't trying to say there is ZERO Da in the breed,and i could see how i may have given that impression, with ALL bully breeds their is a higher chance for DA, and it will take some time before those looking to breed it out will be succesful


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Find me a 30lb Amstaff and I'll get it. Otherwise, I'm sticking with an APBT or Staffy. Those dogs are too big. Size and looks are a huge reason why I like the so called "game bred" APBT.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

BernerMax said:


> Great Pic btw!


And as DA as these dogs must have been, i dont see them tearing at each other. You have to train and know how to handle your dog, PERIOD.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

luv mi pets said:


> I think that through the magic of time dog breeds evolve to a different look. The APBT of today will look different than the APBT of tomorrow. Yesterdays pitbull terriers look similar but different. I was googling images of pitbull history when I came across this picture. Had to laugh because of the thread mentioning JRT and APBT. Isn't that a JRT on the right with all the bully dogs. That JRT must of had enough gameness to be in with that crowd.


Perfect image of DA dogs who are under control and not showing any DA towards other dogs who are also DA. If you're going to own an APBT you have to put in the time and work to train and handle them, NOT change the breed characteristics to suit your laziness or lack of knowledge.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I admire gameness because being game is going against the strongest instinct which is self preservation.its about more than just fighting its about the heart of the dog. First of all none of the pictures I have drawn were of fights just the individual dogs used in them.Even if I did though, what is the difference between drawing a dog fight for historical purposes or just because snarling dogs are FUN to draw, than drawing bull baiting, or a gladiator?


Why is going against the instinct of self preservation admirable or considered "heart"? It is seriously counter to natural selection and would get them killed pretty quick in the wild. Most animals who keep fighting a losing battle when given the chance to back out would be considered stupid. They were strongly selectively bred to be that way, it's no more "heart of the dog" than being brown or spotty or whatever else people breed for.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

From what I've read, and this could be complete BS since Dogmen of the past weren't really out in the open about their dogs, but some people who knew (or were involved) in fighting dogs have written about how the best and "most game" dogs were NOT aggressive at all. Their temperament was very calm and collected and they weren't likely to be extremely DA or start a fight (although they would finish it). Allegedly, all the temperament issues in pit bulls cropped up in later years when popularity skyrocketed and idiots who weren't "real Dogmen" but just thugs (or whatever you want to refer to them as) started breeding for aggressive dogs because they didn't really know what the heck they were doing and how to breed a real good fighting dog.

ETA: this is also, allegedly, what led to HA in pit bulls because "real Dogmen" would have culled an aggressive dog because it would have been impossible for them to handle their dogs in the pit. (That's not completely true but it may have been the case for the majority of Dogmen in the past.)


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Find me a 30lb Amstaff and I'll get it. Otherwise, I'm sticking with an APBT or Staffy. Those dogs are too big. Size and looks are a huge reason why I like the so called "game bred" APBT.


i don't think this dog is 30lbs but it's a purebred Amstaff.. While lots of Amstaffs are more bulky, not ALL amstaffs are overdone, just most breeders/owners do not keep them at a conditioned weight


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Why is going against the instinct of self preservation admirable or considered "heart"? It is seriously counter to natural selection and would get them killed pretty quick in the wild. Most animals who keep fighting a losing battle when given the chance to back out would be considered stupid. *They were strongly selectively bred to be that way, it's no more "heart of the dog" than being brown or spotty or whatever else people breed for.*


MOST APBTS were not game, A LOT of GREAT fighting dogs were not game, it's partial breeding, partial training, but ultimately it comes down to the heart in the INDIVIDUAL dog


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

This is the kennel that produced the conditioned Amstaff i posted earlier, as you can see the dogs are "thick" but that doesn't mean they can't be conditioned similar to an APBT
https://www.facebook.com/elegant.of.cole


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> MOST APBTS were not game, A LOT of GREAT fighting dogs were not game, it's partial breeding, partial training, but ultimately it comes down to the heart in the INDIVIDUAL dog


Then why do you need gameness or da in the breed??


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> Then why do you need gameness or da in the breed??


When did i say i NEEDED gameness in the breed? I think i said i realize gameness is already dead/dying in the breed, i already posted why i am afraid of what would happen when you breed away from DA. How would you go about breeding away from DA without breeding away from animal aggression in general? Also the amount of breedable APBTS is very small, than making it A LOT smaller by eliminating all dogs but the ones that are 'cold' you could end up with a very,very,very small selection of dogs& even when breeding COLD dogs you have to hope that they aren't dogs whose buttons just weren't pushed yet...
The AST has been bred away from DA for a long time now, yet it is still pretty prominent in the breed.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> How would you go about breeding away from DA without breeding away from animal aggression in general?


I don't know, ask the people who breed breeds that are used for hunting but aren't DA.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Well we've been discussing gameness for 12 pages now, obviously it's important to someone. And since you admire gameness, it would make sense to assume that's something you want (if not need) in the breed. Can't speak for anyone else, but that's what I've been getting from your posts.

@Alapaha

I could've missed it in the past 12 pages but why do we know these are highly DA dogs? And true DA really can't be "trained" from my understanding, only managed/properly contained. LOL at people that want to change a breed are lazy. Breeding has always been about what people want...


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

CrimsonAccent said:


> Well we've been discussing gameness for 12 pages now, obviously it's important to someone. And since you admire gameness, it would make sense to assume that's something you want (if not need) in the breed. Can't speak for anyone else, but that's what I've been getting from your posts.
> 
> @Alapaha
> 
> I could've missed it in the past 12 pages but why do we know these are highly DA dogs? And true DA really can't be "trained" from my understanding, only managed/properly contained. LOL at people that want to change a breed are lazy. Breeding has always been about what people want...


 Lol i haven't been trying to discuss gameness, i have been trying to discuss DA it's not really my fault people keep bringing it up,i said "gameness is dead in the breed".. I do not need it in the breed, as I am getting an APBT and the parents of the pup are not game...


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

My ultimate stand is there is no need for DA in the breed - it serves no purpose, rules out good candidates for the breed who end up being incompatible for that fact, and makes it difficult in situations the handler can't control such as loose dogs and the like. The breed could do without DA IMHO.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Just another example of an Amstaff that isn't overdone


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

But we are also debating/discussing the connection between gameness and DA too right? (I'm not sure if that's just another tangent we got on too though lol)


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

CrimsonAccent said:


> But we are also debating/discussing the connection between gameness and DA too right? (I'm not sure if that's just another tangent we got on too though lol)


 it's just a tangent... i didn't want this thread to end up about gameness or dog fighting it's a whole can of worms i didn't really wanna open


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Just another example of an Amstaff that isn't overdone


That dog is GREAT LOOKING. Oh gosh, I want it.


----------



## Alapaha_Lover (Feb 21, 2014)

Melle said:


> My ultimate stand is there is no need for DA in the breed - it serves no purpose, rules out good candidates for the breed who end up being incompatible for that fact, and makes it difficult in situations the handler can't control such as loose dogs and the like. The breed could do without DA IMHO.


A DA dog should not mean that the dog is uncontrollable. APBT's are not a breed for just anyone, and any reputable breeder would tell you that, if your're not capable of handling your down whether it be a DA pitbull or a DA poodle...you shouldnt own it! DA is apart of pitbull history and shouldnt be changed.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Adjecyca1 said:


> it's just a tangent... i didn't want this thread to end up about gameness or dog fighting it's a whole can of worms i didn't really wanna open


I'm not really sure what else you expected posting a thread like this and then getting all worked up while everyone else remained calm, but hey.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> I'm not really sure what else you expected posting a thread like this and then getting all worked up while everyone else remained calm, but hey.


I wasn't worked up AT ALL but i am sure you can tell my emotional state SPOT ON through a computer ;D


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I can tell through the emphasis and style of typing you use, however.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Kayota said:


> I can tell through the emphasis and style of typing you use, however.


Erm you mean when i use caps in a sentence?? If you read any of my posts i do that A LOT, even when i am typing about super happy things ^_^.
I was not worked up, i was debating.. Difference...


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I don't think history is really a good reason to keep something around. I could use the history of America as a good analogy for that. Once upon a time things were a certain way. Now they aren't that way, and there is less trouble because of it or at least moving in the direction.

At least the traits of other breeds have a use. DA in the wrong hands (and there is NO way to say these dogs don't end up in the wrong hands, they do all the time and that's the downfall of the breed and we can't change who gets them) is a disaster. In the right hands, the DA still has no use. It's just there. My cousin's Weims had drive like no other and had no animal aggression whatsoever.

For me, until I see a decent multi-generation attempt, because of the above, I think history is an excuse.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Alapaha_Lover said:


> A DA dog should not mean that the dog is uncontrollable. APBT's are not a breed for just anyone, and any reputable breeder would tell you that, if your're not capable of handling your down whether it be a DA pitbull or a DA poodle...you shouldnt own it! *DA is apart of pitbull history and shouldnt be changed.*


Why not? What makes dog history so sacred that nothing can be changed? Even though all selective animal breeding is about making changes according to what the breeder wants? Would you rather the breed go extinct rather than change? 

I don't think you can disconnect DA from dogfighting. There's no reason someone would want a dog to be DA if not for fighting. As I said, I recognize the perils of breeding away from a trait too quickly, but as a general goal it seems desirable.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Why not? What makes dog history so sacred that nothing can be changed? Even though all selective animal breeding is about making changes according to what the breeder wants? Would you rather the breed go extinct rather than change?
> 
> I don't think you can disconnect DA from dogfighting. There's no reason someone would want a dog to be DA if not for fighting. As I said, I recognize the perils of breeding away from a trait too quickly, but as a general goal it seems desirable.


Well said, willowy.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> MOST APBTS were not game, A LOT of GREAT fighting dogs were not game, it's partial breeding, partial training, but ultimately it comes down to the heart in the INDIVIDUAL dog


I had a Lab who would retrieve until she died. Literally---she got heat stroke several times before we figured out when to make her stop. She once ripped half her foot pad off while playing fetch and showed no pain, I only figured it out when I saw blood. I think this is the Lab version of "game". I thought it was sad that she was so "dumb" as to not know how to save her own life. Now I realize this is sort of the point of selective breeding---to suppress natural instincts as much as possible so that the dog will even die to serve human purposes. We could call it "heart" if you like but I still think it's sad.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I had a Lab who would retrieve until she died. Literally---she got heat stroke several times before we figured out when to make her stop. *She once ripped half her foot pad off while playing fetch and showed no pain, I only figured it out when I saw blood. *I think this is the Lab version of "game". I thought it was sad that she was so "dumb" as to not know how to save her own life. Now I realize this is sort of the point of selective breeding---to suppress natural instincts as much as possible so that the dog will even die to serve human purposes. We could call it "heart" if you like but I still think it's sad.


 That isn't necessarily a human bred trait or "stupid" at all, if an animal is injured in the wild it is better off not showing that injury as it will be viewed as a sign of weakness from other animals..

I don't think it's sad.. Different strokes for different folks i guess.. That's basically what this thread has come down to


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> That isn't necessarily a human bred trait ot "stupid" at all, if an animal is injured in the wild it is better off not showing that injury as it will be viewed as a sign of weakness from other animals..


 Yes, I know that; cats are very difficult to gauge pain on for that reason. But to keep on running at top speed while her foot falls apart? To run and run until she collapsed from overexertion? I do not find that admirable.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

The others have said it spot on. I'm willing to here arguments for preserving DA, but "cause it's history!! change is bad!!" is bull. History is never a justification for anything. 

I mean, if history is a valid reason for something, why not bring back slavery, it's a part of US history*. 

I'd be more interested in seeing how DA may or may not be tied into drive/tenacity.

I think breeders should at least breed away from intense DA as I'd think there are very few suitable homes for dogs of that temperment.

*not that slavery has been eradicated from the world.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I never said anything about 'preserving history', more that i am frightened breeding away from DA will change the dogs in other ways..


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

CrimsonAccent said:


> The others have said it spot on. I'm willing to here arguments for preserving DA, but "cause it's history!! change is bad!!" is bull. History is never a justification for anything.
> 
> I mean, if history is a valid reason for something, why not bring back slavery, it's a part of US history*.
> 
> ...


Pretty much my thinking. Although I have my theory from my AP Bio class that many behavioral genes are likely linked, as in are rarely separated during meiosis of reproduction, and seeing as psychology of an animal and its behavior are often spread through hundreds of genes, I'd like to see breed-specific evidence.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Adjecyca1 I think most people were replying to Apahala on the history thing, at least I was. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I haven't read this whole thread, bit my opinion is generally, who cares what people breed there "dog" for, but changing a breeds direction, is changing the breed, and you essentially have something totally different. if you breed the gameness out of APBT's that's fine, but your not breeding APBT's. if your breeding BCs for anything other then herding, that's fine, but your not breeding Border Collies etc.. and frankly pretending you are does a major disservice to "outside" people who want or need those breeds only to find the dogs are not what they wanted or needed(though real versions of those breeds would have been perfect) but now those people think said breed is useless just because they didn't know how to look for the "right" version of the breed.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Miss Bugs said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, bit my opinion is generally, who cares what people breed there "dog" for, but changing a breeds direction, is changing the breed, and you essentially have something totally different. if you breed the gameness out of APBT's that's fine, but your not breeding APBT's. if your breeding BCs for anything other then herding, that's fine, but your not breeding Border Collies etc.. and frankly pretending you are does a major disservice to "outside" people who want or need those breeds only to find the dogs are not what they wanted or needed(though real versions of those breeds would have been perfect) but now those people think said breed is useless just because they didn't know how to look for the "right" version of the breed.


Oh, baloney. As long as the dogs are needed for the work, people will continue to breed them for work. Every breeder doing so doesn't dilute, lessen, or weaken the breed. It does not make them a separate breed, either.

People breed for what they want and need. This means for work AND for a stable, suitable, pet.


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Just another example of an Amstaff that isn't overdone


I love that Amstaff, love.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Miss Bugs said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, bit my opinion is generally, who cares what people breed there "dog" for, but changing a breeds direction, is changing the breed, and you essentially have something totally different. if you breed the gameness out of APBT's that's fine, but your not breeding APBT's. if your breeding BCs for anything other then herding, that's fine, but your not breeding Border Collies etc.. and frankly pretending you are does a major disservice to "outside" people who want or need those breeds only to find the dogs are not what they wanted or needed(though real versions of those breeds would have been perfect) but now those people think said breed is useless just because they didn't know how to look for the "right" version of the breed.


 You already have to look for certain lines for what you specifically want. You can't just buy any Border Collie and put it on sheep or flyball. . .you have to go for the flyball lines or the sheep lines. Doesn't make one less of a BC than the other.

Also, you still have to look for the right individual for what you want. Can't just get any old BC and work sheep. Somebody who wants a dog for a specific purpose needs to really know what that breeder is producing and what to look for in an individual. If they don't know to do that, they probably don't need a dog for a specific purpose .


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> Oh, baloney. As long as the dogs are needed for the work, people will continue to breed them for work. Every breeder doing so doesn't dilute, lessen, or weaken the breed. It does not make them a separate breed, either.


who said they wouldn't?  breeding for something specific is what created the breeds as they are, breeding for something else, changes those breeds on a genetic level(this is a FACT, it was proven entirely by accident that the Australian "border collie" is genetically as distinct from the working border collie as a totally different breed) this is what happens when you breed for different traits, its genetic drift and you end up with something different. people breeding for other things are not changing the breed or diluting the breed, they are just breeding something else. the problem with calling them the same thing, is that not everybody is as "in touch" as they should be, and have no idea that an "insert breed here" is not always an "insert breed here". sure it seems obvious to us, but to the general population, it is NOT obvious.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I had a Lab who would retrieve until she died. Literally---she got heat stroke several times before we figured out when to make her stop. She once ripped half her foot pad off while playing fetch and showed no pain, I only figured it out when I saw blood. I think this is the Lab version of "game". I thought it was sad that she was so "dumb" as to not know how to save her own life. Now I realize this is sort of the point of selective breeding---to suppress natural instincts as much as possible so that the dog will even die to serve human purposes. We could call it "heart" if you like but I still think it's sad.


Are you sure you're a dog person? I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, but it seems as though you don't like a dog to have any kind of biddability or drive at all :/.

Though I don't understand this kind of attitude since dogs evolved to serve man


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> Doesn't make one less of a BC than the other.


yes it does.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Are you sure you're a dog person? I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, but it seems as though you don't like a dog to have any kind of biddability or drive at all :/.
> 
> Though I don't understand this kind of attitude since dogs evolved to serve man


 I'm not a dog person. I would never want to be called that because I don't really like the type of the majority of people who define themselves as such . I like dogs. No, I love dogs, each one individually. But not a dog person, no.

I very much enjoy biddability in a dog. I don't need a dog to have drive. 

I do not think a hunter would want a dog who didn't at least stop to lick her injured foot so he could wrap it and keep it from being more badly injured. If she had been a working dog she would have been out the rest of that season. I don't think a dog who didn't have the sense to stop and rest before she collapsed would be much use to a hunter either. 

Specific breeds of dogs were developed by humans to serve specific purposes. I don't believe dogs in general only exist to serve humans---the feral dogs in many places do serve a purpose living near humans but do not do specific things to serve humans.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Miss Bugs said:


> yes it does.


I imagine it all comes down to how you define a dog breed. If you define it by what the dog does, I guess so. But to me, if a dog comes from a long line of Border Collies, that makes it a Border Collie regardless of what the dog does.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

Saying a dog isn't of a certain breed based on a behavioral trait is pretty...silly IMO. I don't fulfill the behavior stereotypes of my race. Last time I checked, I'm still of my race, and still a human being. Same genotype.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Miss Bugs said:


> yes it does.


I guess if a person don't like or aren't into working dogs then they just wouldn't understand why a BC that doesn't herd, or a beagle who doesn't have a nose or a lab who doesn't retrieve. Looks alone don't make a lab a lab, a beagle a beagle, or a BC a BC ... It's their TEMPERAMENT and TYPE as well


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The BC thing.... I get both sides. I really do. If BCs have always been defined by their ability to do stockwork then breeding away from that is breeding something different. On the other hand if all the pedigree is BCs then what is the dog 8 generations away from a working dog if it's not a BC? 

I was around a show line and working line dog this morning. They just... are so different. Movement. Build. Behavior. It's amazing. 

I actually quite like both types on an individual dog level. I think they're both very fun dogs. But to me the two look and act just as similar to each other as if you put a working BC up next to a show aussie. I seriously doubt non dog people would ever pick those two individuals as the same breed. (One slate merle, square, short, very fluffy, soft expression, BOUNCY, friendly, upright, and happy and all over the place hyper. The other a smooth ticked black and white dog who is quiet, calm, reserved, lanky, keen, and intense and moves like a coyote...) I get why people who are involved in one or the other look at the other type and don't see the same dog.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I imagine it all comes down to how you define a dog breed. If you define it by what the dog does, I guess so. But to me, if a dog comes from a long line of Border Collies, that makes it a Border Collie regardless of what the dog does.


what the dog DOES doesn't come into play at all. its what the dog was BRED for that matters. if a dog comes from a long line of border collies, of coarse its a border collie no matter what it does. if the dog comes from a long line of sporter collies or barbie collies then they are sporter collies or barbie collies no matter what they do.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I guess if a person don't like or aren't into working dogs then they just wouldn't understand why a BC that doesn't herd, or a beagle who doesn't have a nose or a lab who doesn't retrieve. Looks alone don't make a lab a lab, a beagle a beagle, or a BC a BC ... It's their TEMPERAMENT and TYPE as well


And they're worthless if they don't do what their historical function is, right? THAT is why I don't like "dog people" (the majority of people who define themselves as such) because I don't think they like/love/care about the individual dogs. They care about "the breed" or the work the dog does, and if the dog doesn't look or act right, pssht, its life is worthless. I can't support that.

Like the fighting dog thing. First, anyone who enjoys watching animals rip each other to shreds is a sicko sadist. Second, anyone who thinks a dying, ripped-to-shreds dog struggling to keep fighting is a good thing is just kind of compounding the sicko sadism. That's a horrible mental picture that has just put me in a bad mood for the rest of the day .


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Gameness is not a willingness to fight nor is it DA, but rather the tenacity and heart to see things through. They CAN still be bred for gameness, but different methods need to be used to evaluate and gain insight into how game a dog is. Some believe it can only be determined by fighting. I think there are other ways to gain insight into a dogs potential gameness. This sentiment has even been expressed by members of the Colby family, including the late Louis Colby.

To quote Melle, Gameness IS that "spit fire and never-cry-uncle attitude", not DA and not just a willingness to fight. And fighting or being willing to fight wouldn't necessarily mean a dog was game. Nor did it necessarily mean a dog was DA. Quite a few Colby dogs were noted as being brutal in the pit, but tolerant dogs in multi-dog homes outside of it. 

DA is ONE trait, with careful selection for other traits I see no reason not to breed against it. But I would not think it should be done at the expense of other traits. If you have a very nice, tolerant and dog friendly bitch and you have two equally nice males but one is DA and has a lot of DA in the line and the other is more tempered... I'd think it would be a better choice to go with the latter, but not necessarily an irresponsible choice to go with the former.

I do think it would be irresponsible to fail to breed for other traits such as gameness, eagerness to please, extreme tolerance with people, high bite thresholds, prey drive, proper type, ect. A breeding can be done with gameness in mind, even if it can't be proven or put on display by traditional means. 

DA though... Considering what the breed faces today, it is one breed trait I would not mourn the loss of. If someone were breeding DA dogs just to say they're game... They're misunderstanding what Game is. 

To quote Louis B. Colby:

"I understand the concept of gameness, and I, like most people, admire it. But I do not confine my definition of gameness to a dog's ability to beat up another dog; I define it as willingness to complete a task no matter how tired, discouraged or hurt it is. To say that a gamecock or Pit Bull "enjoys" fighting is to blind yourself to the fact that fighting is painful and sressful and not designed to be enjoyed... But mankind admires the fighter (more specifically the winner) and, admittedly, there is not much to admire about a quitter. And that is what draws people to the game animals. Some of the greatest thrills of my life have included watching my little colby bitch out-pull larger Huskies at weight pulls, or Annette Cheeks' outstanding red-nosed bitch being the only dog (let alone a little bitch) to knock down the "bad guy" at the Schutzhund Nationals; something the big male Rottweilers, Malinois and German Shepherds couldn't do. The Pit Bull stands alone as a dog breed - its heart stands out whatever the task it is asked to do. And that is gameness, and that is what makes the breed unique."


----------



## beretw (Sep 25, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> Gameness is not a willingness to fight nor is it DA, but rather the tenacity and heart to see things through. They CAN still be bred for gameness, but different methods need to be used to evaluate and gain insight into how game a dog is. Some believe it can only be determined by fighting. I think there are other ways to gain insight into a dogs potential gameness. This sentiment has even been expressed by members of the Colby family, including the late Louis Colby.
> 
> To quote Melle, Gameness IS that "spit fire and never-cry-uncle attitude", not DA and not just a willingness to fight. And fighting or being willing to fight wouldn't necessarily mean a dog was game. Nor did it necessarily mean a dog was DA. Quite a few Colby dogs were noted as being brutal in the pit, but tolerant dogs in multi-dog homes outside of it.
> 
> ...



Great, great post.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> And they're worthless if they don't do what their historical function is, right? THAT is why I don't like "dog people" (the majority of people who define themselves as such) because I don't think they like/love/care about the individual dogs. They care about "the breed" or the work the dog does, and if the dog doesn't look or act right, pssht, its life is worthless. I can't support that.


I have not seen that at all. Most 'dog people' I know in real life adore their dogs first and foremost for being their dogs and do sports on the side as a way to have fun with their dogs. I really really rarely meet someone who seems to have the sport above the dog. Rare enough that I can't really think of anyone from real life that does. Of course some people are competitive and that's ok as long as the dogs come first. 

And of course some people fall in love with a breed (familiar feeling for me). Just because a dog isn't a great example of a breed for whatever reason doesn't mean the dog has less inherent value to the owner. I can look at Mia and tell you where she falls short for her breed. There's a lot there that doesn't fit. She's still the best damn dog I've ever had and probably will ever have. And I fully know we may never title. I'd like to but it doesn't change how much that dog means to me.

And I find most dog people are the same.

I'm at dog events a lot (just got back from one!) and it's mostly just people who plain LOVE DOGS. You can love your dogs and love your breed too.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I have not seen that at all. Most 'dog people' I know in real life adore their dogs first and foremost for being their dogs and do sports on the side as a way to have fun with their dogs. I really really rarely meet someone who seems to have the sport above the dog. Rare enough that I can't really think of anyone from real life that does. Of course some people are competitive and that's ok as long as the dogs come first.
> 
> And of course some people fall in love with a breed (familiar feeling for me). Just because a dog isn't a great example of a breed for whatever reason doesn't mean the dog has less inherent value to the owner. I can look at Mia and tell you where she falls short for her breed. There's a lot there that doesn't fit. She's still the best damn dog I've ever had and probably will ever have. And I fully know we may never title. I'd like to but it doesn't change how much that dog means to me.
> 
> ...



Seconding all this. I deal with sports people (competing one) and breeders and conformation people and yeah. All of this.

Heck, a lot of the conformation and sports people I know do a heck of a lot of rescuing and fostering, and I promise you the border collie in the agility class now who is afraid of EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD and has to be coaxed and lured and gently praised over everything isn't going to tear it up on the course (ever), win any ribbons for the owner, and sure isn't a great example of the breed.

But he's sure as heck loved, praised, encouraged, and adored to pieces.

*ETA* That's not to say I don't see people who take it too seriously. There are people who wrap their egos up in their dogs, push their dogs too hard, get too frustrated, and are jerks but... these people exist in greater numbers in regular old pet owners than in 'dog people' who love their dog AND are passionate about their breed.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Uh, I'll have to agree with Willowy on the breed thing. How can this be a discussion in the first place? A dog is of a certain breed because of its genetics. A puppy from two border collie parents is undeniably a border collie. There's just no way around it. Why should a border collie be called differently because its temperament is not what *some people* consider ideal for a border collie? To someone else it might be a great example of a border collie. Different people, different views. And lets face it: you can thrown away the pedigree and give it another name, be it barbie collie or sporter collie or whatever you will, but you can't change the genetics of a dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Avie said:


> Uh, I'll have to agree with Willowy on the breed thing. How can this be a discussion in the first place? A dog is of a certain breed because of its genetics. A puppy from two border collie parents is undeniably a border collie. There's just no way around it. Why should a border collie be called differently because its temperament is not what *some people* consider ideal for a border collie? To someone else it might be a great example of a border collie. Different people, different views. And lets face it: you can thrown away the pedigree and give it another name, be it barbie collie or sporter collie or whatever you will, but you can't change the genetics of a dog.


The reason border collies are somewhat of an exception in this, and I understand the difference at all, is that border collies, historically, have had no physical standard, and registration is dependent (and therefore what defined the breed) by the way the dog worked. Now, I agree that if its parents are border collies it's a border collie - that's the common sense approach and I see where it comes from. But border collies have this history of being defined not by genetics, not by temperament, not by appearance, not by parents. The dogs that got registered as border collies were border collies because *they could herd like border collies*. If, somehow, I don't know, a german shepherd got into the pen and herded as effectively and with the same methods as the border collies-

They'd register that dog as a border collie.

The ONLY defining traits these dogs had was herding in a particular style, and well. That is IT.

So, yeah, when you look at that in context of 'show border collies that don't herd' and are being defined by a physical type, it's reasonable for people to consider it a different breed all together. It... would be like taking a TYPE (like oh, squirrel dogs to make something up), that covered and enormous range of breeds, mixes, and mixes of mixes, sizes, colors, and were only united by their ability to hunt squirrels. Then applying a breed named after the type (Squirrel dogs) with really rigid structure for physical attributes of SOME of the dogs who did the job but that leaves out the ONLY thing that defined the original - hunting squirrels.

So, yes. I agree that a show bred border collie is, genetically, now a border collie - I think that they've taken the name from something already in existence as something that could barely be called a *breed* anyway.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

At some point though if breeding twoards different goals, wouldn't you end up with two separate breeds? For what it's worth I think with sport bred border collies you still see genetic overlap because I see sport breeders pulling in show line and working line dogs all over the place. So because there's a middle ground there is some exchange of DNA. But hypothetically what IF they never crossed paths ever again. Could you not have a breed that is simply descended from another without being that other breed?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> At some point though if breeding twoards different goals, wouldn't you end up with two separate breeds? For what it's worth I think with sport bred border collies you still see genetic overlap because I see sport breeders pulling in show line and working line dogs all over the place. So because there's a middle ground there is some exchange of DNA. But hypothetically what IF they never crossed paths ever again. Could you not have a breed that is simply descended from another without being that other breed?


I think this depends on the state of the stud books, to be honest. I mean if there's nothing else introduced, ever, and they're all breeding from the same pool? No. I don't think you'd get a separate breed. I think you get a variety - but not a separate breed.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Okay, point taken. Still, border collie people must be aware that their breed is kind of an exception in this in the dog breed world, and so be able to get why many people disagree on temperament being the only defining thing of a border collie, regardless of genetics.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Avie said:


> Okay, point taken. Still, border collie people must be aware that their breed is kind of an exception in this in the dog breed world, and so be able to get why many people disagree on temperament being the only defining thing of a border collie, regardless of genetics.


Well, sure. Except ... I can see why they'd be bitter? They had a group of dogs defined by working ability. People effectively removed the ONLY defining characteristic the dogs had and called them the same thing. That's a bit beyond a dog being defined by meeting the breed stereotype of temperament. That's 'let me steal your breeds name and make the only thing that defines it irrelevant'. That's not the same, IMO, as 'Pits who aren't DA aren't Pits'. It's closing down the SINGLE DEFNING THING that was EVER standard for the dogs. No physical attributes, no other temperament traits, didn't even have to have parents of the same breed, NOTHING. Just "CAN HERD LIKE THIS".


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> I think this depends on the state of the stud books, to be honest. I mean if there's nothing else introduced, ever, and they're all breeding from the same pool? No. I don't think you'd get a separate breed. I think you get a variety - but not a separate breed.


BC studbooks are a mess because AKC is still open as far as Im aware. 

I'm trying to think if there have been breeds that weren't crossed with anything else that have been split into two different breeds. To me if the populations never crossed again and couldn't be bred because of a closed registry and were selected on two very different criteria.... then I'd call that a different breed. Subset of the original breed's genetics but still a new breed.

Are AmStaffs 100% APBT in lineage only bred to a new purpose?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> At some point though if breeding twoards different goals, wouldn't you end up with two separate breeds? For what it's worth I think with sport bred border collies you still see genetic overlap because I see sport breeders pulling in show line and working line dogs all over the place. So because there's a middle ground there is some exchange of DNA. But hypothetically what IF they never crossed paths ever again. Could you not have a breed that is simply descended from another without being that other breed?


Well... yes, I do think so. *looks at my own dog*  

If you look in Xeph's breed variations thread, you'll find some pics I posted on the second page where you'll find they look nothing like GSDs. Temperament-wise they're different as well. They've bred true for decades now, and I do think they're a breed all of their own now. 

With border collies, I was under the impression they intermingled, but I'm now coming to understand there's a pretty large distinction between working bred and sports- and conformation bred border collies?

Edit: and also unregistered (or registered with some local registry of sorts...?) border collies in Great Britain? Where do they come in? Working bred?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> BC studbooks are a mess because AKC is still open as far as Im aware.
> 
> I'm trying to think if there have been breeds that weren't crossed with anything else that have been split into two different breeds. To me if the populations never crossed again and couldn't be bred because of a closed registry and were selected on two very different criteria.... then I'd call that a different breed. Subset of the original breed's genetics but still a new breed.
> 
> Are AmStaffs 100% APBT in lineage only bred to a new purpose?




But. You'd never get to the new breed without crossing back into the same genetic pool. The entire foundations of the breed would be the former breed - entirely. There's no moving away from that. That's how things like toy/standard poodles split, so far as I know. On the other hand maybe the White Shepherd and GSD apply here, though? Like isn't the entire foundation of White Shepherds, with the separate standards and all, purely GSD? 

(Yes, I'm arguing both sides - Because I can see them and am trying to work it out)


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Avie said:


> Well... yes, I do think so. *looks at my own dog*
> 
> If you look in Xeph's breed variations thread, you'll find some pics I posted on the second page where you'll find they look nothing like GSDs. Temperament-wise they're different as well. They've bred true for decades now, and I do think they're a breed all of their own now.
> 
> With border collies, I was under the impression they intermingled, but I'm now coming to understand there's a pretty large distinction between working bred and sports- and conformation bred border collies?


From my experience- you'll see show lines stick to show lines. You'll see sports breeders add in both show lines and working lines. Working breeders don't add in show lines. So it's really in sport breeders that I see the overlap. The show and working stay pretty separate in their breeders' hands but the sport dogs can be either or both. 

Are Swiss Shepherds 100% GSD in foundation?

I would think if you called AmStaffs and pit bulls two separate breeds you could then say any sub population could become a new breed (related breed but still a different breed).


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> On the other hand maybe the White Shepherd and GSD apply here, though? Like isn't the entire foundation of White Shepherds, with the separate standards and all, purely GSD?





Laurelin said:


> Are Swiss Shepherds 100% GSD in foundation?


Yes, that would be true. I wrote an essay on it somewhere... Found it. Made this blog some time ago and never used it again, hahaha. But the single post I made was about white shepherd, their history and why I think they're a breed apart.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

laurelin pretty much said everything on my mind lol


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Gumiho said:


> DA though... Considering what the breed faces today, it is one breed trait I would not mourn the loss of. If someone were breeding DA dogs just to say they're game... They're misunderstanding what Game is.
> 
> The Pit Bull stands alone as a dog breed - its heart stands out whatever the task it is asked to do. And that is gameness, and that is what makes the breed unique."



This. Squared. Thats what I think the Pit bull stands for....


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> The past was cruel and stupid. Especially to women, children, minorities, and animals (if you were an adult white dude you had it pretty good).


Um, even "adult white dudes" could be dirt poor cotton farmers with 8 or 9 children living in a tumbledown shack without electricity or running water. Both of my grandfathers fit this description.

Yes, I know this is totally OT and irrelevant. But your statement bugged the hell out of me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Shep said:


> Um, even "adult white dudes" could be dirt poor cotton farmers with 8 or 9 children living in a tumbledown shack without electricity or running water. Both of my grandfathers fit this description.
> 
> Yes, I know this is totally OT and irrelevant. But your statement bugged the hell out of me.


 Well, yeah. Point being, the past was largely ugly and unpleasant and not particularly worthy of admiration.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Miss Bugs said:


> what the dog DOES doesn't come into play at all. its what the dog was BRED for that matters. if a dog comes from a long line of border collies, of coarse its a border collie no matter what it does. if the dog comes from a long line of sporter collies or barbie collies then they are sporter collies or barbie collies no matter what they do.


Yeah or else we'd have rotties who act like labs and ACDs and so on.

It's not like breeders are breeding dogs to ignore pain or fatigue. Often that is a by product OF drive, the dog is so focused on the task at hand that it doesn't notice that it's injured. It's not like breeders are saying "oh look! That dog is all like ... Hurt and stuff! It ignores pain, let's breed it!" I mean some May but most don't go about it like that. 

If someone don't want a dog that has drive, then that's their choice, but please, don't ruin it for those of us who WANT a drivy dog


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

If you want a drivey dog, good on you. If I want a rag taggy old Barbie collie, I can get what I want too. This just harks back to the thread about breeding this or that behavior out. Blahahahahaha. I know the ACD/GSD/BC/Pitbull/Cairn Terrier/Poodle/Labraschdooldewhatever is supposedly the most magical dog breed in the land and doesn't deserve to be dumbed down for the lay people but if a breed does not bend to the demands of the public, it dies out. Plain and simple. 

Nobody is ruining the breed for YOU when they buy a lower drive dog. As long as you are buying higher drive dogs, higher drive dogs will continue to be bred. Supply and demand, eh?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> If someone don't want a dog that has drive, then that's their choice, but please, don't ruin it for those of us who WANT a drivy dog


By that logic you're ruining it for those of us who WANT a lower drive dog.

This is kindof silly thinking. People who want a different dog will patronize a different breeder/breeding who better fits their priorities. As they should. The existence of one doesn't negate or de-legitimize the existence of the other.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> Gameness is not a willingness to fight nor is it DA, but rather the tenacity and heart to see things through. They CAN still be bred for gameness, but different methods need to be used to evaluate and gain insight into how game a dog is. Some believe it can only be determined by fighting. I think there are other ways to gain insight into a dogs potential gameness. This sentiment has even been expressed by members of the Colby family, including the late Louis Colby.
> 
> To quote Melle, Gameness IS that "spit fire and never-cry-uncle attitude", not DA and not just a willingness to fight. And fighting or being willing to fight wouldn't necessarily mean a dog was game. Nor did it necessarily mean a dog was DA. Quite a few Colby dogs were noted as being brutal in the pit, but tolerant dogs in multi-dog homes outside of it.
> 
> ...


Very well said!


Not much to add but this discussion is very interesting/informative


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

RabbleFox said:


> If you want a drivey dog, good on you. If I want a rag taggy old Barbie collie, I can get what I want too. This just harks back to the thread about breeding this or that behavior out. Blahahahahaha. I know the ACD/GSD/BC/Pitbull/Cairn Terrier/Poodle/Labraschdooldewhatever is supposedly the most magical dog breed in the land and doesn't deserve to be dumbed down for the lay people but if a breed does not bend to the demands of the public, it dies out. Plain and simple.
> 
> Nobody is ruining the breed for YOU when they buy a lower drive dog. As long as you are buying higher drive dogs, higher drive dogs will continue to be bred. Supply and demand, eh?


and again, nobody said you couldn't or that it was affecting the real breed anymore then getting a golden is affecting labs, only that its not the same breed. if you want a dog loks slightly like a border collie and acts nothing like one, suit yourself, they exist, I'm sure there great dogs and you love them very much, their just not border collies, and if the only thing you want is the name not the dog, well... can't help you there.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

I'll be honest... If all you're after is the look of a breed, you don't really like the breed. Its fine to want a low-drive specimen of a working/sporting/hunting breed as a pet. But it is wrong, imo, to actively breed away from correct temperament and working potential. And those who do, frankly, don't actually care for their breed, just the looks. Otherwise they wouldn't be cutting out a huge portion of what makes the breed what it is and breeding / selecting for it. 

And there is more to what makes a breed than JUST family line & looks. Its a combination of correct temperament, working potential, conformation, look and type. Having the same genetic background does NOT mean it will always be or should be regarded as the same breed. The APBT and AST is a prime example of this. The AST was created using ONLY APBT stock. But they are no longer AST, should no longer be regarded as such and it DOES do damage to mix them back into APBT lines or breed APBT stock in the same direction. Just as it does damage to represent non APBT dogs as APBT / Pit Bulls. It muddies the waters and people lose sight of what the breed is / should be. And eventually it will be lost. 

Think of how many people think the English Bulldog is a proper representation of the traditional bulldog and actually wax poetic about its "bull baiting days" and other such non-sense. Or that Samoyeds should have these flowing, silky, feathery plush coats or only come in white. Or that Bassets are these dwarfed little things that can barely walk, let alone run through brush. So on and so forth. There is reason that those that love a breed should be critical of those who don't that are trying to steer the breed in a different direction.


Breeding away from DA, however, doesn't really fall into this. DA is a permissable trait, one accepted so long as the dog is not belligerant or prone to redirect, not a "should be". Such as a Jindo "should be" aloof and MAY be DA. An APBT "should be" friendly and outgoing, and MAY be DA. But both SHOULD display proper temperament and drives as the working / hunting / sporting breeds that they are.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> I'll be honest... If all you're after is the look of a breed, you don't really like the breed. Its fine to want a low-drive specimen of a working/sporting/hunting breed as a pet. But it is wrong, imo, to actively breed away from correct temperament and working potential. And those who do, frankly, don't actually care for their breed, just the looks. Otherwise they wouldn't be cutting out a huge portion of what makes the breed what it is and breeding / selecting for it.
> 
> And there is more to what makes a breed than JUST family line & looks. Its a combination of correct temperament, working potential, conformation, look and type. Having the same genetic background does NOT mean it will always be or should be regarded as the same breed. The APBT and AST is a prime example of this. The AST was created using ONLY APBT stock. But they are no longer AST, should no longer be regarded as such and it DOES do damage to mix them back into APBT lines or breed APBT stock in the same direction. Just as it does damage to represent non APBT dogs as APBT / Pit Bulls. It muddies the waters and people lose sight of what the breed is / should be. And eventually it will be lost.
> 
> Think of how many people think the English Bulldog is a proper representation of the traditional bulldog and actually wax poetic about its "bull baiting days" and other such non-sense. Or that Samoyeds should have these flowing, silky, feathery plush coats or only come in white. Or that Bassets are these dwarfed little things that can barely walk, let alone run through brush. So on and so forth. There is reason that those that love a breed should be critical of those who don't that are trying to steer the breed in a different direction.




It sort of treads a line here, though. Working potential is as small a part in some breeds as appearance is, and in many even smaller. Border Collies? I agree - the definition has always been in the dog's ability to work and intelligence. I don't think that work needs to be herding, and I think that removing those does, in fact, leave you with something else. But when the role the dog performs in society vanishes or becomes illegal (dog fighting), then you breed for the temperament, the looks, and you find a new role for them to fill - and sometimes that role is going to be family pet or sports or hunting hogs. If breeds are defined entirely by their work, and that work falls away or vanishes, then you've got two choices:

Change the function of the breed and work it performs, or lose the breed COMPLETELY. If you want to say in losing the function you've lost the breed anyway, that's okay - I disagree but won't argue - but that just means that you're going to invariably lose the breed as we become more urbanized and fewer people hunt, have livestock, have farms, need guardians or are safe to have guard dogs. You really don't get to have both in this case, and as sad as it makes me for MY working breed -

It's either adapt to being able to live in pet homes and as companions and working sports instead of 'real world' or die out.

And that's without any of those jobs being illegal and cruel.

Pits are being made illegal to own in entire countries. They are FLOODING rescues. There aren't enough homes for them. If breeders are breeding for the future of the breed -even the future EXISTENCE of the breed - then I can very, very easily see them saying that the trait is causing the breed far more harm than it is important in defining the breed. And frankly I don't think DA Is the biggest part of what makes an APBT an APBT. There's just no... purpose in their original function that has a place in today's world. That means their function and the part of the breed being played to probably need to change. If that means they become primarily a pet with lower DA, or they become hog dogs who run better in packs, I don't know, but I think something has to give.

This breed is in trouble. I don't think people trying to do something about that is a bad thing.


----------



## doggiepop (Feb 27, 2014)

can the DA be controlled with training and socializing?


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> hange the function of the breed and work it performs, or lose the breed COMPLETELY. If you want to say in losing the function you've lost the breed anyway, that's okay - I disagree but won't argue - but that just means that you're going to invariably lose the breed as we become more urbanized and fewer people hunt, have livestock, have farms, need guardians or are safe to have guard dogs. You really don't get to have both in this case, and as sad as it makes me for MY working breed -
> 
> It's either adapt to being able to live in pet homes and as companions and working sports instead of 'real world' or die out.


well then the dogs become descendants of that breed..there is no shame in your dog's breed being a descendant of another breed.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

CptJack said:


> It sort of treads a line here, though. Working potential is as small a part in some breeds as appearance is, and in many even smaller. Border Collies? I agree - the definition has always been in the dog's ability to work and intelligence. I don't think that work needs to be herding, and I think that removing those does, in fact, leave you with something else. But when the role the dog performs in society vanishes or becomes illegal (dog fighting), then you breed for the temperament, the looks, and you find a new role for them to fill - and sometimes that role is going to be family pet or sports or hunting hogs. If breeds are defined entirely by their work, and that work falls away or vanishes, then you've got two choices:
> 
> Change the function of the breed and work it performs, or lose the breed COMPLETELY. If you want to say in losing the function you've lost the breed anyway, that's okay - I disagree but won't argue - but that just means that you're going to invariably lose the breed as we become more urbanized and fewer people hunt, have livestock, have farms, need guardians or are safe to have guard dogs. You really don't get to have both in this case, and as sad as it makes me for MY working breed -
> 
> ...


Dog fighting is not the only purpose of the APBT. The APBT was intended to be an all-purpose working & family dog. A well bred APBT, even a game bred one, should be a stable family pet even without breeding out DA and drive. DA is not a key working trait in the breed. Drive is. There is no need to "find a new purpose" for the breed, as their purpose is to excel at whatever they're put to. THAT is their breed purpose. Dog fighting was just something they excelled prolifically at and were used extensively in. Its what made them famous, but its not their sole purpose.

Suggesting otherwise is like saying that K9 service is all that a GSD is intended for. They were not produced strictly for it, were not intended strictly for it, its just their most common use today and a roll they happen to excel in. And you can change the work a dog does, without changing the breed as a whole. APBT are transitioning easily into other working & sporting outlets: Schutzhund, agility, obedience, carting, weight pull, farm dogs, hunting dog, trackers, S&R, Detection, ect. This did not require changing the breed to achieve. But rather seeking out suitable alternatives with which to preserve their working abilities. 

DA is not a correct trait in the breed, its just not an incorrect one. Its fine for that trait to be bred out, I've already made it clear I see no issue with that and would consider it preferable. But NOT at the expense of its working drives and correct temperament and type. You seem to have not read where I've stated twice that DA is not even REMOTELY what makes an APBT an APBT. That I've expressed DA is absolutely expendable. But DA is not necessary to preserve the APBT in its true character and working potential. Not even remotely.

Some breeds have no purpose other than being companions. And thats fine. And people that want a dog of a breed without drive or working potential should look there first.


Similar should be true of other breeds: Even a well bred, true to breed dog should be able to function as a stable pet dog if certain necessities (like exercise and training and breed specific management concerns) are met.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

doggiepop said:


> can the DA be controlled with training and socializing?


Depends on the dog. In most cases yes, consistent training and responsible management can prevent issues arising with a DA dog. But there are some individuals that are down right belligerant or may redirect. These dogs are abnormal even though the breed allows for DA, and should not be bred. Ever.

Crate & Rotate or single-dog homes, controlled social outings, no dog parks or off-leash parks, no doggy day care, extensive obedience, positive reinforcement ect. But one should also prepare for when something does or may happen (first aid kit, break stick, muzzle, no plastic buckle collars, ect)

However, its a trait that isn't required in the breed, so it would not harm the breed to lose it. Its not even a pre-requisite in fighting dogs, its not even a primary working drive. Sort of like how same sex aggression in male Dobermans isn't necessary or even intentional. Its more of a side affect. Not all dogs will be DA (or SSA in Dobes) and the extent of such aggression when present will vary from individual to individual.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

@Missbugs, Have there ever been petitions or something, on an international level maybe, to try and get the name of non-working border collies changed? 

While I get where you're coming from, I think people would have an exceptionally tough time trying to change the name of the descendants of border collies (as you see them, the working dogs) who have been called border collies for so long now. I think lots of people will balk at the name barbie collie.  

With the white Swiss shepherd originally there was a small group of white dogs that did not fit the rest of the breed they belonged to, so they separated and changed into something new. With border collies the largest chunk of the population changed into something new while only a small group of dogs remained true to their roots. I think there lies the issue, which will make it near impossible to make any change happen if you look at it from the working border collie's point of view. 

The option of defecting yourself and simply calling your own group of dogs something else is out of the question, because you want to keep the name border collie and feel that it belongs to your dogs, the *true* border collies. 
At the same time you aren't going to be able to convince the other, huge, population of dogs that are also called border collies to change their name. 

I suppose that's something of a stalemate.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Miss Bugs said:


> well then the dogs become descendants of that breed..there is no shame in your dog's breed being a descendant of another breed.


This. If you change the breed too much, you DO lose the breed entirely. The AST was bred in a separate direction using ONLY APBT stock. It is NOT the same breed anymore no matter how much people want to claim it is. Doesn't matter that it used the same lines, doesn't matter that it still looks / acts *similar*. It is an entirely different breed of dog now. Even if the AKC had permitted use of the name APBT, it would still no longer be the same breed. It has changed in so much more than just name.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> @Missbugs, Have there ever been petitions or something, on an international level maybe, to try and get the name of non-working border collies changed?
> 
> While I get where you're coming from, I think people would have an exceptionally tough time trying to change the name of the descendants of border collies (as you see them, the working dogs) who have been called border collies for so long now. I think lots of people will balk at the name barbie collie.
> 
> With the white Swiss shepherd originally there was a small group of white dogs that did not fit the rest of the breed they belonged to, so they separated and changed into something new. With border collies the largest chunk of the population changed into something new while only a small group of dogs remained true to their roots. I think there lies the issue, which will make it near impossible to make any change happen if you look at it from the working border collie's point of view.


yes, there was actually a legal battle over the name "border collie". 

not sure where in the world you got the idea that the largest group of the BC population changed? the working border collie is far and away the largest population in the breed pretty much everywhere in the world(except Aus/NZ possibly?) the ABCA registers more then 10 times the number of BCs then AKC does per year and in Canada the only legal registry is the working one. both the AKC and the KC only register around 2000 "border collies" a year, the ABCA registers over 20,000 a year and ISDS around 6-7000 per year.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> yes, there was actually a legal battle over the name "border collie".
> 
> not sure where in the world you got the idea that the largest group of the BC population changed? the working border collie is far and away the largest population in the breed pretty much everywhere in the world(except Aus/NZ possibly?) the ABCA registers more then 10 times the number of BCs then AKC does per year and in Canada the only legal registry is the working one. both the AKC and the KC only register around 2000 "border collies" a year, the ABCA registers over 20,000 a year and ISDS around 6-7000 per year.


Woah, okay. Even when taken the FCI border collies into account? I thought the amount of border collies outside of the working dogs (ABCA I guess), so all other registries like the AKC, KC, FCI and beside that the amount of dogs that aren't registered and are bred by pet owners and go to pet homes, was many times larger than the population of working dogs. 

How did the legal battle end? Or is it still ongoing?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Personally I do NOT understand the logic behind someone wanting a dog that does not display the typical temperament, drives, energy levels, etc for the breed. 
Why have a BC that does not have the drive or intensity to herd? A Rottie with no guarding instinct? etc

If you want something else get something else.... Because while a dog that does not possess the qualities of the breed, may genetically be a member of that breed, but there is more to a breed than pure genetics. 

And.... You cannot change one thing without changing other things.... Breeding animals does not work that way.....


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

You know...I'm going to say what I have been thinking here as I watch these epic multi-page circle jerk posts (re: spay/neuter, culling, what makes a breed a breed, training methods, etc.) develop on this message board. What a colossal waste of time and energy. Turn off your computer, quit arguing about stuff that you'll never come to any sort of agreement on, and go spend some time with your dogs or family. Or go do anything that is a positive use of your time instead of getting into a pissing match about what makes a breed a breed that most of you don't even own or want to own. Sheesh....


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Opps I wasnt trying to post answer, but ...this popped up anyways....so here goes (dog has a foot injury so its gonna be a short walk today)....

I guess for me the short version is No you should not intentionally Breed away from DA, (its part of the gameness)-- but no you should neither intentionally breed ONLY FOR IT-- and this coming from someone whose, very first dog (as an adult) was one-- she was a great camping dog, just was up for anything, and loved her people....Once a cop came charging up to us on horseback (partially I think to see her reaction0 and she just lay down at my DH's feet and let hime do the talking.....


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> Woah, okay. Even when taken the FCI border collies into account? I thought the amount of border collies outside of the working dogs (ABCA I guess), so all other registries like the AKC, KC, FCI and beside that the amount of dogs that aren't registered and are bred by pet owners and go to pet homes, was many times larger than the population of working dogs.
> 
> How did the legal battle end? Or is it still ongoing?


all inclusive, the working registry's(CBCA, ABCA, ISDS etc..) come out waaaaayyyyyyyy ahead of the collective show BC registry's. the AKC registers so few of the population that they cant even close the studbook, and pet breeding BC's is just not that common.(ie, if I look on my local Kijiji I could find 3-4 litters of registered workings BC puppies, and absolutely no random pet bred ones-lots of random "bred my pet" BC MIXES but absolutely zero purebreds)

as for the legal battle? we lost to AKC's high priced lawyers.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

MrsBoats said:


> You know...I'm going to say what I have been thinking here as I watch these epic multi-page circle jerk posts (re: spay/neuter, culling, what makes a breed a breed, training methods, etc.) develop on this message board. What a colossal waste of time and energy. Turn off your computer, quit arguing about stuff that you'll never come to any sort of agreement on, and go spend some time with your dogs or family. Or go do anything that is a positive use of your time instead of getting into a pissing match about what makes a breed a breed that most of you don't even own or want to own. Sheesh....



People have hobbies. For some of those the odd computer debate about dog issues is actually, and I Know this is weird, _Fun_. It's not a pissing match, no one is getting mad (well I'm not), and the goal isn't agreement. It's intelligent discussion about a topic where people disagree. People would claim having dogs, doing Agility, buying expensive collars, or watching Doctor Who is a waste of time, energy and money. I don't agree. I don't agree with you here, either. There's an intelligent, level headed discussion going on, and that is teh entire point. A consensus is not.

I get that it's not fun for you but, well. Ignore the thread and leave the people who are enjoying themselves to it, maybe?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> all inclusive, the working registry's(CBCA, ABCA, ISDS etc..) come out waaaaayyyyyyyy ahead of the collective show BC registry's. the AKC registers so few of the population that they cant even close the studbook, and pet breeding BC's is just not that common.(ie, if I look on my local Kijiji I could find 3-4 litters of registered workings BC puppies, and absolutely no random pet bred ones-lots of random "bred my pet" BC MIXES but absolutely zero purebreds)
> 
> as for the legal battle? we lost to AKC's high priced lawyers.


Learned something new. And too bad about the lawsuit. I wonder if I'll live to see the day the border collie gets a different name.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

MrsBoats said:


> You know...I'm going to say what I have been thinking here as I watch these epic multi-page circle jerk posts (re: spay/neuter, culling, what makes a breed a breed, training methods, etc.) develop on this message board. What a colossal waste of time and energy. Turn off your computer, quit arguing about stuff that you'll never come to any sort of agreement on, and go spend some time with your dogs or family. Or go do anything that is a positive use of your time instead of getting into a pissing match about what makes a breed a breed that most of you don't even own or want to own. Sheesh....


Amen, honestly. I see it all the time on Tumblr too. it's tiring.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

CptJack said:


> I get that it's not fun for you but, well. Ignore the thread and leave the people who are enjoying themselves to it, maybe?


Nope...that's why you don't see me on here much any more. I have better things to spend my time on (like training my dogs) than debating stuff that at the end of the day doesn't do anything but get people all riled up. Seriously...don't you guys have something better to do than debate about barbie collies vs. sport collies? Does any of this even matter to you especially if you don't even own a border collie. It doesn't to me...honestly. I have seen rotties thrown in here...and I'm not even going to go there. What I am going to say isn't going to change anyone's mind...someone will get all offended by something I say and say I'm preaching that Rottweilers "are magical" blah, blah, blah. Whatever.... So, I'm going to spend my day knitting socks and making bread than get into it with someone on the other end of a keyboard.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I dunno, I'm having fun lol, i LOVE these debates, I try to have them in RL but everyone I meet in RL has the same opinion I do lol


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> Nope...that's why you don't see me on here much any more. I have better things to spend my time on (like training my dogs) than debating stuff that at the end of the day doesn't do anything but get people all riled up. Seriously...don't you guys have something better to do than debate about barbie collies vs. sport collies? Does any of this even matter to you especially if you don't even own a border collie. It doesn't to me...honestly.


Well... To be honest, it's Sunday afternoon and I haven't work. I'm sure I could drum up something to do but this is fun for me. 

I don't own a BC right now but I do like them. And maybe I'll own one? I dunno. 

In short, no. I don't have anything better to do currently.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I find breed history fascinating. And as I'm in talks with a couple BC breeders for Nextdog... BCs interest me a lot. And their history interests me a lot. Trying to understand where their community is coming from- it's very different form the other breeds I've owned. I don't care what people get as their own dogs, I just think it's an interesting concept of when is a breed a breed and when does it change into something else. I've seen shelties go down that road. The modern dogs are virtually nothing like the original working dogs. Is it fair to call them both shelties? I think the modern dogs are simply descendants of the original- and that's okay.

There was actually a discussion recently on the BC forum about changing the working name to working sheepdog. It seems the big hangup there is the name.

I haven't read any of this as an argument, just a discussion. big difference. 

I've been home sick for five days now. So yeah I'm bored. I did go do a bunch of dog stuff yesterday in the 30 degree weather and rain but now it's -5 outside and covered in snow. No agility practice or hiking for us today.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Haha, the HIGH temp today is zero and there's 6 inches of fresh snow. Nope, not going outside. Arguing online is more fun than doing crosswords and I can still type while watching whatever is on the DVR .


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> Haha, the HIGH temp today is zero and there's 6 onches of fresh snow. Nope, not going outside. Arguing online is more fun than doing crosswords and I can still type while watching whatever is on the DVR]


lol ya, we are having an extreme cold snap here(-50's). I ain't going outside, and my dogs have training classes later this afternoon anyway, in the meantime, I am enjoying myself


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well I feel bad for complaining about -5 here this morning. We stood outside for about 2 minutes and poor Summer was shivering and I couldn't feel my fingers. 

Of course I left my car out last night so then I had to go defrost it as much as I could and get it in the garage. 

Last week it was in the 70s. WTF weather.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Well I feel bad for complaining about -5 here this morning. We stood outside for about 2 minutes and poor Summer was shivering and I couldn't feel my fingers.
> 
> Of course I left my car out last night so then I had to go defrost it as much as I could and get it in the garage.
> 
> Last week it was in the 70s. WTF weather.


It's 70ish here now and we were out for a couple of hours this morning doing off leash running and some swimming and water retrieving. It was nice. I don't think we're supposed to keep temps this pleasant, but I sure as heck enjoyed it.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

BernerMax said:


> Opps I wasnt trying to post answer, but ...this popped up anyways....so here goes (dog has a foot injury so its gonna be a short walk today)....
> 
> I guess for me the short version is No you should not intentionally Breed away from DA, (its part of the gameness)-- but no you should neither intentionally breed ONLY FOR IT-- and this coming from someone whose, very first dog (as an adult) was one-- she was a great camping dog, just was up for anything, and loved her people....Once a cop came charging up to us on horseback (partially I think to see her reaction0 and she just lay down at my DH's feet and let hime do the talking.....


Dog Aggression is NOT PART OF GAMENESS. This is one of THE biggest misconceptions in the breed.

Yes, many game dogs are DA. Yes, DA is more commonly / prominantly seen in game lines. But *NO* DA is not part of gameness.

Gameness is a dog's combination of tenacity, determination and heart. Nothing more. Nothing less.
A dog can be a great example of a game dog, without being DA in the least. That INCLUDES fighting dogs.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> Nope...that's why you don't see me on here much any more. I have better things to spend my time on (like training my dogs) than debating stuff that at the end of the day doesn't do anything but get people all riled up. Seriously...don't you guys have something better to do than debate about barbie collies vs. sport collies? Does any of this even matter to you especially if you don't even own a border collie. It doesn't to me...honestly. I have seen rotties thrown in here...and I'm not even going to go there. What I am going to say isn't going to change anyone's mind...someone will get all offended by something I say and say I'm preaching that Rottweilers "are magical" blah, blah, blah. Whatever.... So, I'm going to spend my day knitting socks and making bread than get into it with someone on the other end of a keyboard.


You obviously don't have that much else more than other posters to spend your time on. Because you don't even have a relevant opinion you'd care to contribute to the discussion and yet here your are, starting your own sideline rant.


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

I really haven't said much... But I have read every page, & it's actually interesting.There's so many different opinions, which, for some reason, is entertaining. Plus the BC thing makes me think, because I'm seriously considering getting one.

The weather here is still freezing. We have a Wind Chill Advisory. It isn't that bad without the wind, but when then wind blows it makes going outside a lot worse. It's suppose to be in lower to mid 40's right now. Nope, the high is 11 degrees *sigh*. We haven't had this cold of a winter for about 20 years. 



Laurelin said:


> Well I feel bad for complaining about -5 here this morning. We stood outside for about 2 minutes and poor Summer was shivering and I couldn't feel my fingers.
> 
> Of course I left my car out last night so then I had to go defrost it as much as I could and get it in the garage.
> 
> Last week it was in the 70s. WTF weather.


Thats really werid, & not normal...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

aiw said:


> By that logic you're ruining it for those of us who WANT a lower drive dog.
> 
> This is kindof silly thinking. People who want a different dog will patronize a different breeder/breeding who better fits their priorities. As they should. The existence of one doesn't negate or de-legitimize the existence of the other.


If you want a lower drive dog then there are breeds that are naturally lower drive then a working dog. I for one pride breeds who haven't made the split yet ... Because they SHOULDNT.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> If you want a lower drive dog then there are breeds that are naturally lower drive then a working dog. I for one pride breeds who haven't made the split yet ... Because they SHOULDNT.


The key here is in 'I, for one'. 

You are one. You can pride whatever you want and find it in a dog by giving your money to breeders who breed what you value.

So can everybody else and so WILL everybody else, regardless of what other people think. 

That's how the whole thing works in the end. You vote with your pocket and give your money to keep what you like around - be that a t-shirt, a fast food meal, a rescue organization, a back yard breeder, a puppy mill, or reputable breeders breeding the kid of dog you like and placing value where you place it. 

You want a working dog, you ensure they stay around by giving your money to the people who breed 'em. People who want something else will ensure they can always find it by giving their money to people who breed the traits they value - be that health, appearance, size, color variations, or something else altogether. 

That's how this whole thing works. You pay the people who make what you like, and other people spend their money with people who make what THEY like. 

Though frankly ANYBODY getting into a "MY DOG IS A REAL DOG BECAUSE MY DOG WORKS HARDER/IS HARDER TO OWN/IS MORE SERIOUS AND NOT LIKE THOSE OTHER DOGS WHO AREN"T REALLY DOGS" is kind of an ass (I am not saying this is what you are doing but people who do? They are. They also have fragile egos.)


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

those interested in the BC thing should read "the border wars" by Donald McCaig, its a great (and balanced) book about what happened with AKC and the Border Collie. the BC is one of the few breeds in which the original working dog is far more common then its show/pet counterparts.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Personally I do NOT understand the logic behind someone wanting a dog that does not display the typical temperament, drives, energy levels, etc for the breed.
> Why have a BC that does not have the drive or intensity to herd? A Rottie with no guarding instinct? etc
> 
> If you want something else get something else.... Because while a dog that does not possess the qualities of the breed, may genetically be a member of that breed, but there is more to a breed than pure genetics.
> ...


THIS

Finally someone who understands why this is bad 

I don't say "my dog is more of a dog" I SAY ... "If you can't handle the dog as it comes, then that breed isn't for you, why is that so bad? There are enough sport / working homes to keep the working breeds alive.

@Mrs. Boats I miss you  I wish you came around more often


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Shep said:


> Um, even "adult white dudes" could be dirt poor cotton farmers with 8 or 9 children living in a tumbledown shack without electricity or running water. Both of my grandfathers fit this description.
> 
> Yes, I know this is totally OT and irrelevant. But your statement bugged the hell out of me.


Sorry, but if you ever take a diversity type class in college that is pretty much what it comes down to. White males were at "the top" throughout history. Nothing to be offended about that. They still make more money than minorities and women, on average, till this day. It's an absolute fact. OT & irrelevant but that just bugged me .

ETA: I don't know were this thread has gone with the whole collie thing lol. Regardless, DA isn't what is important to the APBT, gameness is. Opinions may differ on whether it's "dead" or not. Personally, I think the APBT can be "preserved" through alternative, legal means to keep the gameness of the breed (although maybe not to such an extreme as with dogfighting) and I think that's what breeders should focus on. DA may cone with that, so be it, but they're not one and the same.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Gumiho said:


> You obviously don't have that much else more than other posters to spend your time on. Because you don't even have a relevant opinion you'd care to contribute to the discussion and yet here your are, starting your own sideline rant.


You so far have had intelligent and thoughtful posts on this thread. You haven't said much on this board according to your post count. Don't worry at some point, one of your intelligent posts will set the masses off and you'll see what I'm talking about. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> You so far have had intelligent and thoughtful posts on this thread. You haven't said much on this board according to your post count. Don't worry at some point, one of your intelligent posts will set the masses off and you'll see what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I have no doubt about that, that I'll eventually set someone off. It would not be the first time. But thats to be expected when you have so many people, from so many walks of life and so many interests, piling into one discussion. And even if we don't change each others minds or our own, other people read quietly as well. And for many of us, our opinions may involve or we'll learn something new. And that has value, even if its a bit messy or tedious to achieve. 

But truly, subjects like this do play a roll of importance in the continuation, improvement and preservation of the breeds we love. And that ultimately makes it worth hashing out. And it may give those in other breeds pause for thought as well.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

OT: Over in the Denton area it's in the 20s (farenheit) and it was literally 80F yesterday, what the heck??

Back to intelligent debate now 

What solid information (if any) do we have on dog genotypes and what traits are linked? I'm up for links if anyone has any


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

MrsBoats said:


> Nope...that's why you don't see me on here much any more. I have better things to spend my time on (like training my dogs) than debating stuff that at the end of the day doesn't do anything but get people all riled up. Seriously...don't you guys have something better to do than debate about barbie collies vs. sport collies? Does any of this even matter to you especially if you don't even own a border collie. It doesn't to me...honestly. I have seen rotties thrown in here...and I'm not even going to go there. What I am going to say isn't going to change anyone's mind...someone will get all offended by something I say and say I'm preaching that Rottweilers "are magical" blah, blah, blah. Whatever.... So, I'm going to spend my day knitting socks and making bread than get into it with someone on the other end of a keyboard.


Isn't coming online to complain about everyone else being online the biggest *possible* waste of time?



OwnedbyACDs said:


> If you want a lower drive dog then there are breeds that are naturally lower drive then a working dog. I for one pride breeds who haven't made the split yet ... Because they SHOULDNT.


You're gonna have a *real* hard time convincing everyone else to forgo getting the dog they want so you can have the One True Dog.


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

Gumiho said:


> You obviously don't have that much else more than other posters to spend your time on. Because you don't even have a relevant opinion you'd care to contribute to the discussion and yet here your are, starting your own sideline rant.


I'm really not trying to offended you, or to a start argument. 

It's because she chooses to not contribute, & thats fine. She simply doesn't want to get into "argument"(neither do I). I'm assuming thats why she doesn't want to contribute. 

IMO
Some people choose to not contribute to some discussions, & sometimes, it can be for the better. Many people have stated their opinion, & I don't agree with everyones. Thats ok. But, I have enjoyed seeing what other have said, even if I don't agree. Threads like this one, always make think.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

aiw said:


> Isn't coming online to complain about everyone else being online the biggest *possible* waste of time?
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna have a *real* hard time convincing everyone else to forgo getting the dog they want so you can have the One True Dog.


I won't have to, the breeders (of "my" breed at least) will "convince" them for me by refusing to sell them a puppy and re fomenting other breeds that would be more suitable.

So what you want is a dog who looks like "A" but acts like "C", sorry but that doesn't make sense :/

@Mrs boats well I am happy to see you here again  don't listen to the haters


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

MrsBoats said:


> You know...I'm going to say what I have been thinking here as I watch these epic multi-page circle jerk posts (re: spay/neuter, culling, what makes a breed a breed, training methods, etc.) develop on this message board. What a colossal waste of time and energy. Turn off your computer, quit arguing about stuff that you'll never come to any sort of agreement on, and go spend some time with your dogs or family. Or go do anything that is a positive use of your time instead of getting into a pissing match about what makes a breed a breed that most of you don't even own or want to own. Sheesh....


Wait until mid week next week... I am having surgery on Tuesday.....I am sure I will have some good percocet laden posts.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> Isn't coming online to complain about everyone else being online the biggest *possible* waste of time?


It takes less time to type those words, than words relevant to the discussion? I don't know.

I train the dogs, do agility with dogs, work full time while sitting at the computer, have a couple of kids, clean the house, experiment with cooking, run a side business dying yarn, knit and crochet for fun, visit family on a fairly regular basis, pay my taxes, own my own home - 

And even if I didn't do any of that, NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO POLICE OR ASSIGN VALUE TO WHAT ANYBODY ELSE DOES WITH THEIR DOWN TIME. IT IS THEIR TIME. Implying that someone who happens to be posting on a forum is neglecting their lives, their pets, or anything else? Is just the height of inappropriate, rude, and asinine.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I won't have to, the breeders (of "my" breed at least) will "convince" them for me by refusing to sell them a puppy and re fomenting other breeds that would be more suitable.
> 
> So what you want is a dog who looks like "A" but acts like "C", sorry but that doesn't make sense :/


Where there's a market there will be someone to supply it. If you think about it people wanting dogs dissimilar to yours would have absolutely no reason to patronize breeders you might. Thus making their (and your) judgement irrelevant to their choice.

We've had this discussion before so I'll just shorthand my position. Breeds change and adapt to people's needs, just as they always have. Anything that suits dogs better to their homes is a great thing. There is no Right Way to Be a Dog. As long as the dogs and people are fulfilled and the dogs are healthy I don't see a problem with a husky who acts like a hound or a Shih Tzu the size of a Great Dane.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

aiw said:


> Where there's a market there will be someone to supply it. If you think about it people wanting dogs dissimilar to yours would have absolutely no reason to patronize breeders you might. Thus making their (and your) judgement irrelevant to their choice.
> 
> We've had this discussion before so I'll just shorthand my position. Breeds change and adapt to people's needs, just as they always have. Anything that suits dogs better to their homes is a great thing. There is no Right Way to Be a Dog. As long as the dogs and people are fulfilled and the dogs are healthy I don't see a problem with a husky who acts like a hound or a Shih Tzu the size of a Great Dane.


Sigh, you know what they say about leading a horse to water :/


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

aiw said:


> Where there's a market there will be someone to supply it. If you think about it people wanting dogs dissimilar to yours would have absolutely no reason to patronize breeders you might. Thus making their (and your) judgement irrelevant to their choice.
> 
> We've had this discussion before so I'll just shorthand my position. Breeds change and adapt to people's needs, just as they always have. Anything that suits dogs better to their homes is a great thing. There is no Right Way to Be a Dog. As long as the dogs and people are fulfilled and the dogs are healthy I don't see a problem with a husky who acts like a hound or a Shih Tzu the size of a Great Dane.


Other than they no longer actually represent their breed at all.

A breed has a standard, its why mixes that don't breed true are not breeds. If a Shih Tzu has been bred to the size of a Dane, its no longer a Shih Tzu. If a line of Huskies has been produced to act like hounds, they're no longer Huskies.

Do I care if someone decides to produce such dogs? Ultimately no if they at least keep health and such in mind.

I DO however care when they start calling it something its not. Just because a breed was used in its creation, does not mean it will continue to be that breed. Once a line of dogs has been significantly bred AWAY from standard, they cease to be that breed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Sigh, you know what they say about leading a horse to water :/


So. . .do you think people should have dogs who don't suit them?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> So. . .do you think people should have dogs who don't suit them?


No I think if they must have a "dumbed down" version of the breed to own that particular breed, then they aren't really choosing the breed correctly, they are choosing the breed based on looks alone, and why should a breed have to pay the price because someone likes the look but can't handle the dog as it is?

I like the look of: huskies, afghans, BCs, Aussies labs, Goldens, chessie's, etc ... But temperamentally they are not compatible so I looked for something that was, even though the "look" didn't suit me per say and ended up with the ACD.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I won't say it's about "looks" per se. I don't consider coat or size to be about "looks". If a huge dog or a tiny dog isn't going to work for my lifestyle, it just isn't, even if the personality is right. Coat is the same---a really heavy coat or heavy shedding or a very light coat or a dog that needs frequent grooming, these are things that just aren't going to work for some people. That's not really about how they look; those are fundamental factors in dog ownership.

Basically: if a breed is super perfect for someone in all ways except one, they're going to look for a breeder whose dogs are not too strong in that one trait.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> Other than they no longer actually represent their breed at all.


At least your image of the breed.

More drastic changes usually do seem to have some kind of label change 'Mini Aussies' for example (although some now are classified as Mini American Shepherds). They still often catch a lot of flak though from traditionalists. People are protective of what they love, and seem to feel threatened by changes. It works both ways though. As long as there are people who want x breed right to standard they will be available as well.



> Sigh, you know what they say about leading a horse to water :/


Well, that's very rude... and not much of a case for your point of view. I guess if you can't make a good one insults are a close enough substitute.



> No I think if they must have a "dumbed down" version of the breed


The problem is likely that you seem to think 'less drive' or really any change at all is "dumbed down". I don't think a more energetic or less energetic dog is better or worse - just different. Plus there seems to be a bit of "if you don't want the driviest workiest working dog there is you should just get a lab mutt from the pound, you mere mortal!" The reality is likely people want most attributes of the breed but something more moderate or a little different. There are several degrees of difference between working BC and lab mix.



> I just don't understand your logic :/
> 
> But I guess if you are not. Working dog eunthisiast then you won't understand


I understand, just disagree. I have different priorities.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

aiw said:


> At least your image of the breed.
> 
> More drastic changes usually do seem to have some kind of label change 'Mini Aussies' for example (although some now are classified as Mini American Shepherds). They still often catch a lot of flak though from traditionalists. People are protective of what they love, and seem to feel threatened by changes. It works both ways though. As long as there are people who want x breed right to standard they will be available as well.
> 
> ...


I just don't understand your logic :/ 

But I guess if you are not. Working dog eunthisiast then you won't understand


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I just don't understand your logic :/
> 
> But I guess if you are not. Working dog eunthisiast then you won't understand


 And I don't understand your logic. But I guess if you're not a pet dog enthusiast you wouldn't understand .


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Willowy said:


> So. . .do you think people should have dogs who don't suit them?



There are no laws stating what kind of dog you can own. 
The law just states how you must take care of the dog. Sometimes even those owners fall through the cracks and get aired on some Animal Cops show. 

A 'breeder' comes in to the clinic regularly for C-sections and such on her '*husband's* dogs. She breeds these dogs all the time and even had bred a frenchie with a really bad cleft palate. She can not own a dog so says the courts where she was found guilty for dog neglect. She does not own dogs anymore but her husband does!

I see a mismatched pairing between dogs and people on a regular basis. What kid would give their 70 year old parents a English Springer pup? 

In a way I wish they would breed out DA in APBTs only because of the price that these dogs have paid for this trait. the dogs who end up in courts, in shelters, in rescues only portraying a trait that is part of their breed. The price these dogs pay is their life. While some APBT will be humanely euthanized, others will be stabbed, shot or whatever other means to stop the dog from hurting another dog. I don't care if the name changes only that the looks stay the same so the appeal to own a pit would still be there. 

If those who own a pit wants to go hog hunting, then breed for that if they want. But we must remember unless these dogs are being used and owned by certain breeders/owners than culling the pups who do not match the criteria would happen. 

It is not about my dogs are so much better, it comes down to I am breeding for this______________! 

I do wonder how many dogs out there no longer do the very thing that led them to be bred. How many labs have never felt the feathers of a duck in their mouth? A BC who has never tended to a flock of sheep? A JRT who has never ratted before. 

I see dogs being owned by the wrong owners. Some owners make it work, while others pass their problem dog around, I also see owners OWNED by the wrong dog and it is the dog who calls all the shots.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> And I don't understand your logic. But I guess if you're not a pet dog enthusiast you wouldn't understand .


No I am not, I like a dog with drive, a dog most "pet" people would find impossible to live with, but I just don't find them like that, I find them awesome. I just couldn't own a dog who doesn't "do" something, so to speak. 

As far as my comment, it was no more rude then saying we should dumb down our beloved working breeds to suit a few people (generally speaking) who want a pretty dog but don't want to put the work and time in.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What kind of "work and time" would help a suburbanite who ends up with a super drivey dog? I mean, my family did OK with our Lab, but it wasn't easy. And all dogs "do something"; just because it's not what you want them to do doesn't make it worse. 

I do think calling a lower-drive dog "dumbed-down" is pretty insulting. A dog who is different from what you want is not dumbed-down. Just different.

I would guess that there is more demand for pet dogs than working dogs nowadays. I wouldn't say it's just a few people who do not need a working dog.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> And I don't understand your logic. But I guess if you're not a pet dog enthusiast you wouldn't understand .


I don't understand this logic, because I actually care about the breeds I like / love. And I like them for what they ARE. And I care enough to see them preserved.

If someone feels the need to warp the heck out of a breed, they don't like it, don't care for it and really should not insist on calling whatever remake or "new fad version" by the same name. A name that carries a traditional history, standard and spectrum of what the breed is and should remain.

If none of that matters to you, and breeds and the preservation of breeds means nothing. Get a rescue and leave established breeds alone. :/ If you don't truly like a breed, get something else.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Once again working dogs are magic!


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

CrimsonAccent said:


> Once again working dogs are magic!


If you don't like them as drivey as the come, get a Maltese!


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> What kind of "work and time" would help a suburbanite who ends up with a super drivey dog? I mean, my family did OK with our Lab, but it wasn't easy. And all dogs "do something"; just because it's not what you want them to do doesn't make it worse.
> 
> I do think calling a lower-drive dog "dumbed-down" is pretty insulting. A dog who is different from what you want is not dumbed-down. Just different.
> 
> I would guess that there is more demand for pet dogs than working dogs nowadays. I wouldn't say it's just a few people who do not need a working dog.


I feel "dumbed down" is pretty suitable because the person who got it should have done better research and got an appropriate breed. Its not saying the dog is dumb, just that its the "easier" version for the... Less capable owner who insisted on a dog of a breed that they ultimately neither like nor fits their lifestyle.

Proper work and support wouldn't really be an issue, and owning the dog would be simpler... If people would take more time to research and chose more wisely.

There will always be pups from working breeders that will fit into pet homes fine. But they are the EXCEPTION within a breed and should remain such. The breed standard should not be turned on its head just because people want the image of a breed (or notoriety) but none of what makes the breed what it actually is.

Thats no better than the people breeding the huge, ill-proportioned, structurally wrecked mixes and calling / registering them as APBT. Its ethically barren, imo.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Breeds are always changing. They bend to the demand of the people. I see nothing wrong with playing within a breed to maybe create something new. If people are willing to buy it, someone is willing to create it. 

I personally don't think wBCs and shBCs are far enough apart yet to be a different breed. MAS and Aussies separated. I'm sure the Aussie people thought that was an abomination. Who would breed small Aussies and still have the gumption to call them *real* Aussies? Just because someone isn't breeding your vision, doesn't make them wrong. Just because a faction of a breed doesn't fit your description doesn't make them dumbed down. IMO, anyhow.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> Breeds are always changing. They bend to the demand of the people. I see nothing wrong with playing within a breed to maybe create something new. If people are willing to buy it, someone is willing to create it.
> 
> I personally don't think wBCs and shBCs are far enough apart yet to be a different breed. MAS and Aussies separated. I'm sure the Aussie people thought that was an abomination. Who would breed small Aussies and still have the gumption to call them *real* Aussies? Just because someone isn't breeding your vision, doesn't make them wrong. Just because a faction of a breed doesn't fit your description doesn't make them dumbed down. IMO, anyhow.


Bastardizing a breed for personal preference and amusement (ie playing within a breed to create something new) is damaging.
Thats whats happened to quite a few breeds and the damage is largely irreparable. Thats what Wilson and similar did in creating American Bullies, they "played". Look how that turned out for APBT. People are STILL registering, selling and promoting those dogs as APBT. And today the average Joe couldn't identify a pit bull if it were staring him in the face.

I have no issue with people creating new breeds. What ever floats your boat. So long as they respect the existing breeds and standards in doing so. There is NO excuse, imo, for breeding with total disregard for the ramifications it may have to an established breed, just because you don't actually like a breed and want it to be something it isn't.

And yes, breeds change. But it should be gradual and minute changes. Such as slowly breeding out a genetic health issue, improving structure, ect. Not completely reworking the breed from the ground up or making it into something entirely new and changing the fundementals of what makes the breed what it is.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> If none of that matters to you, and breeds and the preservation of breeds means nothing. Get a rescue and leave established breeds alone. :/ If you don't truly like a breed, get something else.


You're right that I don't care about breed preservation in the same sense you do. Although I think its awesome that there is a great variety of breeds and people passionate about each one I'm not going to lose any sleep if Bassets lose some of their furnishing, Aussies are miniaturized or Pits lose their DA. If it better suits the dog to their prospective home and maintains health I don't see a problem. Preservation will be undertaken by those who still have want/need for that kind of dog. Standards weren't written by Gods.

However, the fact that I don't have the same image of a breed that you do doesn't mean I don't care about _breeding_. I care about health testing, thoughtful pairing, predictability and a breeder who stands by their animals. Rescues can be lovely (my current dog is one) but they can't offer any of those things. Especially if you want a puppy its the crapshoot of all crapshoots. Again, just because my image of the ideal specimen of x-breed isn't the same as yours doesn't mean that 'lab mix' would be a reasonable substitute. Its a little blithe to suggest someone who wants a lower drive BC should just head to the pound and get a houndxlab pup instead.



Gumiho said:


> Bastardizing a breed for personal preference and amusement (ie playing within a breed to create something new) is damaging.


In what way is people getting the dog they want damaging? Except to your idea of the ideal dog?



> Its ethically barren, imo.


That's a really bold claim. Makes me really eager to hear the answer to the question above.


----------



## SillyDogs (May 28, 2013)

We all know what the true APBT was bred for, but they are super loyal and can be bred for just that without DA. although every dog is an individual. I've seen litters of GSD's act totally different from selective breeding, same with Doberman's.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Gumiho said:


> If none of that matters to you, and breeds and the preservation of breeds means nothing. Get a rescue and leave established breeds alone. :/ If you don't truly like a breed, get something else.


 I admit, I don't care about breeds or the preservation of breeds. I don't feel there is anything sacred about what people wanted in a breed in the past, and I don't think breed standards were written on stone tablets and handed down from heaven . As I said, I care about individual dogs as dogs, not for what they do or anything like that. And as that stands, I DO get rescues. But all dogs, except pariah dogs, are the product of a breeder somewhere back in the line. So what breeders produce is of concern to me anyway, whether I like it or not.

I feel that customizing (or hey, bastardizing if you prefer) an existing breed is less damaging to individual dogs than creating a new breed. I'm not at all certain how breeding for what the market demands is "ethically barren", provided they follow all responsible breeding procedures (that affect the individual dogs). I don't think that I could consider anything that doesn't harm individual dogs ethically barren.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

aiw said:


> You're right that I don't care about breed preservation in the same sense you do. Although I think its awesome that there is a great variety of breeds and people passionate about each one I'm not going to lose any sleep if Bassets lose some of their furnishing, Aussies are miniaturized or Pits lose their DA. If it better suits the dog to their prospective home and maintains health I don't see a problem. Preservation will be undertaken by those who still have want/need for that kind of dog. Standards weren't written by Gods.
> 
> However, the fact that I don't have the same image of a breed that you do doesn't mean I don't care about _breeding_. I care about health testing, thoughtful pairing, predictability and a breeder who stands by their animals. Rescues can be lovely (my current dog is one) but they can't offer any of those things. Especially if you want a puppy its the crapshoot of all crapshoots. Again, just because my image of the ideal specimen of x-breed isn't the same as yours doesn't mean that 'lab mix' would be a reasonable substitute. Its a little blithe to suggest someone who wants a lower drive BC should just head to the pound and get a houndxlab pup instead.


You mention predictability in a breeding, and yet you have no respect or appreciation for the guidelines and fundamentals in a breed that make them more predictable. Seems suggesting the random mix breed is more than a reasonable suggestion. If looking for predictable traits that a breed shouldn't have, its simple enough and more sensible to go to a more appropriate breed rather than changing the breed itself.




> In what way is people getting the dog they want damaging? Except to your idea of the ideal dog?


Because it can cause the deterioration of the breed itself. If you change the basic fundementals of what makes a breed what it is, you change the breed and eventually will ultimately lose it without drastic measures to undo the damage. 

As for my "idea of the ideal dog". Its not my idea of the ideal dog, but rather my appreciation for what a breed is. You are the one hung up on ideals that you want to force onto existing breeds that do not fit that ideal.



> That's a really bold claim. Makes me really eager to hear the answer to the question above.


Because it shows a complete lack of respect or consideration for the breed. There is no consideration or concern for the breed, nor respect for it, so long as you get what you want and call it by the same name (whether its normal for the breed or not or completely different). There is a complete disregard for what is left for future generations or how it may affect the breed in the long run. Again, this damage can be seen in a variety of breeds where people decided to "play" with them. Bassets, the REAL English Bulldogs (long gone. Today's English was actually a miniature variety that ultimately took over its name and misappropriated its history. Are they similar? Some are. Are they the same breed? No. Despite what people claim.), APBT, ect are examples of such damage.

And even responsible breeding in an opposite direction changes the breed. The AST again is an example of this.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> You mention predictability in a breeding, and yet you have no respect or appreciation for the guidelines and fundamentals in a breed that make them more predictable. Seems suggesting the random mix breed is more than a reasonable suggestion. If looking for predictable traits that a breed shouldn't have, its simple enough and more sensible to go to a more appropriate breed rather than changing the breed itself.


Two dogs (especially with known lineage) paired will give *exponentially* greater predictability than a puppy of completely unknown parentage. That's just common sense and basic husbandry.



> Because it can cause the deterioration of the breed itself. If you change the basic fundementals of what makes a breed what it is, you change the breed and eventually will ultimately lose it without drastic measures to undo the damage.


Exactly, the damage is to your image of the breed. I don't consider that measurable harm at all.



> Because it shows a complete lack of respect or consideration for the breed. There is no consideration or concern for the breed, nor respect for it, so long as you get what you want and call it by the same name (whether its normal for the breed or not or completely different). There is a complete disregard for what is left for future generations or how it may affect the breed in the long run. Again, this damage can be seen in a variety of breeds where people decided to "play" with them. Bassets, the REAL English Bulldogs (long gone. Today's English was actually a miniature variety that ultimately took over its name and misappropriated its history. Are they similar? Some are. Are they the same breed? No. Despite what people claim.), APBT, ect are examples of such damage.


All I'm seeing is you labeling change 'damage'. Why is breed standard important? The answer I've always heard is that it suits dogs to a purpose and to a home. When standard begins to fail that criteria (and it does the moment it creates dogs unsuited to homes) it can and should be changed.

You're right I don't have much respect for 'breed' as you put it. What I consider important are the actual dogs and people involved. If they're better served by changing standard I'm all for it. I don't consider damage to something so esoteric as 'your image of the ideal BC' actual harm in the real world.

EDITED for formatting


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Seems suggesting the random mix breed is more than a reasonable suggestion.


There is, nowadays, in this country, almost no such thing as a random mixed breed. They all have SOME purebred somewhere back there. I am affected by what breeders choose to produce no matter what I do.

I still cannot see how "a lack of respect for the breed" can be ethically barren if individual dogs are not harmed?


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

aiw said:


> Exactly, the damage is to your image of the breed. I don't consider that measurable harm at all.


My image of the breed merely being an acknowledgement of what the breed IS. Rather than what would be more convenient for myself as an individual. I consider Huskies and Cane Corso to be gorgeous, but not ideal by any stretch. But they are what they are, so I sensibly choose more suitable breeds.




> All I'm seeing is you labeling change 'damage'. Why is breed standard important? The answer I've always heard is that it suits dogs to a purpose and to a home. When standard begins to fail that criteria (and it does the moment it creates dogs unsuited to homes) it can and should be changed.


But the dogs are not unsuited to homes. There are plenty of appropriate suitable homes. They're just not suited to homes that aren't suited to the breed. And there is nothing wrong with that. 

SOME change is fine, so long as what makes the breed what it is remains. 

The American Bulldog is an example of gradual change and IMPROVEMENT on the original Bulldog. Various lines of the American are as close as you'll come to the original bulldog. The issues within the original bulldog, (brachy, structure and poor temperament) have seen improvement, while maintaining the general purpose, hardy farm dog. 

The English Bulldog is an example of fast, forced change to fit trends and fancy, to the DETRIMENT of the original bulldog. Its physical faults drastically built upon, rather than improved. 

Some change is good, the gradual improvement on various aspects of a breed to allow it to better fulfill its purpose while maintaining the integrity of what the breed is. Changing a breed just for the sake of making it something else entirely, is not.




> You're right I don't have much respect for 'breed' as you put it. What I consider important are the actual dogs and people involved. If they're better served by changing standard I'm all for it. I don't consider damage to something so esoteric as 'your image of the ideal BC' actual harm in the real world.
> 
> EDITED for formatting


Again, its not about what my ideal is. Its about what the breed itself is, my ideal may be something else entirely. I love Jindo, but they certainly don't reflect my "ideal" for the breed. Aesthetically I find them lacking. But I appreciate what they ARE and while I would like to see some improvements (more attention to soundness, health testing and temperament since many now do not bother with it) I would not care to see it be turned into another version of the Akita, something it is not, as some are trying to do.

I also do not mind change when done honestly and with integrity. Breeding in a different direction and acknowledging its not the same is fine. Calling it something its not and having no regard for what is being done, is wrong.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> The English Bulldog is an example of fast, forced change to fit trends and fancy, to the DETRIMENT of the original bulldog. Its physical faults drastically built upon, rather than improved.


Well, I will agree that anything that is to the detriment of health is a bad thing as I've already said. The reason its bad though isn't because of damage to the breed, its suffering of the dogs involved.

[/QUOTE]Some change is good, the gradual improvement on various aspects of a breed to allow it to better fulfill its purpose while maintaining the integrity of what the breed is. Changing a breed just for the sake of making it something else entirely, is not.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying that but you haven't actually supplied any reasoning for it beyond "that's what they are now and they should stay that way". I really don't consider that enough to persuade me that other people shouldn't breed the dog they want/need.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

aiw said:


> Well, I will agree that anything that is to the detriment of health is a bad thing as I've already said. The reason its bad though isn't because of damage to the breed, its suffering of the dogs involved.


Some change is good, the gradual improvement on various aspects of a breed to allow it to better fulfill its purpose while maintaining the integrity of what the breed is. Changing a breed just for the sake of making it something else entirely, is not.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying that but you haven't actually supplied any reasoning for it beyond "that's what they are now and they should stay that way". I really don't consider that enough to persuade me that other people shouldn't breed the dog they want/need.[/QUOTE]

I'm not even saying people shouldn't breed the dog they want. Only that they acknowledge when they're no longer producing the dogs they claim to be.

AST is no longer the APBT.
The American Bulldog is no longer the Bulldog.
White shepherds are no longer GSD.

The damage comes to the breed when it is fundamentally changed and that change is not properly acknowledged.
The English Bulldog is no longer the English Bulldog. "Gotti / Grey Line / Razors Edge" with few exceptions, they are no longer APBT.

Even creating new breeds, I'm ok with so long as its acknowledged that its new or a distinct variety.

Miniature Aussie? Sure, whatever. Obviously not an actual Aussie, but something new.
White Shepherd? Sure, it establishes itself as something new.
American Bully... Finally. Though the damage is already done.
American Bulldog. Built off of the English, but established as a new breed. Same for the Alapaha. Heck, the American Bulldog even has two distinct varieties that cross over. But both still maintain the fundamentals of what makes them what they are. (Though some lines walk a thin line and will eventually be something entirely new...)
Olde English & Renaissance Bulldog. Sure.

That is reasonable.

Deciding that APBT should be 100+ pound, bow-legged, block headed merles with no drive or athletic ability what so ever and then insisting its still an APBT, is not.

But insisting claim to a right to completely change a breed and still call it something it no longer is, is wrong. Its dishonest, careless and its disrespectful. 

Breeding may be fair game as a creative free-for-all. But the breeds themselves are not.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> There is, nowadays, in this country, almost no such thing as a random mixed breed. They all have SOME purebred somewhere back there. I am affected by what breeders choose to produce no matter what I do.
> 
> I still cannot see how "a lack of respect for the breed" can be ethically barren if individual dogs are not harmed?


Thats a given, since the term is mixed BREED, suggesting that somewhere there were purebreds in the line. A random mix would be just that. A random mix of breeds.

Its ethically barren because no concern is given as to whether the BREED itself is harmed. And harm is not always physical.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Then how is it harmed? And why, should I, as a regular ol' dog lover, care whether "the breed" is harmed?

What you're saying is that if breeders are open about what their line produces, than that's fine. . .don't responsible breeders do that anyway? Or are they really trying to pass off their lines as being like another line?

I guess what I'm getting from this is that a couple hundred years ago, some old white dudes decided what they liked in a dog so now we have to stick to what they liked because of course we do.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

The discussion has become almost silly....

but I thought I would post another video of a nice animal aggressive Pit doing a good job....

Notice the difference in how the catch dog deals with the hog versus the bay dogs..


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Then how is it harmed? And why, should I, as a regular ol' dog lover, care whether "the breed" is harmed?
> 
> What you're saying is that if breeders are open about what their line produces, than that's fine. . .don't responsible breeders do that anyway? Or are they really trying to pass off their lines as being like another line?


There is variation in lines, yes. But they (generally) still maintain the fundamentals of what makes a breed what it is. Some however do not maintain it and still try to pass it off as something it no longer is.

This was / is the case with the Gotti / Greyline / Razors Edge dogs. Its the case with some Johnson variety breeders. They begin to misrepresent the breed.


Just because something or someone does not receive PHYSICAL harm, does not mean there is no harm done. 

People used similar arguments "rehabilitating savages" that it was for their own good, it would help them acclimate, relieve them of their primitive savagery so they could live among the civilized, it wasn't like they were being wiped out, just their identifity and everything that made them who they were (their history, culture, pride and integrity.) 

And yes, I suppose so long as it only affects others negatively, its not your concern. 

At this point I feel like I'm reasoning with a child over what fruit they want to eat. "I want an Apple." "Ok, here is an Apple." "But I don't want this, it tastes like an apple! I want it to taste like an orange!" "Well then have an Orange?" "But I don't want an Orange, I want an apple!" "That is an apple..." "Well, I don't like it. It should be made to taste like an orange." "But its not an orange, its an apple and tastes like an apple is supposed to taste..." "Why should I care what your ideal taste for an apple is? I want it to taste like an orange!"

I just don't get it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

And two catch dogs working the same hog..


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> At this point I feel like I'm reasoning with a child over what fruit they want to eat. "I want an Apple." "Ok, here is an Apple." "But I don't want this, it tastes like an apple! I want it to taste like an orange!" "Well then have an Orange?" "But I don't want an Orange, I want an apple!" "That is an apple..." "Well, I don't like it. It should be made to taste like an orange." "But its not an orange, its an apple and tastes like an apple is supposed to taste..." "Why should I care what your ideal taste for an apple is? I want it to taste like an orange!"


If said child wants to learn how to breed apples to taste like oranges, more power to them. There is actually an apple like that. . .they call them Grapples (supposedly taste like grapes). I guess I don't see the harm. I see far more harm in what people do supposedly "for the good of the breed". As was already discussed . (not that I'm saying that apple breeding is anything like dog breeding. If, in the development of a new breed of apples, you end up with a weird batch or they don't sell well, you sell them cheap to a pig farmer and no harm done. With dogs, there's a lot of harm done to individual dogs in the development of new breeds).

Of course I care if something affects others negatively. But you haven't said anything that would convince me that some breeders breeding for less intense breed traits would actually affect anyone negatively. Beyond some minor annoyance because people hate change.

I don't see it as the same as taking a human culture away (which I'll also point out, a great deal of physical harm was done in the process, to "persuade" them to change), as dogs don't value culture and history the way humans do. I suppose some _people_ might be annoyed by changing their favored dog culture, but, speaking of pit bulls, that culture is now illegal and is generally considered immoral as well. I don't see any value in preserving it.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CrimsonAccent said:


> Once again working dogs are magic!


I think this is MUCH more insulting to says then anything I have said :/

"Dumbed down" wasn't meant as an insult to the breed, it was kind of meant as a jab at the suburbanite that wants a pretty dog but doesn't want / can't put the time in to manage them.

It really doesn't take much, I worked 7 days a week from 5 am to 6 pm with only an hour lunch and I still managed to own (and keep happy!) two drivy ACDs. So it is possible ... It's just most people are lazy :/

There are always puppies in the litter that don't have as much drive as others, and breeders will usually sell them to lower activity homes.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> But the dogs are not unsuited to homes. There are plenty of appropriate suitable homes. They're just not suited to homes that aren't suited to the breed. And there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> SOME change is fine, so long as what makes the breed what it is remains.


Um, Wut?

You know what there aren't enough homes for?

DA pitbulls.

Sure, to us "crate and rotate" "don't let your dog interact with other dogs when guests bring them over to your house" "don't own another dog" "dog parks are not an okay way to exercise your dog" "use a chain spot"

Those things might seem normal, and okay, and doable to us "dog people".

You know who doesn't see it that way?

ALMOST EVERY ADOPTER who comes through my freaking shelter.

And then you say "oh but wait, some beagles don't like other beagles, and what about that DA pointer you have right now, or the DA black lab?"

Well, the thing is that those aren't banned breeds for renters.* Whenever we have a pitbull/bully breed mix, we have about 1/3 the normal number of homes available, right off the bat*. Apartment complex? nope. Private rental? nope. The ONLY people that adopt pitties are people who own their homes.

And then we tell that 1/3 of the population that the above management techniques are going to be necessary, and it really isn't a big deal because a lot of that you don't have to do when you only have one pet dog.

Well, _what percentage of homeowners that come into the shelter looking for a dog DON'T already have another dog _(and if they do, are okay with using crate and rotate/baby gates/ management)?

Maybe half of those, if I'm being generous.

So... we're working with 1/6 of the normal adopting population for our DA pitbulls.

AND THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM. Because even if ALL of those people want a pitbull, and not a lab or a small fluffy dog...

we have about 5/6 pit mixes, and about 1/6 non pits being surrendered to the shelter.

And anecdotes are not facts. But in our shelter (we have a "forward thinking" communal housing program, where 14 of our dog "bedrooms" are designed to house multiple dogs, and 3 allocated to DA/ DS/ not easily "matchable" dogs)

And in the last month we have done awesome with getting dogs adopted through those rooms. But time and time again, the ones that linger? The pitties. People are, for whatever reason (maybe the rental thing above, maybe just impressions based of of pitties in the media)

people are A LOT more willing to "work with" and "use management" right off the bat for our spotted houndy dog, or our black lab, or our little chihuahua. People browse right on over our DA pitties in those 3 rooms.

(also I'm not going to dig it up, but it has been mentioned in this thread that "a good chain spot" is a really, really simple tool in housing a DA pittie without having to do the literal crate and rotate thing. Um, if you think that a piece of land that is big enough for a chain spot and is surrounded by a fence to keep other animals out and is not shared with any other neighbors is something that most dog adopters have, you is crazy.)


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Rescued said:


> You know who doesn't see it that way?
> 
> ALMOST EVERY ADOPTER who comes through my freaking shelter.


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that's probably because most people attach great value to sociability of a dog. 

As someone else said in this thread... can't remember who, it's such a long thread by now  But they said that the fun of having a dog kind of diminishes when you always have to watch out if there are other dogs because your dog is da. 

My previous dog Charlie just didn't like other dogs. He didn't maul them, but in general he wasn't friendly either. It was easily manageable, luckily, because he was such a trainable dog. There is a world of difference between walking our neighbor's social podengo who doesn't much care for other dogs, and walking Charlie. Walking a dog with da just reduces the relaxed-ness of the walks. 

When picking out a future dog in a shelter, I'll admit I'll be skipping the da dogs. I love relaxed walks, and I love being able to visit friends and family who also have dogs, and not have to worry about keeping them apart. My guess is that a lot of people who look for a dog, feel that way.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If said child wants to learn how to breed apples to taste like oranges, more power to them. There is actually an apple like that. . .they call them Grapples (supposedly taste like grapes). I guess I don't see the harm. I see far more harm in what people do supposedly "for the good of the breed". As was already discussed . (not that I'm saying that apple breeding is anything like dog breeding. If, in the development of a new breed of apples, you end up with a weird batch or they don't sell well, you sell them cheap to a pig farmer and no harm done. With dogs, there's a lot of harm done to individual dogs in the development of new breeds).
> 
> Of course I care if something affects others negatively. But you haven't said anything that would convince me that some breeders breeding for less intense breed traits would actually affect anyone negatively. Beyond some minor annoyance because people hate change.
> 
> I don't see it as the same as taking a human culture away (which I'll also point out, a great deal of physical harm was done in the process, to "persuade" them to change), as dogs don't value culture and history the way humans do. I suppose some _people_ might be annoyed by changing their favored dog culture, but, speaking of pit bulls, that culture is now illegal and is generally considered immoral as well. I don't see any value in preserving it.



exactly, they call them "grapples" not apples, that would be be confusing since they changed a fundamental part of what makes an apple an apple. we dont care if you breed for different traits that suit whomever better, JUST DON'T CALL THEM THE SAME THING.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Rescued said:


> Um, Wut?
> 
> You know what there aren't enough homes for?
> 
> ...


Just want to say this because people keep mentioning pet homes and why breeding away from DA would be better for the dogs people are adopting.. EVEN IF responsible breeders chose to breed away from da, ALL the dogs in the shelter would not be effected because the people producing those dogs are *not* responsible, some think nothing of breeding a fearful/nervous/or ha dog, so i don't think they are going to stop for DA..


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Just want to say this because people keep mentioning pet homes and why breeding away from DA would be better for the dogs people are adopting.. EVEN IF responsible breeders chose to breed away from da, ALL the dogs in the shelter would not be effected because the people producing those dogs are *not* responsible, some think nothing of breeding a fearful/nervous/or ha dog, so i don't think they are going to stop for DA..


I knew this would be the next point.

Well, a lot of the pitties/bullies that end up in the shelter are ones that were bred purposefully (compared to our oops lab/hound mixes) and these dogs are advertised as having pedigrees that are only a few gen removed from the responsible breeders.

So, responsible breeders: keep the DA out of your lines, and that way when one of your dogs slips through the cracks and ends up being a BYB breeder, the puppies won't be DA. Its that simple (well is isn't, but the argument for that point is that simple.) Pedigree dogs are going to have lineage from responsible breeders in there somewhere.

(also is your question "should all breeders" or "should all responsible breeders"? Because *all BYB do is try to copy what the responsible breeders are doing*. So if the responsible breeders breed for non-DA dogs, guess what the BYB's are going to start breeding?)


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Ok ... I will give an example... Again.

I love mals, I love their look and I love their loyalty, they are almost the perfect breed for meon paper" so to speak. What made me not choose one and go with the ACD instead? Mals are too intense for me, too ... Over the top (and I mean that in a good way) and the ACD was naturally (without looking for a breeder who is changing them) more suited to me. I did NOT insist upon "ruining it" for other Mal eunthisiasts by looking for a breeder who bred a Mal who looked like a Mal but didn't act like one.

Because if too many breeders do this then people who want a working dog won't be able to find one :/


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Ok ... I will give an example... Again.
> 
> Because if too many breeders do this then people who want a working dog won't be able to find one :/


I really don't think working breeders who breed dogs with jobs are going anywhere




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I did NOT insist upon "ruining it" for other Mal eunthisiasts by looking for a breeder who bred a Mal who looked like a Mal but didn't act like one.


Yes, they are intelligent and they can be intense, but they're not monsters that can only be owned by working dog people. People who get a malinois as an active pet are -not- ruining it for 'mal enthusiasts', whoever they might be. 
Agreed with Rescued; working breeders aren't going anywhere, and with the malinois as in your example I think it is doubtful they'll disappear as working dogs, just because some people own and breed dogs that you think 'ruin the breed'.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Rescued said:


> I really don't think working breeders who breed dogs with jobs are going anywhere


This. Look at any dog breed that has a job and is good at it. Look at GSDs, Mals, labs, springer spaniels, border collies, etc etc etc. Most of those breeds now have a split between working/field and show lines. There are still plenty of breeders who breed these dogs to work, and people who buy dogs from them. There are also people who breed for show, sports, or pets, and that population of dogs has no effect on the population of working dogs. It is just not true that breeding some working dogs away from a true working temperament will water down the entire breed and make it unsuitable for work. It hasn't happened yet with the most popular working breeds, so there's no reason to think it will happen in the future.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Miss Bugs said:


> exactly, they call them "grapples" not apples, that would be be confusing since they changed a fundamental part of what makes an apple an apple. we dont care if you breed for different traits that suit whomever better, JUST DON'T CALL THEM THE SAME THING.


 Well, no, they aren't calling it a different thing than an apple. It's the variety name, like Fuji or Braeburn (there are thousands of different apple varieties, and new ones all the time). I suppose that could apply to dog breeds as well; change the "flavor" of dog produced, change the name. But with current AKC regulations I don't see that happening---can you imagine the number of breeds there would be if every breed split had a different name?. And, as I said, I feel that purposely creating a new breed harms a lot of individual dogs. I guess breeding your line away for a while and then calling it a new breed isn't quite so harmful. But if this is all about names. . .I guess I don't attach that kind of importance to a name.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Well, no, they aren't calling it a different thing than an apple. It's the variety name, like Fuji or Braeburn (there are thousands of different apple varieties, and new ones all the time). I suppose that could apply to dog breeds as well; change the "flavor" of dog produced, change the name. But with current AKC regulations I don't see that happening---can you imagine the number of breeds there would be if every breed split had a different name?. And, as I said, I feel that purposely creating a new breed harms a lot of individual dogs. I guess breeding your line away for a while and then calling it a new breed isn't quite so harmful. But if this is all about names. . .I guess I don't attach that kind of importance to a name.


I agree. I think it would do a big disservice to the breed to actually split different types into different breed names. There is a famous breeder of performance/sport golden retrievers in my area and they are constantly crossing AKC conformation and field bred dogs into their lines to get just what they want (the right balance between health, looks, and brains). If field bred and conformation bred dogs were separate breeds, they couldn't do that and the breed would lose a lot of genetic diversity. 

Just look at the AKC split with the Belgian breeds - really not helpful to split up the types of one breed and shrink the gene pool of all of them.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> If said child wants to learn how to breed apples to taste like oranges, more power to them. There is actually an apple like that. . .they call them Grapples (supposedly taste like grapes). I guess I don't see the harm. I see far more harm in what people do supposedly "for the good of the breed". As was already discussed . (not that I'm saying that apple breeding is anything like dog breeding. If, in the development of a new breed of apples, you end up with a weird batch or they don't sell well, you sell them cheap to a pig farmer and no harm done. With dogs, there's a lot of harm done to individual dogs in the development of new breeds).


But see, you're missing the point there. They changed a fundamental trait of what makes an apple an apple (the flavor) and in doing so admitted its different and called it something else (a grapple). Thats fine, I've said time and again I and most could care less if that is done. But that isn't what you're talking about doing. What I don't agree to is the insistance to continue calling it somethings its not. 




> Of course I care if something affects others negatively. But you haven't said anything that would convince me that some breeders breeding for less intense breed traits would actually affect anyone negatively. Beyond some minor annoyance because people hate change.


Obviously not. As you only consider it harmful if its convenient to you.
If the traits are not something that is a fundamental, core trait of the breed (like drive), then I'd agree its fine. DA is not a core trait of what makes an APBT an APBT. But gameness, drive, athletic ability, proportionate build and small wedge shaped head is. So producing a dog that goes against all of that and claiming its still an APBT is ridiculous and it does (and has) damaged the breed. Its not just some minor annoyance, these changes have had major impacts on the breeds.



> I don't see it as the same as taking a human culture away (which I'll also point out, a great deal of physical harm was done in the process, to "persuade" them to change), as dogs don't value culture and history the way humans do. I suppose some _people_ might be annoyed by changing their favored dog culture, but, speaking of pit bulls, that culture is now illegal and is generally considered immoral as well. I don't see any value in preserving it.


Yes, some physical harm was done. But many of the promotors and key players that never "got their hands dirty" promoted and reasoned it as being harmless. For dog fanciers a breed and the breed's history, correct temperament, use and form is culture. Naturally, that will evolve, develop and change slowly. The point is that those OUTSIDE the breed, who don't really have any care or respect for it, should not force that change to fit ideals. The English Bulldog was not created by Bulldog lovers. It was created by novelty companion dog "lovers" and I use that term loosely considering what its become. Outside influences onto a breed "culture" with no consideration or respect for what it is and what it means to others. 

And again, Dog Fighting was not the sole purpose of the APBT. And losing that ONE use has not changed the DOG, just ONE use. Everything that made the dog excel at that use is still there: Gameness (NOT DA), Drive, proportionate small to medium athletic build, small wedge shaped head, sound temperament, ability to focus and not redirect, gripping instinct, ect. All traits that also make them excel in everything else they are put to. I have no interest in preserving dog fighting, just the traits that make an APBT what it is. I want to see the DOG cared for and preserved by people that love and respect it.

DA is not a fundamental trait. And its one that can be bred against (just not at the expense of core traits). 

Again, I have no issue with people creating a dog more to their liking. So long as they acknowledge its no longer the same breed once too much change is made. And I don't understand why that gets people that don't even actually LIKE the breed or even care about breeds to become so obstinate. I don't understand the insistence on being disrespectful and careless about something. 

If you create an entirely different dog, why the insistence to continue to call it something it no longer even is?


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Rescued said:


> Um, Wut?
> 
> You know what there aren't enough homes for?
> 
> ...


And yet DA is not a core trait in the breed and removing it will not change what makes an APBT an APBT.
As I've said repeatedly, such changes are fine if not done at the expense of other important traits. Please read my other posts in this thread.

DA is no more a part of what makes an APBT an APBT than SSA is what makes a Doberman a Doberman.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Just want to say this because people keep mentioning pet homes and why breeding away from DA would be better for the dogs people are adopting.. EVEN IF responsible breeders chose to breed away from da, ALL the dogs in the shelter would not be effected because the people producing those dogs are *not* responsible, some think nothing of breeding a fearful/nervous/or ha dog, so i don't think they are going to stop for DA..


Agreed. 

While purebreds in shelters are not uncommon, there is a big difference between purebred and well bred.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Rescued said:


> I knew this would be the next point.
> 
> Well, a lot of the pitties/bullies that end up in the shelter are ones that were bred purposefully (compared to our oops lab/hound mixes) and these dogs are advertised as having pedigrees that are only a few gen removed from the responsible breeders.
> 
> ...


Hardly. BYB don't try to copy responsible breeders. It cuts into their profit margin. How many BYB do you see out there health testing, being highly selective with their breedings, working, being highly involved with their dogs and acting as a breed steward? How many chip their dogs, keep detailed records, follow up and take back any dog that "falls through the cracks"?

Because that is what a responsible breeder does. And that is why its rare their dogs go that way.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Avie said:


> Yes, they are intelligent and they can be intense, but they're not monsters that can only be owned by working dog people. People who get a malinois as an active pet are -not- ruining it for 'mal enthusiasts', whoever they might be.
> Agreed with Rescued; working breeders aren't going anywhere, and with the malinois as in your example I think it is doubtful they'll disappear as working dogs, just because some people own and breed dogs that you think 'ruin the breed'.


People who get mal as an ACTIVE pet also aren't out looking for or breeding for dogs that are more like labs than Mals. 
They get a Mal, because they want a MAL and their active lifestyle is suitable for them. They aren't going around looking for a Lab / maltese in Mal clothing.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Gumiho said:


> People who get mal as an ACTIVE pet also aren't out looking for or breeding for dogs that are more like labs than Mals.
> They get a Mal, because they want a MAL and their active lifestyle is suitable for them. They aren't going around looking for a Lab / maltese in Mal clothing.


But is anybody really looking for that? A malinois with the temperament of a maltese? It's so dismissive to say that because somebody wants a slightly lower energy herding breed, or a non-DA pittie, or whatever, that they automatically want a powderpuff couch potato who acts nothing like its breed. People who want a laid back GSD still want many of the GSD traits, that's why they picked the breed, but they don't want a high drive dog bred for IPO either.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> Hardly. BYB don't try to copy responsible breeders. It cuts into their profit margin. How many BYB do you see out there health testing, being highly selective with their breedings, working, being highly involved with their dogs and acting as a breed steward? How many chip their dogs, keep detailed records, follow up and take back any dog that "falls through the cracks"?
> 
> Because that is what a responsible breeder does. And that is why its rare their dogs go that way.


well- i said try, I didn't say succeed  BYB *try* to copy responsible breeders and do what sells. And if dog friendly pits are what is selling, then thats what they'll strive for. BYB *try* to copy responsible breeders.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> And yet DA is not a core trait in the breed and removing it will not change what makes an APBT an APBT.
> As I've said repeatedly, such changes are fine if not done at the expense of other important traits. Please read my other posts in this thread.
> 
> DA is no more a part of what makes an APBT an APBT than SSA is what makes a Doberman a Doberman.


You were the one who said there were plenty of homes for these dogs, and thats what I was responding to. The OP said that they do not feel the same way you do about being able to remove DA and keeping the pit bull, which is the other thing I was responding to.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> But is anybody really looking for that? A malinois with the temperament of a maltese? It's so dismissive to say that because somebody wants a slightly lower energy herding breed, or a non-DA pittie, or whatever, that they automatically want a powderpuff couch potato who acts nothing like its breed. People who want a laid back GSD still want many of the GSD traits, that's why they picked the breed, but they don't want a high drive dog bred for IPO either.


Read the discussion. The reason its gone the way it has is that some people believe its ok to intentionally breed for and produce dogs COMPLETELY abnormal within a breed and use them to represent the breed (rather than establishing a new one.)

I've not once said that there is anything wrong with gradually breeding out non-core traits like DA, so long as the fundamentals of what makes an APBT an APBT are left intact. DA is not one of those fundamental traits. Its not a trait that any responsible breeder actively breeds FOR, it is one that some breed against when the opportunity presents.

If someone wants a low energy dog, why even LOOK at herding breeds? And even then, there are varying norms of energy levels among the herding breeds. There is no reason to diminish the core potential of an individual working breed in order to achieve a lower energy pet. 
And there is nothing wrong with seeking out the "pet" pups in litters.

There is something wrong with breeding in an entirely different direction in a way that fundamentally changes the breed as a whole, against the traits that make the breed what it is, and insisting its the same thing.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Ummm... I don't think anyone said they wanted a low energy herding dog. How about low-er energy? Low-er drive?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Gumiho said:


> Read the discussion. The reason its gone the way it has is that some people believe its ok to intentionally breed for and produce dogs COMPLETELY abnormal within a breed and use them to represent the breed (rather than establishing a new one.)


I don't see where anyone has said that, except for you (and I did quote your post). Where else has someone said that breeders should breed out the essential traits that set one breed apart from another? I think you're the one reading into something that isn't there. I just get annoyed when "working dog people" are so dismissive of those who would like certain traits kept but toned down. 



> If someone wants a low energy dog, why even LOOK at herding breeds? And even then, there are varying norms of energy levels among the herding breeds. There is no reason to diminish the core potential of an individual working breed in order to achieve a lower energy pet.


Why would you assume that all pet people want a *low* energy dog? Plenty of pet people want a dog with energy, just not one who is bouncing off the walls and needs hours of stimulation every day.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Rescued said:


> You were the one who said there were plenty of homes for these dogs, and thats what I was responding to. The OP said that they do not feel the same way you do about being able to remove DA and keeping the pit bull, which is the other thing I was responding to.


Some people mistake DA as being the same as Gameness. Its not.
DA is not a core trait to the breed. Breeders do not actively breed to preserve it, some just don't breed against it. Many will breed against it if the opportunity arises without compromising core traits. 

And there are plenty of homes for well-bred, true to breed dogs. The vast majority of dogs that end up in shelters are mixes, those that are purebred are not well bred (having a well-bred dog generations back does not mean they are well bred or anything like that dog). Those dogs were not bred with standard in mind, they were bred with money in mind. To sell as pets, or because they wanted little Jenny to see the miracle of life, or they wanted a copy of "dear old Fido" before he dies. Very, very few well-bred dogs end up in shelters. And generally those few that do get pulled by the breeds rescue network or the breeder themselves and returned to the breeder. Many responsible breeders these days maintain co-ownerships and keep their contact info on chips so they'll no when and if that happens.




Rescued said:


> well- i said try, I didn't say succeed  BYB *try* to copy responsible breeders and do what sells. And if dog friendly pits are what is selling, then thats what they'll strive for. BYB *try* to copy responsible breeders.


And I said show me a byb who TRIES to copy?
They don't try to copy responsible breeders. It takes too much time and money to even try and copy them. They just lie instead.
Responsible breeders selectively breed within standard to produce the healthiest, best representatives of the breed they can.
BYB just throw whats convenient together and if it doesn't sell, they either give it away or ditch it. Now, some mills will MIMICK and lie to suggest they're doing the same. But they're not copying or trying to do it at all. 

There are high production breeders that claim to breed temperamentally sound, stable pets that will excel in show and sport. But they don't do anything to evaluate the dogs as such. They could care less what responsible breeders are producing, and they care even less what they produce. 

But frankly, they're no better than someone intentionally breeding away from what makes a breed what it is and marketing it as something its not.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> I don't see where anyone has said that, except for you (and I did quote your post). Where else has someone said that breeders should breed out the essential traits that set one breed apart from another? I think you're the one reading into something that isn't there. I just get annoyed when "working dog people" are so dismissive of those who would like certain traits kept but toned down.


Re-read the past 10 or so pages. It has been repeatedly expressed that its merely a matter of ideals, that standards and what makes a breed what it is means nothing and is fair game to warp however they want. 

I have repeatedly suggested that breeding for what someone wants is fine, so long as they acknowledge its different. But apparently, thats not good enough.

If someone wants core traits in a breed toned down, why not just look for a more suitable breed? Or look around for the individual dog that fits that. No reason to completely breed in a separate direction and still claim its the same.

I have no issue with someone looking for that one laid back Border Collie that can't herd and has no desire to try. There is an issue with those who have the expectation that it should actively be bred for and presented as being the same or original.




> Why would you assume that all pet people want a *low* energy dog? Plenty of pet people want a dog with energy, just not one who is bouncing off the walls and needs hours of stimulation every day.


Better question for you. Why would someone that wants a moderate energy dog be looking at high energy breeds?
Why would someone that wants a laid back personality be looking at breeds not known for it?
Why would someone that wants a dog without prey drive be looking at hunting hounds?


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

So to simplify:

Looking for a pet-quality pup in a working breed < Fine. 

Expecting that breeds should be bred willy-nilly with no regard to what the breed IS in order to meet consumer demand and that the results should be presented as the same breed < Not fine.

Creating a new breed to meet one's ideals? < Fine, whatever floats your boat.
Calling that breed something it isn't < Not fine.

Gradually breeding out non-core traits or detrimental conditions < Fine. Selective breeding for more stable temperaments, better health, structure and such is normal. Breeding against core traits is not. DA is not a core trait of the APBT. 

Breeding out traits that makes a breed what it is, just for the sake of a whim < Not fine.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I still disagree on your fundamental point that a dog can't be called the same breed if it doesn't exactly match the breed standard (which is subjective anyway) or is a separate line from the original. There is real value in GSDs all being registered as GSDs, even though there are separate lines. There are people out there who cross working line dogs with WGSL dogs to get what they think is the ideal. As I mentioned, there are breeders who cross in conformation line and field line goldens to get the perfect obedience/agility dog. If those breeds had separate names, that type of out crossing wouldn't be done.

I'm just fundamentally against separating out breeds into smaller and smaller gene pools. The gene pools are small enough in purebred dogs as it is. If people want to breed separate lines and never outcross, fine, but the option should be there.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

As long as you breed responsibly using health tests and all the dogs have permanent homes- fine. 

That's all I got to say about that. 

No breed is being ruined by its split. If anything, the split is preserving it. Is not "working Border Collie" or "field bred lab" a different name?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

RabbleFox said:


> As long as you breed responsibly using health tests and all the dogs have permanent homes- fine.
> 
> That's all I got to say about that.
> 
> No breed is being ruined by its split. If anything, the split is preserving it. Is not "working Border Collie" or "field bred lab" a different name?


This. (too short)


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> I still disagree on your fundamental point that a dog can't be called the same breed if it doesn't exactly match the breed standard (which is subjective anyway) or is a separate line from the original. There is real value in GSDs all being registered as GSDs, even though there are separate lines. There are people out there who cross working line dogs with WGSL dogs to get what they think is the ideal. As I mentioned, there are breeders who cross in conformation line and field line goldens to get the perfect obedience/agility dog. If those breeds had separate names, that type of out crossing wouldn't be done.
> 
> I'm just fundamentally against separating out breeds into smaller and smaller gene pools. The gene pools are small enough in purebred dogs as it is. If people want to breed separate lines and never outcross, fine, but the option should be there.


They can as long as it just happens (dogs that are more laid back, don't hunt, point, herd etc) in every litter and if a pet home is looking for those pups with in an individual litter that breeds sporting/working dogs than that is fine

People who look at a high energy breed, whatever it's bred for (working, hunting, herding, sporting etc) and want breeders to "tone down" said breed so they can own it is NOT fine.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> They can as long as it just happens (dogs that are more laid back, don't hunt, point, herd etc) in every litter and if a pet home is looking for those pups with in an individual litter that breeds sporting/working dogs than that is fine
> 
> People who look at a high energy breed, whatever it's bred for (working, hunting, herding, sporting etc) and want breeders to "tone down" said breed so they can own it is NOT fine.


And I still 100% completely disagree with you.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> And I still 100% completely disagree with you.


+1

To this and everything else you've said.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

CptJack said:


> +1
> 
> To this and everything else you've said.


I concur. (Too short)


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I concur. (Too short)


Then what we have here my friends is a failure to communicate :/

I still alstand by that if "Joe Blow dog owner" wants a laid back suburbanite dog there is always shelters / rescue ... Leave the breeds alone! This kind of thing has already flubbed up breeds like the Aussie and in some instances the corgi and the GSD.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Then what we have here my friends is a failure to communicate :/
> 
> I still alstand by that if "Joe Blow dog owner" wants a laid back suburbanite dog there is always shelters / rescue ... Leave the breeds alone! This kind of thing has already flubbed up breeds like the Aussie and in some instances the corgi and the GSD.


I disagree. Again. 

Could you elaborate on how these breeds have been "flubbed" up?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't think aussies are flubbed up. It's pretty easy to find some very versatile aussies out there and also not that hard to find true blue stockdog aussies.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Mini Aussies? Corgis that don't herd cattle anymore, working line and show line GSDs working and show line BCs? Is a few examples. 

There are many many examples


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Minis are their own breed now and have zero affect on the population of working (or show) aussies. 

Also, there are some terrifically versatile and sporty minis out there. I'd love one.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Mini Aussies? Corgis that don't herd cattle anymore, working line and show line GSDs working and show line BCs? Is a few examples.
> 
> There are many many examples


MAS are there own separate breed. I do not see them as a fad or failure on the Aussie's part. Corgis farm function died when larger, more agile dogs took over. BCs, Aussies, and ACDs can do their work just fine without being low to the ground. Corgis still retain their herding instinct, they just aren't a common farm dog at all. 

I don't think the show lines of anything are that abhorrent.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they do not understand what you are saying. It means that they don't agree with what you are.

All the communication in the world doesn't change that. I like debate and discussion, a lot, but repeating the same point over and over in different ways doesn't make people agree with you. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with Joe Blow dog owner wanting a low*er* energy working breed. 

I don't think there's anything inherently superior about someone who owns a hard working, high energy dog. I don't think there is even any benefit in doing so unless they are using the dog for that work - actively, regularly, and as the purpose of owning that breed. I don't think having a dog with those capabilities and not using it is one bit a sign of a better dog owner than someone who deliberately goes out and gets a lower drive or lower energy individual of that breed. I do not think having one of those breeds and using it as a working dog makes someone a superior dog owner, either, but at least they have a reason to want the energy and drive.

In essence, if you are not using your high drive, high energy ACDs to move cattle on your working cattle ranch you are not one iota different than someone who owns a lower drive and energy individual and uses it for absolutely nothing but weekend hikes and maybe for fun agility. In fact the only difference is the dog is probably happier in the second scenario because its needs are being met more completely and readily. If you WANT that higher drive and high energy dog and you're not working them, that's fine, and you can get what you want - but it doesn't make you a better dog owner or your dog a better dog, and you're not 'helping improve the breed' unless you're breeding AND testing those dogs in working scenarios. Otherwise, you're just another pet owner who got a dog you liked - which is all ANYBODY who isn't working their dogs does. 

I hear what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. And I disagree entirely.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Mini Aussies? Corgis that don't herd cattle anymore, working line and show line GSDs working and show line BCs? Is a few examples.
> 
> There are many many examples


And how has that "flubbed up" the breed if they are healthy and happy in their homes?

Expecting pet owners to search high and low for a working-bred dog who doesn't make the cut, _especially when the majority of dog owners just want a pet_, is unrealistic and elitist. And honestly? Having a high-drive dog and no work for that dog to do is not very nice for the dog. Or the owner.



> And I don't understand why that gets people that don't even actually LIKE the breed or even care about breeds to become so obstinate.


I thought I'd explained that. Because I think emphasis on "the good of the breed" is harmful to individual dogs, and I like dogs and don't want them to be harmed. Also, because even shelter dogs come from breeders somewhere down the line and so what breeders produce is important to all dog owners.


Don't different lines of breeds have their own names and classifications anyway? How is that not enough? Making a zillion different distinct breeds would benefit nobody except those whose egos are tied up in a name and a philosophical ideal.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Gumiho said:


> Just because something or someone does not receive PHYSICAL harm, does not mean there is no harm done.
> 
> People used similar arguments "rehabilitating savages" that it was for their own good, it would help them acclimate, relieve them of their primitive savagery so they could live among the civilized, it wasn't like they were being wiped out, just their identifity and everything that made them who they were (their history, culture, pride and integrity.)


Wut. Are you comparing breeding out of standard to _genocide_?



> I don't see where anyone has said that, except for you (and I did quote your post). Where else has someone said that breeders should breed out the essential traits that set one breed apart from another?


I said something along the lines of "personally, I don't care if people want to breed a BC who acts like a Basset or a Shih Tzu the size of a Great Dane". More than a little hyperbole in there, but I stand by the sentiment.

What I'm getting is that a lot of people want traditional to-standard dogs, so they should just patronize breeders who specialize in those. Likewise I don't see how its possible for out of standard dogs to "ruin" the breed. Do you really think a responsible breeder would somehow 'accidentally' use one of those dogs in their lines or something?

How could one effect the other *at all*?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I would not describe the MAS I know as lower energy than Aussies. Check out some of the disc dog MAS out there. They're really fantastic little sport dogs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I would not describe the MAS I know as lower energy than Aussies. Check out some of the disc dog MAS out there. They're really fantastic little sport dogs.


Not even close to lower energy than aussies.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

My friend has and breeds MAS. Her dogs have conformation and agility titles. They are therapy dogs. They are wonderful dogs with excellent temperaments. Hardly a train wreck!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

So Cavalier said:


> My friend has and breeds MAS. Her dogs have conformation and agility titles. They are therapy dogs. They are wonderful dogs with excellent temperaments. Hardly a train wreck!


But they can't do the breeds original form of function ... Ranch work. Aussies as a whole are "flubbed up" as far as their original form of function goes ... Hence my point


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

CptJack said:


> I like debate and discussion, a lot, but repeating the same point over and over in different ways doesn't make people agree with you.


Please don't make me break out the dead horse icon, people. P L E A S E ???

Here. I'll just use this one for now :doh: lol


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> But they can't do the breeds original form of function ... Ranch work. Aussies as a whole are "flubbed up" as far as their original form of function goes ... Hence my point


If you don't live and work on a ranch....who cares? They are pets not working dogs as are most dogs in the US.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But they can't do the breeds original form of function ... Ranch work. Aussies as a whole are "flubbed up" as far as their original form of function goes ... Hence my point


So...you're saying that *all* Aussies are incapable of ranch work?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I completely agree with CptJack. I understand what you're saying, OwnedbyACDs, and I still strongly disagree with it.

For that matter, the working breeds you're so keen on haven't been flubbed up at all. Look at the fantastic examples of working GSDs that are out there. People want a working dog and there will be people who breed for that market. Sure there are GSDs with crappy temperaments, or some that can't work, or some who are good at dog shows or other things, but that doesn't take away from the working dogs at all. They're not even in the same population. As someone else said, do you really think a breeder of working line GSDs is going to accidentally use a couch potato BYB dog? Of course not. So how is that couch potato GSD with a crappy temperament possibly ruining the working dogs?

The same thing goes for border collies, Aussies, labs, and every other working breed. If the breed is good at doing work, and people need dogs to do that work, they will not die out and people will continue to breed great examples of working dogs. Just because other people breed those same breeds for different purposes doesn't impact the working dogs at all. 

It's also not so easy to "just go out and get a pet bred puppy." A lower drive puppy from a litter of high drive dogs isn't going to be anywhere near medium drive. I'm not sure where this myth comes from? A lower drive field bred lab is still going to be high drive for the average family, but a lab bred to be a little bit lower energy and drive makes a great family pet. The pet owners want a lab who can retrieve, and play with the kids, and go on hikes, and generally acts like a lab, but they probably don't want a dog who expects to hunt for 6 hours a day 4 days a week. The hunters can breed their dogs, and the show/pet/sport/whatever people can breed their dogs.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

My Aussies dad competed in the show ring and could herd sheep all day. He has produced puppies with herding ability and enough drive to compete in all sorts of things. All of that with a fantastic off switch. I don't think you need an out of control high energy dog to do a good days work. I guess I should have got a Collie instead though.

Also - well said elrohwen


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Mini Aussies? Corgis that don't herd cattle anymore, working line and show line GSDs working and show line BCs? Is a few examples.
> 
> There are many many examples


There are many working Mini Aussies out there, who herd just fine, even if they have been bred smaller.

http://www.emberviewtoyaussies.com/

Just one breeder who breeds Toy Aussies that also work on their farm...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But they can't do the breeds original form of function ... Ranch work. Aussies as a whole are "flubbed up" as far as their original form of function goes ... Hence my point


Welshies were bred to hunt birds, back in the days where the landed aristocracy in the UK spent lots of time hunting birds. In modern times, there are still people who need a flushing dog, and those people breed for it (and they do - there are plenty of field bred English springers, cockers, and some Welsh). There are many more people who want a family pet and companion, and the sweet spaniel temperament fits that very well. My dog wasn't bred specifically with hunting in mind and his parents haven't been hunted. So what? Maybe he would be a good hunting dog, maybe he wouldn't. He is a great pet and companion and has the drive I need to do dog sports. There are things that make a flushing dog good at his job that also make him good for non-hunters, so what's the big deal if breeders focus on those other qualities and focus less on hunting? I don't think that means the breed is flubbed up, I think that means they are versatile.

It's still very easy to find a hunting spaniel from good lines if that's what somebody is looking for. And FWIW, my dog has plenty of prey and hunt drive, despite not being bred for that specifically. Would a real hunter want him? I don't know, but if you could see him hunting on his own you wouldn't call him watered down either.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

...If you do not have a ranch, and you do not have cattle....

Why would you need a dog who can do ranch work on a cattle farm?

There are aussies being used as such -and some local to me, others all over - but that doesn't change the question:

If you don't have a ranch, and you don't have cattle that need to be moved daily, what benefit is it to have a dog who comes from working parents and has the drive and ability to move cattle all day, every day (if it was tested, trained, and owned by someone who had both enough cattle and land to need to move them from pasture to pasture)? The dog's doing nothing with that ability and drive you hold in such high esteem. All it's doing is making the dog a less comfortable fit for the home it is in, and making some particular subset of owners feel good about themselves because their dog is *SO* hard to live with.

There's no benefit to the dog. There's no benefit to the owner, who is keeping that working breed as a pet (and again: unless you are WORKING THAT DOG ON A WORKING RANCH, you are keeping it as a pet). The people who need working cattle dogs are going to keep breeding working cattle dogs. They'll be there for the people who want them, too, but acting like it is somehow intrinsic to a dog that's probably never going to lay eyes on a cow, much less be trained to herd them, is just - nonsensical.

Much like the DA question: if you have a dog who is never going to be in a dog fight (you hope!) why would you want a DA dog?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

So Cavalier said:


> If you don't live and work on a ranch....who cares? They are pets not working dogs as are most dogs in the US.


But I do live on a ranch and I do care .

My point is don't want my breed to go down this way with "pet" people dictating what makes an ACD an ACD :/

@captjack then those said people who can't handle a dog like that should have that breed because in some herding breeds they are all like that, even the "less intense" are too intense for most pet homes.

For a visual aid- This is a good example of an ACD breeder who breeds good cattle dogs ... But most "pet" people wouldn't be able to handle a dog from here : www.k9cowboys.com/


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But I do live on a ranch and I do care .
> 
> My point is don't want my breed to go down this way with "pet" people dictating what makes an ACD an ACD :/


How in the world would pet people ever dictate what happens with a working ACD? If there are people breeding working dogs, you will be able to get a working dog. It's not like pet people go around to all of the breeders of working dogs and tell them what they can and can't breed.

Even if there was a line of pet bred ACDs without the drive to work cattle, how would that impact the working dogs in anyway?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

There are PLENTY of ranch working aussies. Look at Slash V or Pincie Creek off the top of my head. 

MAS are a SEPARATE breed from aussies. They have always been a pet/sport type breed. They make killer disc dogs and tend to be good at other sports too. It seems like based on videos and the fact that the local AKC herding people here have MAS that they do have instinct but they weren't meant to be ranch dogs like aussies were. They were meant to be active sporty smaller herders. They fill a new niche that is out there.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> But I do live on a ranch and I do care .
> 
> My point is don't want my breed to go down this way with "pet" people dictating what makes an ACD an ACD :/


Then you get your dog from "working" lines. "Pet" people get their dogs from breeders who produce "pet" lines. Dogs are happy, people are happy...win, win. I doubt that any of your dogs would be happy living with me and I would not be happy living with your dogs. They live and work with you...you are happy, they are happy....


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> How in the world would pet people ever dictate what happens with a working ACD? If there are people breeding working dogs, you will be able to get a working dog. It's not like pet people go around to all of the breeders of working dogs and tell them what they can and can't breed.
> 
> Even if there was a line of pet bred ACDs without the drive to work cattle, how would that impact the working dogs in anyway?


Yep. There's no way. Again: Are they going to accidentally breed one of those pet bred dogs into the working lines? GOLDEN RETRIEVER people can still find dogs to do field work with. As long as there are people who want to use them for the work _and the work is there for them to do_ they will be bred to do it. The only thing lost is some kind of imagined status in having a difficult to own breed, because now they aren't ALL quite SO difficult to own.

Whoop-de-crap.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

So Cavalier said:


> Then you get your dog from "working" lines. "Pet" people get their dogs from breeders who produce "pet" lines. Dogs are happy, people are happy...win, win. I doubt that any of your dogs would be happy living with me and I would not be happy living with your dogs. They live and work with you...you are happy, they are happy....


I am happy that most, if not all ACD breeders don't think that way.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't even understand why you'd compare MAS to what the Aussie's original purpose was. They aren't the same breed.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

They were _never_ the same breed.

They are not scaled down australian shepherds, anymore than shelties are bred down collies.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> They were _never_ the same breed.
> 
> They are not scaled down australian shepherds, anymore than shelties are bred down collies.


Then they should be called by another name if they don't want the breed to be affiliated with standard Aussies.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Miniature American shepherds is their name.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Then they should be called by another name if they don't want the breed to be affiliated with standard Aussies.


You mean Miniature *American* Shepherd? That's the breed name. Some people call them Mini Aussies, just like some people call Shelties mini Collies or lassies, but that doesn't make it accurate or right. It's just a lay people thing that non dog people picked up. It has nothing to do with the breed name, or breed foundation. Sort of like me running into people who call ACDs blueticks. Doesn't mean they're related to hounds.

I'm sorry, but you're just ignorant here - and I do mean this in the lacking relevant info, not anything about your intelligence. You're trying to craft an argument based on this, but the fact is - the things you are basing the argument on are patently false.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> You mean Miniature *American* Shepherd? That's the breed name. Some people call them Mini Aussies, just like some people call Shelties mini Collies or lassies, but that doesn't make it accurate or right. It's just a lay people thing that non dog people picked up. It has nothing to do with the breed name, or breed foundation. Sort of like me running into people who call ACDs blueticks. Doesn't mean they're related to hounds.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you're just ignorant here - and I do mean this in the lacking relevant info, not anything about your intelligence. You're trying to craft an argument based on this, but the fact is - the things you are basing the argument on are patently false.


Not about my breed it's not. The bottom line is I don't WANT "joe blow pet owner" who can't handle my breed "as it comes" to own one, so no I don't want a split. I don't want a separate mini breed to come out of it, I don't want working lines and show/pet lines.

Also just to read "so what if breeders are breeding ACDs with no drive to herd cattle?" Is painful for me.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The name change was forced with MAS. It's a new thing but I guess for the better since maybe people will stop labeling all the breeders as 'BYBs'. People still call them mini aussies because up till a few years ago that was the name. It's not going to change overnight.

I don't see why we can have mini dachshunds, mini poodles, mini schnauzers, mini bull terriers, toy manchester terriers, toy fox terriers and yet... how dare we have mini anything else nowadays. Shelties ended up in the same situation. They were called Shetland Collies when they were first starting to be shown. Till the collie people pitched a fit. It's still silly to me. We can have border collies and rough collies but we can't have shetland collies. No no.

If you look back at dog breed books when shelties were being refined and first coming into the scene people had the same. exact. complaints. with them as they do mini aussies. How dare anyone make a mini version of our beloved working breed!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Also just to read "so what if breeders are breeding ACDs with no drive to herd cattle?" Is painful for me.


Why? How does that in one eensy teensy way affect your life? If the dogs are not being harmed and are healthy and happy in their homes, why is it even remotely painful for you or anyone? Because someone way back in history said they need to be a certain way or else?

It's painful to consider that some dogs are being killed for not being good enough workers or "for the good of the breed". And that a LOT of dogs are killed for being too difficult for their owners.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Why? How does that in one eensy teensy way affect your life? If the dogs are not being harmed and are healthy and happy in their homes, why is it even remotely painful for you or anyone? Because someone way back in history said they need to be a certain way or else?
> 
> It's painful to consider that some dogs are being killed for not being good enough workers or "for the good of the breed". And that a LOT of dogs are killed for being too difficult for their owners.


If by "killed" you mean neutered / spayed or removed from the breeding program then yes. Working dog breeders aren't like fighting dog breeders, if a dog won't work or doesn't have drive then it is usually sold ... To a pet home! So there are ways for "pet" homes to get the dogs they want without actively changing yet another breed for it


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Um, yeah, killed means something other than dead :/. You didn't read the culling thread? But regardless of what the breeders do with washouts (and some do kill them, no doubt about that), you really think every pet home should wait around for a working breeder's rejects, so they can get a dog who is still too much for them? Anything that makes happy healthy dogs is fine by me. A dog does not suffer from lack of drive (well, unless someone chooses to make it suffer because it doesn't meet breed standards).


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

This is waaaaaaaay back in the thread at this point, but I stand by what I said. (working dogs are magical). The basis of most of the "watering down working dogs is bad" comes from the pedestal they are put on. I was making a ridiculous statement on purpose. I'm definitely not the first to express similar sentiments. 

Although maybe we should have another thread by this point to discuss "watering down" working breeds?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> The bottom line is I don't WANT "joe blow pet owner" who can't handle my breed "as it comes" to own one


Well, there's the real problem here. The thing is, other people don't care if you want to be the only one on the block with the biggest, baddest ACD. They're going to get what they want and it doesn't really matter if you don't want to share your toys. It doesn't affect you at all and its not your decision to make.



CrimsonAccent said:


> Although maybe we should have another thread by this point to discuss "watering down" working breeds?


We're too far in now to turn back!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I thought of making another thread but I agree we are too far in to turn back ... But I might anyway. I am not the only one who thinks this way about working dogs. I posted on the ACD forum about this topic and everyone agreed that it's a bad idea and WHY it's a bad idea. 

No one I know kills dogs when they don't pan out as working dogs  , not even the ranchers do that, they network them and get them into a loving pet home. 

Josefina is on the "lower end" if the drive spectrum IMO, no herding instinct ... She has the prey drive part of it but no herding instinct, BUT she is a rescue.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I posted on the ACD forum about this topic and everyone agreed that it's a bad idea and WHY it's a bad idea.


It would be interesting to hear the rationale.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> It would be interesting to hear the rationale.


It would. Because the "rationale" here seems to be "because history!!1!". Which I don't find overly compelling.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Willowy said:


> It would. Because the "rationale" here seems to be "because history!!1!". Which I don't find overly compelling.


No, the rationale is that they're *special*, dangit, and the general public aint capable of handling one. And you can't make them less drivey for people that want a less drivey one, because those people are NOT special.

I always get left out of the exclusive clubs


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

CptJack said:


> ...If you do not have a ranch, and you do not have cattle....
> 
> Much like the DA question: if you have a dog who is never going to be in a dog fight (you hope!) why would you want a DA dog?


I used to desire some DA in a dog until rather recently because of issues and fights with loose dogs,I felt that with my past Malamute mix that her later mild DA kept other dogs away. I knew Raggy was DA when I got him,although he got more so before he got better after a bad fight. I've than realized how challenging it is to have such a dog,especially when you rent. That many dogs do enjoy the companionship of other dogs over humans,Raggy still gets more excited over any dog over any human including myself. That you can have a dog like my Newfie that would stand their ground and defend themselves without being DA. I want a dog I can take to festivals and inside pet stores without getting kicked out or the dog gets more and more miserable.

Also you can have guardian instinct in a dog without being human aggressive,usually they still want a dog that can be in large crowds of people and to be petted by friendly strangers.

You can still have herding instinct without having a dog that's neurotic,herds ants and light and wants to go until it drops. Not even all ranchers want that kind of dog,it's almost more of a herding trial thing.

Rottweilers where originally cattle herding and drafting dogs but haven't been bred specifically for such in about a 100 years,yet their are some that can still do the jobs. They where just no longer needed for such and how many working dogs are losing their purpose. Actual sheep farms are becoming more scarce in America,most people live in apartments and suburbs,new inventions get created all the time. I still like to see dogs do the work they are created for but I understand why most breeders don't go that rout.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I have made a new thread on this topic so we don't keep degrading this one.


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

Why do most threads somehow always go back to ACD's and how they are in the workingest of the working dogs...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

meggels said:


> Why do most threads somehow always go back to ACD's and how they are in the workingest of the working dogs...


I don't know, but somehow it always is.

Never Mals or BCs or GSD, or labs, or spaniels or any of the assorted hounds, or any of the other working dogs, or even other herding dogs.

It always comes back to ACDs. And having lived with and fostered them - one who came straight off the farm as a working dog and one who was an untrained teenager from working lines - it makes me scratch my head. They're not that different. I mean they're a breed and there's no mistaking an ACD is an ACD, but they're not really all that difficult. At all. Not to train, not to motivate, not to contain or own.

but somehow it's *always* ACDs it circles back to.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I dunno but the two behind my house seem to just be backyard lawn ornaments.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

CptJack said:


> I don't know, but somehow it always is.
> 
> Never Mals or BCs or GSD, or labs, or spaniels or any of the assorted hounds, or any of the other working dogs, or even other herding dogs.
> 
> ...


I suspect there's a username pattern in these threads that might hold some answers to this conundrum.:wink:


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

My friends have very little dog experience and adopted an ACD from a rescue. Possibly a mix, but not likely to look and at him and his sister. He's a handful, and he wasn't what they expected, but he's turned into a great dog for them. They don't exercise him much beyond fetch in the yard, and they've done little formal training, but it's really ok. Some days I want to steal him as a sports dog, but he's settled in just fine to their home and life. They really aren't any different from other drivey dogs.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

I don't look at it as 'watering down' a breed but channeling those traits to do other jobs. GSDs and Mals were originally herders and now because we channeled those traits are very good dogs at protection. Depending on where you live depends on how much you will see a dog do a job they were originally bred for yet owners will pick those breeds to do something else because of those traits that will make that dog excel in that sport. Watering down no! switching channels yes!

I have a friend who owns 3 ACDs. Magical no they are not. The one she bought off a working ranch in Oklahoma is the most laid back ACD dog I have ever met.


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

Abbie was listed on Petfinder as an ACD cross. So that makes me pretty awesome for being her keeper, right?

(God only knows if she has ACD in her. Well...God and her hussy of a mutt mother...)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> I don't know, but somehow it always is.
> 
> Never Mals or BCs or GSD, or labs, or spaniels or any of the assorted hounds, or any of the other working dogs, or even other herding dogs.
> 
> ...


Because they are Magical Working dogs.. Which is why I named Merlin Call Me Work N Some Magic (Intense sarcastic humor)


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Because they are Magical Working dogs.. Which is why I named Merlin Call Me Work N Some Magic (Intense sarcastic humor)



Have your surgery yet? Is this Percocet talk? Good name by the way. I like seeing what people call their dogs and the registered name. I really like doing this with the horses.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Rescued said:


> I knew this would be the next point.
> 
> Well, a lot of the pitties/bullies that end up in the shelter are ones that were bred purposefully (compared to our oops lab/hound mixes) and these dogs are advertised as having pedigrees that are only a few gen removed from the responsible breeders.
> 
> ...


 I don't know a single BYB who "tries to copy" responsible breeders, having a pedigree doesn't equal being well bred, and how do you know the dogs are "only a few generations" from being well bred? O_O HOW many dogs do you get in your shelter who DO have a ped? I worked in a shelter and very very few dogs came in with any kind of paper work.. I have seen dogs posted "with papers" of ALL breeds on craigslist. Most of the bybs i know do not try and copy anything, rather just breed their dog who they think is cute with their friends dog who they think is cute


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

luv mi pets said:


> Have your surgery yet? Is this Percocet talk? Good name by the way. I like seeing what people call their dogs and the registered name. I really like doing this with the horses.


I go to the hospital at 8:30 in the morning.

I actually came up with the name because I always wanted a dog named Merlin.. His Grand Father was Olman's Work N Class Man. I LOVED that dog and wanted to honor him. So I asked and received permission to use Work N in his name. And what fits a dog named Merlin? Magic. 

Who knew the breed was magical...


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I go to the hospital at 8:30 in the morning.
> 
> I actually came up with the name because I always wanted a dog named Merlin.. His Grand Father was Olman's Work N Class Man. I LOVED that dog and wanted to honor him. So I asked and received permission to use Work N in his name. And what fits a dog named Merlin? Magic.
> 
> Who knew the breed was magical...


So tomorrow will be magical words from you and your dog. Wishing you the best and hope all goes well magically with your surgery. 

Maybe Magic Kennels for you and your ACD dogs of the future?


----------

