[mstngchic2012]

I believe that if you want a show dog that works you have to breed for the working aspects first. I firmly believe in form follows function. But you have to also look at the big time show rings and differences in show dogs and working dogs. Look at Labs and Collies for example. Show Labs and Collies are larger and not as athletic looking than the field Labs and Collies. And to be honest those field Labs and Collies tend to not do as well in the show ring from what I've seen because show people like the larger looking dogs.

 

[luckysarah]

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?

Again defining purebred, JRTCA dogs are purebred but the standard is lose to allow them to keep their working ability and introduce new blood.

It doesn't work where the standard is slim, a good example being the AKC or CKC fox terrier of today and the JRTCA JRT, these dogs come from the exact same foundation dogs........ release a JRTCA dog and an AKC fox terrier and see who goes to ground the hardest? I guarantee I know your answer. This proves it doesn't work, start with one line and breed one for conformation and one for work and you end up with two totally different dogs/breeds in 10 or 20 years. You can even look at the change in the parsons russell terrier which comes from the same exact stock as the JRTCA jack russell's and since the late 1990's to today there is already a significant change in the breed.

Breed for both and you end up with a midline of both, a decent working dog who conforms decently, but you will never be at the top and this is the reason many breeders pick one or the other, its extremely difficult to be successful in both.

Just because a dog CAN work and show doesn't mean its good at both.

 

[JohnJ]

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.

It does. I'm trying to get to the root. Is it opinion that it doesn't work or is it fact that it doesn't.

Personally I think it could work, but now I question whether or not it should be done. If the AB started as a mix of whatever works, why change the formula? Or should the AB be refined and narrowed down? I can see the benefits, reasons, and faults of both both camps. I'm "on the fence" I guess you could say. So the more info I get from the members here and from other sources, the better armed I will be when deciding for myself.

 

[luckysarah]

I believe that if you want a show dog that works you have to breed for the working aspects first. I firmly believe in form follows function. But you have to also look at the big time show rings and differences in show dogs and working dogs. Look at Labs and Collies for example. Show Labs and Collies are larger and not as athletic looking than the field Labs and Collies. And to be honest those field Labs and Collies tend to not do as well in the show ring from what I've seen because show people like the larger looking dogs.

Look at a breed like the husky...... the show standard calls for a coat that makes the dogs incapable of working, its to hot for them to work with a show coat. So sometimes (and most of the time) in the end the show standards totally go against the working standards.

 

[JohnJ]

Again defining purebred, JRTCA dogs are purebred but the standard is lose to allow them to keep their working ability and introduce new blood.

It doesn't work where the standard is slim, a good example being the AKC or CKC fox terrier of today and the JRTCA JRT, these dogs come from the exact same foundation dogs........ release a JRTCA dog and an AKC fox terrier and see who goes to ground the hardest? I guarantee I know your answer. This proves it doesn't work, start with one line and breed one for conformation and one for work and you end up with two totally different dogs/breeds in 10 or 20 years. You can even look at the change in the parsons russell terrier which comes from the same exact stock as the JRTCA jack russell's and since the late 1990's to today there is already a significant change in the breed.

Breed for both and you end up with a midline of both, a decent working dog who conforms decently, but you will never be at the top and this is the reason many breeders pick one or the other, its extremely difficult to be successful in both.

Just because a dog CAN work and show doesn't mean its good at both.

Thanks for the response, it was a good one.

 

[JohnJ]

Look at Labs and Collies for example. Show Labs and Collies are larger and not as athletic looking than the field Labs and Collies. And to be honest those field Labs and Collies tend to not do as well in the show ring from what I've seen because show people like the larger looking dogs.

I know exactly what you're saying and it's a shame that it happened like that. I was kind of hoping that it wouldn't happen to the AB too.

 

[JohnJ]

Look at a breed like the husky...... the show standard calls for a coat that makes the dogs incapable of working, its to hot for them to work with a show coat. So sometimes (and most of the time) in the end the show standards totally go against the working standards.

I think we need a revolution!! lol The registries have been ruining good dogs long enough!!

I joke but it really does bother me. It's really sad IMO

 

[rzavalza]

It does. I'm trying to get to the root. Is it opinion that it doesn't work or is it fact that it doesn't.

Personally I think it could work, but now I question whether or not it should be done. If the AB started as a mix of whatever works, why change the formula? Or should the AB be refined and narrowed down? I can see the benefits, reasons, and faults of both both camps. I'm "on the fence" I guess you could say. So the more info I get from the members here and from other sources, the better armed I will be when deciding for myself.

The text below is taken from that link:

8) How do you test for these qualities?




I test for these qualities in many ways. First is observation of the dog in it's environment, interacting with other dogs, in society, at shows, etc. I like to observe what his parents, grandparents, siblings, and other relatives are like. I test in the Vet's Office with genetic screening and certification, in the Conformation Ring, and on the Trial Field for Titling and Competitions. 9) Is it important to put show champion titles on breeding stock as well as working titles? Why? Which is more important?

I feel that both Show and Working Titles are equally important. Together they make the "Total Package" Dog. Without both, you are shortchanging the breed. The "Total Package" is what all Breeder's should be trying to achieve. Anything less is not giving 100 percent, and you are selling the dog and yourself short.

10) Racing Greyhounds, seeing eye dogs, Idiatrod sled dogs, fighting Pitt Bulls, and Police line GSDs do not meet any conformation standard. Yet these breeders have met with success Do working only breeders of American Bulldogs that select for function alone harm the breed? In what way? Do show titles on parent dogs attract higher quality customers?

Working only Breeder's are only completing one half of the equation. A Titled, working dog is great, but a great looking, Conformationally correct dog that is titled and works is Awesome! This is the "total package" dog, the dog that deserves to be bred. There doesn't have to be a separation between Working and Showing, they need to work hand in hand for the improvement of our breed.

Show Championships on parents do not necessarily attract higher quality customers. Show Titles, like Working Titles, prove the dog in competition against it's peers. They show that the dog was consistently better then the other dogs it was competing against.

11) Conversely, there are AB breeders that select entirely for conformation. In what way does strict show breeding hurt the breed?

Strict Show breeding hurts the breed because it is also only one half of the equation. The dog bred for show only may look and move great, as well as fitting a Standard, but it hasn't proven itself in the Working arena. Strict Show breeding has caused dogs to lose their Working ability, becoming only a shell of it's original self. We have seen this in many of the AKC breeds, it is very sad.







This is just what the article said. I don't know much of the matter.

 

[forever_pit]

To add an interesting perspective...

I work with hundreds of Labrador Retrievers in IED detection. The variety in appearance of these dogs is incredible. But they work and they have proven their abilities in a deadly serious job. Had conformation or being "pretty" been a focus of the breeding programs from which these dogs come, then there are obviously dogs that would not have been bred due to cosmetic reasons. If the breeding program were different, would these dogs be able to do the work they are?

Another thought, you look at the UKC, AKC, and ADBA standards and champions in the Pit Bull and Amstaff fields and each registry has developed a very different look. Along with that look comes different temperaments, and with the pull toward making prettier dogs a lot has been lost in these dogs (cough cough AmStaffs). The ADBA stuck to the working requirements and temperament goals in these dogs and still have what is IMO a good looking dog but there is still variety.

For me personally, I just don't care about conformation. I think my dogs are pretty good looking and they will continue to be tested in working venues as well as have health certs and tests completed. Will they ever walk in a left hand circle? No, simply because I have no interest in it whatsoever. Does that mean that they could not or would not or are not good representations of the AB breed?

 

[Drakoshuman]

I think we need a revolution!! lol The registries have been ruining good dogs long enough!!

Not all registries are created equal. I'm a huge fan of the A.D.R.K. This is how, IMO, business should be run. This is a somewhat lengthy read, but pay particular attention to breed qualification tests.

Article - Understanding the A.D.R.K.

 

[JohnJ]

Not all registries are created equal. I'm a huge fan of the A.D.R.K. This is how, IMO, business should be run. This is a somewhat lengthy read, but pay particular attention to breed qualification tests.

Article - Understanding the A.D.R.K.

Wow..
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sounds like a tough registry to be a part of but I'd imagine it produces some great dogs.

 

[Redbull]

I don't want to get into the middle of a debate, but yeah, the AB has always been a bit of a 'charlie-foxtrot'. Nothing new really, as in it's not quite a new phenomenon with them. They've always had a very lose standard and multiple types and sub-types. Kinda a nice thing about them though in a way, something for everyone and lots of variety if you know what you are looking for.

 

[wilonso]

Forgive me for being ignorant - to summarise you should outcross by beeding an AB with a Pit ? or have completely missed it all ?

Now im not saying you should, but the topic is about the benefits it can bring correct me if im wrong.... which is where the doubt about the purety of the AB comes into play.

Surely an ABxPit would look nothing like either dog, how can you then present it as one or the other ?

 

[Drakoshuman]

I agree wilonso. If the self appointed breed wardens of the world want to throw two dogs together in the hopes of building a better mousetrap then so be it. But why call it an AB when in fact it's something else?

 

[Redbull]

Forgive me for being ignorant - to summarise you should outcross by beeding an AB with a Pit ? or have completely missed it all ?

Now im not saying you should, but the topic is about the benefits it can bring correct me if im wrong.... which is where the doubt about the purety of the AB comes into play.

Surely an ABxPit would look nothing like either dog, how can you then present it as one or the other ?

Outcrossings were already done in the past. There is no need for anymore

 

[forever_pit]

I agree wilonso. If the self appointed breed wardens of the world want to throw two dogs together in the hopes of building a better mousetrap then so be it. But why call it an AB when in fact it's something else?

An honest (read: responsible) breeder doesn't paint these crosses as ABs. Lots of people are quite honest about the blood in the dogs on their leashes.

I'm considering adding a cross to my dog, you will NEVER hear me call that dog an AB - he is what he is, and ABxAPBT.

 

[Steph]

I would LOOOOOVE an APBTxAB. I have hopes of getting one and working it someday.

 

[mstngchic2012]

Outcrossings were already done in the past. There is no need for anymore

That's not true. Outcrossing is necessary for many breeds and even species. Many good responsible breeders use outcrossing in their programs.

An honest (read: responsible) breeder doesn't paint these crosses as ABs. Lots of people are quite honest about the blood in the dogs on their leashes.

I'm considering adding a cross to my dog, you will NEVER hear me call that dog an AB - he is what he is, and ABxAPBT.

Don't many breeders breed back to the AB to get the "pure" factor again?

 

[wilonso]

I see, i had never seen a pitbull till i moved to Cyprus - even though they are illegal here my friend has one and just being able to see the athleticism of his dog first hand instead of on youtube makes me ponder about having an ABxPit - the only clarity i wanted was answered above, as long as it is labelled as what it is then i have no qualms.

I would love to see what the variations looked like as i can imagine they would look drastically different a bit like the OEB (variation wise)

 

[forever_pit]

Don't many breeders breed back to the AB to get the "pure" factor again?

If they want to, yeah.
Some just breed the best male on their yard to their best female.
I obviously can't answer for the entire breeding community.
Personally, were I to get into crosses then I'm not concerned with getting purity after that. I would only be breeding for myself and to get the best performance animals I could.

The ABxAPBT dogs I have seen don't actually look that drastically different. They tend to have more color than the AB typically has, and the head type may be different. There are already purebred ABs that look more like a hound or Pit than some of their counterparts. You can really go from one extreme to the other in ABs.

ETA: Let's think about how many other breeds have used the APBT to add something to their stock, other than the AB: Malinois, Dutch Shepherd, Patterdales, Greyhounds, Bay dogs, Donovan Pinscher, Bandogges (Manson Family Bandogges are based off of an APBT named Manson). All of those breeds use the APBT for performance reasons. It's no secret in any of those circles either.