[2bully]

Oh now comes the romanticized origins. It's about time people get a grip on reality. The AB came about much as the OEB did. Just a bunch of breeding what ever to what ever to get a result. David Leavitt used the same EB as Johnson. There are no regional pockets that have some bulldogs that can trace their lineage back to the mayflower. Bulldog historically was a job description not a breed description. Any dog that did the work ascribed to the bulldog was a bulldog it's really that simply. To those that think that bulldogs weren't used on men in the past are mistaken.

 

[forever_pit]

Oh now comes the romanticized origins. It's about time people get a grip on reality. The AB came about much as the OEB did. Just a bunch of breeding what ever to what ever to get a result. David Leavitt used the same EB as Johnson. There are no regional pockets that have some bulldogs that can trace their lineage back to the mayflower. Bulldog historically was a job description not a breed description. Any dog that did the work ascribed to the bulldog was a bulldog it's really that simply. To those that think that bulldogs weren't used on men in the past are mistaken.

That was not my point about regions, just to be clear. It was more a comment on language and the same thing being called different things in different regions. You can see it in the Middle East today. There are several names for the Kangal that vary by region. Same dog, same job though.

Every thing else though, yes.
Geez, I wish I had your brevity sometimes. lol

 

[2bully]

A, my brevity comes from my lack of patience to deal with stupidity. I lack the ability to suffer fools.

I understood your regional reference. Mine was simply targeted at the romantic origins. The notion that there are several pristine bulldog types that can trace their lineage back to the original bulldogs of England is absurd. That somehow several like minded people traversed this nation and found these bulldogs hidden in various regions untouched by their regional seclusion is ridiculous. OSW, WEB, ABBB, and the AB share very similar origin stories. Stories are exactly what they are.

 

[tigerflag]

I have no desire to argue with people here who have thousands of posts to their names. It seems, however, that people are arguing with me about things I didn't say.

For clarity's sake, I never said OSWs were better at hunting than dogs from other breeding lines. I don't agree with the statement that the OSW is a breeding program strictly for hunting, or that it's just marketing hype, but I'm fine with the fact that others might see it that way. I see the OSW as an athletic, well-balanced, general-purpose bulldog. It isn't just a hunting dog. It's also been used for herding cattle, catching livestock, family companion, therapy dog, and yes, protection work as well. It's been around far longer than pedigrees and breed registries.

When the American Bulldog as a breed is so deteriorated that people are asking whether or not it needs outcrosses to other breeds in order to bring it back to health, I look at a well-bred OSW bulldog and see a bulldog that is already healthy.

***

You know, I came here a few years ago with a training question about my puppy. She was suddenly afraid of children when she hadn't been before. I got such a harsh, judgemental response from one of the participants here that it left me in tears. She said she would never tolerate an aggressive bulldog and that I should get rid of her. Well, turns out my pup was in an adolescent fear phase. Wasn't agressive at all.

But the rudeness, the judgementalism, the hostility of the responder made me avoid this forum for a long time thereafter.

Recently I decided to dip my toe back into the conversations here. And yep, there it is again. Rather than a civil response, I'm insulted. Repeatedly. Lovely.

Do you talk to people that way when you meet them face to face? Perhaps you're in a lot of pain, and that's why you're so rude. I hope so, because if not, it means you're just an a**hole by choice.

I came to this forum to share in discussion, to learn, not to fight, and not to be bullied and insulted. Turns out, this isn't a forum for adult discussion, it's an elementary school clique.

I will leave you to it. BuhBye!

 

[Steph]

I saw nothing rude in any of the statement mike or al made. If you choose to take what is said here so personally, perhaps you should look within yourself as to why it bothers you so much. You sound pretty knowledgable and your insight would most likely be valued in this forum if you can get used to the straight-forward nature of it.

 

[JohnJ]

I don't agree with the statement that the OSW is a breeding program strictly for hunting, or that it's just marketing hype, but I'm fine with the fact that others might see it that way.

You gave your thoughts on the matter at hand, and were offended when somebody finds the idea ridiculous. Sadly, your response has been the least adult out of the 7 pages this has gone.

Turns out, this isn't a forum for adult discussion, it's an elementary school clique.

This being a forum for discussion, is going to have opinions other than your own. If you can't accept that without feeling offended, judged, etc. than maybe you should do a little growing up of your own.

I've enjoyed this thread and the opinions of others. It's been civil aside from this recent outburst and I hope it continues in a civil manner. I can't thank you guys enough for the responses. My wheels are turning and it's urged me to look into the matter with a different perspective.

 

[2bully]

Yes I talk to people in person as I speak on the board.

I also don't cling to some romantic made up story about a "breed's" origins. I have my feet firmly planted on the ground. You came with stories, hardly a knowledge base worth debating. Should I apologize because you're uninformed? Should one side step your ignorance just to spare your feelings?

I don't make excuses for my dogs. I have a yard full of them and not one has displayed a sudden fear to children at any stage in their lives. I guess my dogs just aren't normal. I don't tolerate unwarranted aggression on my yard.

You can cling to your romantic origins. I won't loose sleep over it.

I find it humorous that the most outspoken against outcrossing in the thread don't have breeding programs or actively working/testing their dogs according to their ideal type/breed to the best of my knowledge. Seems like they want to arm chair quarterback those that do.

 

[JohnJ]

I find it humorous that the most outspoken against outcrossing in the thread don't have breeding programs or actively working/testing their dogs according to their ideal type/breed to the best of my knowledge. Seems like they want to arm chair quarterback those that do.

:dontknow:

Maybe I should re-read the thread? lol

 

[2bully]

A little over the top? Several spoke on outcrossing in different breeds/venues that echoed pretty much what Alison said at length and I in short. I wish for the life of me I could remember the books name or even the author. It's a very interesting read on the dog's history in America. Even talks about the breeding programs of Ben Franklin and George Washington, programs based in part on outcrossing to suit the task.

Truly life would be so much simpler if dogs where identified by the task they performed rather than what it looks like. Just look at any standard, they're more detailed on a dog's appearance than they are about temperament and function. It's sad that a breed is more defined by how they look rather than work they can actually do. Most people seem to forget that breeds were built upon an actual function. Some times that function falls to the side, but few find a new suitable test. Dashunds were badger dogs, so the next time you see a wiener dog ask yourself does that dog have the brass ones to scramble down a badger hole, face that badger, and have the character to drag it back up the hole to the hunter? Would a little dose of APBT add enough temperament to make that little dog a badger dog again? When temperament isn't being tested and selected for it's lost. Temperament is the single hardest trait to maintain, yet is the most often overlooked trait in a breeding program. In just a few generations one can loose the very temperament traits that drew them to the bulldog to begin with. Yet those with the courage to color outside the lines to maintain temperament are often criticized for stepping outside the box.

 

[JohnJ]

I wasn't trying to be a d__k or anything, I found it amusing that I was missing something in the thread.

I thought the majority was all for outcrossing. I'm still trying to form an educated opinion by gathering the thoughts of the more experienced members like yourself.
Personally I see nothing wrong with outcrossing, so long as it's advertised as such. I don't see anything wrong with wanting a "purebred" AB either. An AB breed which hasn't been outcrossed. A breed that can consistently do the work and stay healthy doing it. It seems like a monumental task at this point in time, but like a great man once said..
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
― John F. Kennedy
This quote by JFK could also be applied...
“Above all, we are coming to understand that the arts incarnate the creativity of a free people. When the creative impulse cannot flourish, when it cannot freely select its methods and objects, when it is deprived of spontaneity, then society severs the root of art.” Proper breeding is an art IMO. If somebody chooses to outcross that's their thing. There's nothing wrong with it.

I kinda look at it like a car enthusiast. The purist crowd vs. those who modify. Both have their own kinda cool going on.

I'm thinking of a way to do it. You would have the 7/8's rule with a twist. Put the rule into effect for a final year and any pups registered after the date must reach a higher fractional percentage for each following year. All dogs would have to meet a scaled version of work production in order to reproduce.

After reading what I just posted, I realized how out-of-whack it sounds. It's more like a personal breeding program than some sort of registry rules.
I've still got a LOT to learn. It would be too much to ask from breeders. ESPECIALLY if there was a proof of work requirement in this imaginary registry.

I'm not sure if these goals are pointless, naive, or just. It's a bit of a toss-up for me at this point.

If you remember the name of the book, I'd appreciate it.

 

[2bully]

The book's titled "A Dog's history of America" authored by Mark Derr.

 

[2bully]

The definition of purity is adjective. The definition varies from one individual to the next. If we accept that paper hanging is prevalent, how does one ensure that they have pure stock going to pure stock? Are we to accept that a piece of paper is the defining evidence of purity? Does it put it in perspective that there are registries that will paper a dog with a couple of pictures and some money? Are those dogs any more or any less pure, they have papers? Papers and the significance that they provide is nothing more than hype. You are no more assured purity with papers than you are without.

In many OEB registries it's not uncommon to have ABs and EBs dual registered as their respective breed and OEB within the same registry. It's also a common practice that as long as the parents are registered with the registry that an AB/EB pairing results in the litter being registrable as OEB. Is the breeder dishonest when working within the established rules of the registry or do we lay blame solely at the feet of the registry? Are the dogs registered any less of a dog because of this?

It's not until one is able to look past the ingrained constraints of purity are they able to appreciate the dog for it's abilities. A dog's worth should never be decided by what papers accompany it, it's pedigree, are any of the multitude of arbitrary traits that are so often defined as making a dog worth something. A dog's worth should solely rest on it's ability to perform.

 

[Steph]

The definition of purity is adjective. The definition varies from one individual to the next. If we accept that paper hanging is prevalent, how does one ensure that they have pure stock going to pure stock? Are we to accept that a piece of paper is the defining evidence of purity? Does it put it in perspective that there are registries that will paper a dog with a couple of pictures and some money? Are those dogs any more or any less pure, they have papers? Papers and the significance that they provide is nothing more than hype. You are no more assured purity with papers than you are without.

In many OEB registries it's not uncommon to have ABs and EBs dual registered as their respective breed and OEB within the same registry. It's also a common practice that as long as the parents are registered with the registry that an AB/EB pairing results in the litter being registrable as OEB. Is the breeder dishonest when working within the established rules of the registry or do we lay blame solely at the feet of the registry? Are the dogs registered any less of a dog because of this?

It's not until one is able to look past the ingrained constraints of purity are they able to appreciate the dog for it's abilities. A dog's worth should never be decided by what papers accompany it, it's pedigree, are any of the multitude of arbitrary traits that are so often defined as making a dog worth something. A dog's worth should solely rest on it's ability to perform.

Good post. And I completely 100% agree with that last statement. It's very unfortunate many breeders don't think that way. If they did, we would have less wrecks of a dog being bred for it's color or wrinkles or bowed out legs.

 

[JohnJ]

Here I go with the bad analogies again. :roll:

It's like modding the engine in your car and claiming it's stock. Then going out and racing in a stock category and blaming the race organizers for not inspecting the vehicle properly. It's a level of integrity that seems to have been lost in the dog world.


A working dog is a beautiful thing and proves it's worth based solely on it's work. Why not up the ante? Why not have a working dog that conforms to a set standard? One that works well within the rules?

 

[JohnJ]

BTW thanks for the book title. I have an extra $25 in paypal that I've been looking to spend.

 

[JohnJ]

It's very unfortunate many breeders don't think that way. If they did, we would have less wrecks of a dog being bred for it's color or wrinkles or bowed out legs.

I agree with what both of you are saying . A dog shouldn't be bred strictly for conformation either. I was trying to cover that in this thread but my thoughts aren't always typed out very well.

 

[JohnJ]

Some of you may have seen this article before but I'll post it because it's relevant.
He has some interesting ideas and opinions.
Interview with Greg Souza of Souza's American Bulldogs

 

[luckysarah]

A working dog is a beautiful thing and proves it's worth based solely on it's work. Why not up the ante? Why not have a working dog that conforms to a set standard? One that works well within the rules?

Because it simply does not work.

I took this quote form the JRTCA, although not a bulldog registry they are the best working dog registry in the world IMO.

The Real Jack Russell Terrier may be any height between 10" and 15" (at the shoulder), it may vary in coats, markings, type, and for sure personality… they are ALL real Jack Russell Terriers. There is no "ideal" …. the "ideal" is what suits their owner for what they want/need to do with their terrier. That is the uniqueness of this diverse terrier. The diversity within the JRTCA breed standard is what makes the Jack Russell Terrier suitable for a variety of working and performance abilities - in contrast with the narrow, cosmetic breed standards of many show breeds.

Jack Russell Terrier: JRTCA: The Real Jack Russell Terrier

 

[JohnJ]

Because it simply does not work.

Can I ask you guys your opinions on why it doesn't work?

I've owned and have seen several breeds of bird dogs that were "purebred" that could work and show. What are your thoughts on why it's different when it comes to Bulldogs? Or as Sarah pointed out, the JRT?

 

[rzavalza]

Can I ask you guys your opinions on why it doesn't work?

I've owned and have seen several breeds of bird dogs that were "purebred" that could work and show. What are your thoughts on why it's different when it comes to Bulldogs? Or as Sarah pointed out, the JRT?

In Greg Souza's interview that you linked he said that it does work and he see's no reason to not breed for both.