Bulldog Breeds Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Im no breeder first of all, although I must admit im giving consideration to it further down the line.

Ive been reading extensively on all things Pit and Breed over the last couple of years and will continue to do so and I find a lot of things both interesting and frustrating.

In this forum I see a lot of critique if BYB and I agree with it in principle, I dont feel it really does reflect the reality though. Stopping BYB wont help or save the Pitbull imho. To be honest from what i see now, stopping many serious breeders if the best protection the Pit as a breed can ever have.

Im horrified looking at whats happening in the US in particular with "registered" breeders in the name of the "breed". I see little short fat, blocky objects almost as wide as they are tall, gorwing problems with hips, hearts and bones which never used to be endemic to this dog and I worry that the pit is spiralling headlong towards being another Boxer type breed, so relentlessly bred its now a terribly unhealthy breed. I just cant agree that this is either healthy, responsible or good for the breed. Its a little ironic now that Pedigree Pits have a whole array of associated health problems, and its getting worse and worse. Years and years of "selective breeding" not to preserve a breed but to dictate how people want it to be are ruining this beautiful powerful healthy dog.


If I do decide to go ahead with breeding a couple of years down the line, I have decided im probably going to stay away from registered dogs, papers and all of that altogether. Its important that a Pit is strong, healthy, althletic, good hips, good health, this is important. Not whether it has a paper, or can be bred to make the next lot shorter or bigger of head or whatever.

In Argentina the Pit Bull isnt recognised by the FCA so they are all without papers, and maybe I feel happier for it. I know breeding without papers would prevent registered showing, but then is that so bad?
Isnt the welfare of the animal and the breed itself more important?

Many of the faults for showing are not genetically rigid. A bitch with prick ears and a gay tail can produce perfect pups with rose ears and a conforming tail, thats for sure. Maybe unregistered, unpapered Pits are better off if they are well bred and well raised from healthy dogs by responsible people. They wouldnt be caught up in cruel breed laws, and maybe over time they would breed healthier again without such aggresive selection and limited DNA.

Dont get me wrong, I understand the dangers of this, but they exist either way. If I breed I will breed probably by contract, I would need to know where all of my pups are, have regular information on them, and be there to take them in or help out if there is some emergency which puts them at risk. As I said im still deciding.

I have two new pups now and if in two years once they can have their hips, hearts and various health aspects checked out and are well minded still, we will decide.
Currently we have 7 people, friends and family all hoping for pups from them which is why the subject intially came up, but the more I read the more I think Pits need healthy and honest breeding and care to undo the damage done to both them and their rep. Maybe I wont in the end, but its certainly in my mind. Here in Argentine there isnt the population crisis there is in the US so thats not an issue. youre more likely to see 40000 goldens when out than 4 pits!!

What do people think of this topic, honeslty. I find it all very confused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
Papers are IMO very important in purchasing from a breeder, not important if you are adopting one from a shelter
but there are reasons besides "showing" that people choose to purchase from a breeder with papers. First off, papers
show where your pup has come from. Your dogs may be in good health and temperment, but what about their parents.
Or their parents' parents. or their parents? How is anyone even to know that they are purchasing a pure bred dog if it
doesn't have papers and come from a line of good breeders? I view breeders who have no papers, no care for showing,
no care for working their dogs, etc. as backyard breeders.

Registering your dogs has to do with bettering the breed and bloodline as much as showing and working.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thats all nice in theory but ignores the facts. Or maybe ignores is not right, it presents registry on the positive side and overlooks the huge negative aspects, thats better maybe.

Its pedigree Pitbulls and registered breeding that has caused 90% of the genetic disorders in the breed. The reason Pits are prone to bad hips and bad hearts if because of REGISTERED selective breeding to "improve the breed".

Where a dog has come from is a fraction of the importance because you can tell you need to know about a dog before responsible breeding age. By two years old you would know if it had good hips, heart, good mental condition, and all that you need to know to breed a healthy dog.

You would also be able to see for yourself how "good and example" of the breed the adult actually is.

I understand that papers give legitimacy, meaning it limits the idea of people breeding dogs with problems and selling the pups.

However I still dont agree its healthy. if it made any difference they why are the problems of health endemic to predigree Pits? Being able to trace lineage, check DNA and see the bloodlines of a dog is nice in theory is its used correctly, but I dont believe thats the case.

If it was why is the Pedigree Pit developing more and more genetically inherant problems year by year? Pits never began life with hip and heart problems rife in the breed, it was bred into them by selective breeding by registered breeders trying to select the charecteristics of the bred and change its form, shape and structure.

So on the one hand backyard breeders could breed unhealthy dogs if papers were disgarded. I agree.
On the other hand registered selective breeding is weakening the breed and causing problems through irresponsible DNA limiting. I agree here also.

So, it still leaves me wondering what is best. To simply select a healthy, well balanced pair of breeding adults, who dont have hip problems dont have heart issues and have good temperement and good conformity to what a Pit Actually looks like. (not these short fat freakish things people are calling pedigree pits these days)

For me its a more respectable and responsible and healthy position than either backyard or registered breeding. I dont like back yard puppy factiories, but I dont like what DNA facism is doing to pedigree dogs either. Both case are reckless, and neither are good for the breed or dogs in general.

Maybe id just rather start my own line of Pits, with a simple premise of breeding healthy stable animals and following my pups throughout their lives to ensure they are well raised and cared for. For me this is better for the breed than either of the two extremes of BYB and registry.

Thats just my peronal feeling on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Knomad I'm sorry but you are very wrong, of course I'm not in argentina but in the US, still paper has nothing to do with causing the problems of the American Pit Bull Terrier. If you want to be a good breeder and want to do everything right what is wrong with registering your dogs? How will this make them worse off? It will allow their lineage to be traced and doesn't at all hurt the breed.

Anyway to be more specific.....

Knomad said:
In this forum I see a lot of critique if BYB and I agree with it in principle, I dont feel it really does reflect the reality though. Stopping BYB wont help or save the Pitbull imho. To be honest from what i see now, stopping many serious breeders if the best protection the Pit as a breed can ever have.
I'm unsure as to why you feel this way? Stopping serious breeders would save the breed? First of all it doesn't matter if the dog has papers or not, a lot if not most bybs have papers/pedigrees thats why papers don't make a dog a quality dog. Many bybs have them and some don't for whatever reason. Showing doesn't make the dog a good dog either, show dogs could still have temperament and health problems and if the breeder shows it doesn't make them ethical. These are just part of what a good breeder should have Registration, Pedigree should know the bloodline and should show/work their dogs. One part they also care about the health and temperament, and where the pups go they have health guarantees and contracts for their pups, they screen buyers.

Bybs breed whatever they want to because they need money, think their dog is perfect or want cute pups, most of them even with papers/pedigrees have little idea about their dogs history or ancestestors all they know is they have Ch bloodlines because there are a couple CHs in the pedigree so they must have a good dog, they don't usually take into consideration the individual dogs conformation or its health and temperament. They're main concern is that they want to breed no matter what and won't cull or not breed even if the dog isn't quality. They are responsible LARGLY for the problems with the APBT for one they don't do any type of health testing and if the dog has an obvious health problem they will still breed that dog even if its a genetic health problem. If the dog has a temperament problem they don't care and will breed that dog too. They will sell to almost anyone who has the money and never care where the pup ends up, neglected, abused, abandoned, fought, made to be aggressive ect likely they will sell to someone who won't be responsible in raising and training their dog and won't get it altered. This means its in a home where it will cause problems for the breeds rep when its running lose, if it bites someone, or attacks and kills a neighbors dog it will create more unwanted pets and low quality APBTs because the buyer is either a byb or doesn't care to get their dog fixed and it breeds by accident. Its because of bybs and irresponsible pet owners who don't spay/neuter that the APBT has been ruined and has such a bad reputation. They don't care if your pup gets sick or has a genetic problem, once they have the money thats it. Touch luck, because they don't even know genetic health problems exist and those who do don't care.

Knomad said:
Im horrified looking at whats happening in the US in particular with "registered" breeders in the name of the "breed". I see little short fat, blocky objects almost as wide as they are tall, gorwing problems with hips, hearts and bones which never used to be endemic to this dog and I worry that the pit is spiralling headlong towards being another Boxer type breed, so relentlessly bred its now a terribly unhealthy breed. I just cant agree that this is either healthy, responsible or good for the breed. Its a little ironic now that Pedigree Pits have a whole array of associated health problems, and its getting worse and worse. Years and years of "selective breeding" not to preserve a breed but to dictate how people want it to be are ruining this beautiful powerful healthy dog.
So you are talking about bybs then? What you are saying those breeding for short, wide, fat low rider Pit Bulls with health problems are called backyard breeders and not responsible breeders. It has little to do with if they have papers or not, many of them do and some do not. But those are fad breeders breeding for size and color and are bybs, so maybe you are confused? A byb is someone who breeds away from the standard and what they want which is exactly the people you are describing. While responsible breeders preserve the breed keeping to the standard and working ability as well as health and temperament. You said it yourself, you can't agree thats its healthy, responsible or good for the breed therefore these ARE NOT good breeders they are breeders, these fad breeders basically breed for money. Have you noticed the prices on some of them, some are far more then from good breeders all the up to $3,000 for an ugly lil pig of a dog that doens't look like an APBT and will have health problems. I don't find it ironic, most bybs want papers to charge more for the pups (although I've seen fools pay $1,500 for UNREGISTERED fad bred giant hog looking blue pups), I don't see how you are blaming registration on this? A registration is not the breeding police, its up to breeders to be ethical! Whether or not they have papers/pedigrees doesn't make them good dogs. Most puppy mills have registered dogs. Registration is there to keep track of breedings and provide pedigrees, not say you can't breed. Pits WITHOUT papers have their own fair share of health and temperament problems, it all depends on the breeder not whether the dog is registered. There are many registered Pits who have cleared their health test, temperament test and have show and working titles. With all the popularity of the breeds the problems in health and temperament are getting worse, but its not with pedigreed Pits its with Pits in general.

If I do decide to go ahead with breeding a couple of years down the line, I have decided im probably going to stay away from registered dogs, papers and all of that altogether. Its important that a Pit is strong, healthy, althletic, good hips, good health, this is important. Not whether it has a paper, or can be bred to make the next lot shorter or bigger of head or whatever.
If you do that will be your choice. However I'm unsure of why you think a dog that DOESN'T have papers is going to guarantee you that. With out without papers is no guarantee. But buying a quality registered APBT, from a good breeder who shows, breeds for health, temperament and athletic ability will give you a much higher chance of having a good, solid, healthy APBT then buying from a breeder who doesn't register . Of course its not about breeding for shorter or bigger head, so don't buy from a byb who's breeding for size/color thats pretty simple.

I know breeding without papers would prevent registered showing, but then is that so bad? Isnt the welfare of the animal and the breed itself more important?
Part of the welfare of both animal and breed rest in keeping records and showing the dogs are correct to the standard. You seem to be fighting against you self here. You don't agree with breeders who breed for size, big head, wide chest and low to the ground which are breeders who don't show or care about conformation and breed dogs with poor structures that leads to health problems like early arthritis, generative joint disease, bow legs, dsyplsia and other problems. As well it is not athletic, agile or balanced as the breed could be and therefore can not work. Yet you fail to see how breeding an APBT to the conformation standard and keeping them with correct structure is for the breed welfare??? As well as the animals welfare who won't end up with health problems due to improper structure and unlike the other dogs can still work. Since it had a breeder who bred for a correct dog and knew their dogs lines well it won't have to go through life suffering like the dogs from selfish breeders who don't care about the registrations written standard.

Many of the faults for showing are not genetically rigid. A b-witch with prick ears and a gay tail can produce perfect pups with rose ears and a conforming tail, thats for sure. Maybe unregistered, unpapered Pits are better off if they are well bred and well raised from healthy dogs by responsible people. They wouldnt be caught up in cruel breed laws, and maybe over time they would breed healthier again without such aggresive selection and limited DNA.
This is possible, however you're forgetting they are genetic and can then be reproduced later by her pups even if her pups are perfect. So it is genetics. Well what you are saying would be true only in a perfect world, they are not better off! They only would be better off if they were well bred/raised from responsible people who as well hopefully breed to the standard and correct conformation of what an APBT. But thats not reality! It could go either way, registered APBTs and the breed in general would be better off if only ALL registered APBTs were wellbred, well raised and in the hands of responsible breeders. The breeders who are breeding for better APBT have regsitered dogs and also breed for type, temperament, health and ability. But I can't think of one breeder/kennel with unregistered dogs who gives a dime about conformation, health, temperament or ability, most don't even know how to judge these things and wouldn't know what their dogs are going to produce without a pedigree or health information of the lines. The only truth is any APBT is better off wellbred and well raised, it has nothing to do with or without papers it has to do with the breeder.

Knomad said:
Thats all nice in theory but ignores the facts. Or maybe ignores is not right, it presents registry on the positive side and overlooks the huge negative aspects, thats better maybe.
I really don't see pitbullroyalty as doing what you are describing? What negative aspects are there with having a registered dog?

Its pedigree Pitbulls and registered breeding that has caused 90% of the genetic disorders in the breed. The reason Pits are prone to bad hips and bad hearts if because of REGISTERED selective breeding to "improve the breed".
I think you need to do much more research on breeding, especially if you plan to breed in a couple of years. Where did you get that stat from? This couldn't be further from the truth, selective breeding to improve the breed does just that, preserve and improve the breed. Its bybs and those who don't care about a dogs genetic health that has caused so many genetic problems to explode in the breed, not the fact that a dog is registered or has a pedigree. While breeders who are breeding to improve the breed have kept their lines genetically healthy, correct temperaments in their dogs, good conformation and structure and working ability in a functional dog. As well there dogs haven't filled shelters, made the 6:00 from an attack, been overcome by health problems and they have been willing to take the pups back if need be. I think you are very confused about the subject of breeding. Whether a dog is registered or not doesn't make it have or be free of problems.

Where a dog has come from is a fraction of the importance because you can tell you need to know about a dog before responsible breeding age. By two years old you would know if it had good hips, heart, good mental condition, and all that you need to know to breed a healthy dog.
Again I hope you do some more research if you truly want to breed and better the breed yourself. Where a dog come from largely contributes to the individual dog and is very important. You can not tell what you need to know genetically about a dog as to breeding by ANY age. You can at the age of 2 health test for certain genetic disorders to see if it has these and usually know what its temperament is by that age. However thats not all you need to know to breed a health dog, like you said you can breed a female with a gay tail and get a dog with a proper pump handle tail, so what makes you think you can breed a dog with good heatlh and it not carry genetics for a health problem? It works BOTH ways, you can't know the genetic behind the dog if you don't know its bloodlines and what that line is prone to, you can't know the genetics behind the dog if you don't know its pedigree or ancestors. What you need to know to breed a health dog is also its health history which would be the dogs in its pedigree-just like people. I could be healthy and test negative for certain genetic disorders and not have them but still be a carrier and my kids could get the disorder even though it was my parent or even grand parent who had the disorder and not me. So it is not that simple, if you test your dog and the hips come back good but your dogs grand parents were dysplastic then your pups could certainly come out displastic. If you dog has a fine temperament but temperament problems existed for some of the ancestors then you dog could produce an unstable dog. There are also genetic cancers and there are not test to test for these so without having a registered dogs who's ancestors in a pedigree you know then there isn't a way to know if you dog could be a carrier of this or even be afflicted themselves, some cancers show up AFTER the age of 2yrs. Genetics of where a dog comes from controls a lot, as well as how it is raised, but genetics can even control not only health or temperament but even personality and intelligence and what that animal likes to do, I see a lot of things that a dog from certain parents will take after one of the parents in personality or how they act. Genes makes up every part of the dog and is just an important contributing factor to what the dog will produce when bred.

You would also be able to see for yourself how "good and example" of the breed the adult actually is.
This I do agree with an is true. If you have studied the standard and have a good idea of it and shown! Showing allows the dog to be judged to the standard by a breed expert and against its peers. But a lot of people don't really know the standard, they don't know how to interpret it just by reading it. Also a lot of people don't know what a good example of the breed is. You proved that with your post about the mutant monster Pits, a lot of people buying a Pit Bull think that is what they are supposed to look like and that they are good examples of the breed. Lastly just because your dog is a good example doesn't mean it will produce good examples if it has poor genetics.

However I still dont agree its healthy. if it made any difference they why are the problems of health endemic to predigree Pits? Being able to trace lineage, check DNA and see the bloodlines of a dog is nice in theory is its used correctly, but I dont believe thats the case.
There are health problems in both pedigreed (and unpedigreed) Pits for one simple reason because of bybs who don't care breeding dogs with genetic health problems and creating more health problems with bad structure that goes against the show standard. Its not nice in theory, but as you say is nice if used correctly or used period. Most bybs with registered dogs are just like the bybs who have unregistered dogs, even though they have a pedigree they don't use it to find out what problems where in their dogs ancestors, what the ancestors were like, they don't check anything and don't care or know about genetics. A dog being registered and having a pedigree is no guarantee for the puppy, papers don't make a dog health problem free and quality. A lot of people are confused like this and think if it has papers it must a good dog. But not true, if it comes from a good breeder who not only registers and shows but also knows their dogs lines, dogs genetics, dogs health and dogs temperaments thats a wellbred dog. But again no one said all registered dogs are good examples of the breed or health problem free.

If it was why is the Pedigree Pit developing more and more genetically inherant problems year by year? Pits never began life with hip and heart problems rife in the breed, it was bred into them by selective breeding by registered breeders trying to select the charecteristics of the bred and change its form, shape and structure.
Again simple answer because of BYBs. These problems exist in both pedigreed pits and unpapered dogs. I have registered APBTs (and a couple who are not registered too) and they have not changed in form, shape or structure in over at least a century!!!!! I can trace their pedigrees back to the 1800s and they look like their ancestors looked. People who change the breed for their own selfish monetary gain are not good breeders and it doesn't matter if they have registered dogs or not. Registration was started as a way to have a tracable lineage to keep records and also be used to better the breed, not to change the breed and breed for money.

On the other hand registered selective breeding is weakening the breed and causing problems through irresponsible DNA limiting.
I don't think so. You don't want to breed in anything and everything without knowing its lineage. Also this makes little sense, they are breeding only registered dogs and that would be the gene pool however there are more then plenty registered dogs to breed without strict limitation of the gene pool. Furthermore all APBTs came from the same place, same dogs, are the same breed including those without papers/pedigree and have the same foundation ancestors and come from the same line of dogs even if they don't have papers and are of unknown pedigree. Just because you breed a dog that doesn't have a pedigree doesn't make it from any special different line. It won't allow you to get away from genetic health problems just because you don't know they don't exist because you don't know its pedigree. In fact you could just create more pups with health problems without even knowing it because you didn't know it was a genetic carrier of a disorder since you didn't know the pedigree or what bloodline it was. Just because it doesn't have a pedigree doesn't mean its a magical dog with no history that came from no known bloodlines, it just means that they are either not known or the people knew and didn't care to send in the registration and then a few gens later the buyers don't know anything about their pups lines.

So, it still leaves me wondering what is best. To simply select a healthy, well balanced pair of breeding adults, who dont have hip problems dont have heart issues and have good temperement and good conformity to what a Pit Actually looks like. (not these short fat freakish things people are calling pedigree pits these days)
I think the best thing to do if you truly want to become a breeder of better APBTs would be to do more research of genetics, disorders, bloodlines, breeders, traits and all of that. Then to chose a female APBT from a responsible breeder. One that is registered, that has a pedigree and that doesn't just come from show parents but also from parents were who able to work, who are genetically healthy and have correct temperaments, and make sure that the line is known to be genetically healthy not just the parents and find out as much as you can on her lines. Then breed her to a compatible and stud that will bring out all the positive traits she has and also correct any weakness you might see. And make sure you expect nothing less from him, not just registered, not just a pedigree, not just from show parents but that his line and history is good in conformation/health/temperament and that he is a good representative of the breed.

Maybe id just rather start my own line of Pits, with a simple premise of breeding healthy stable animals and following my pups throughout their lives to ensure they are well raised and cared for. For me this is better for the breed than either of the two extremes of BYB and registry.
You can't just "start your own line" even if you dog doesn't have a pedigree it had to come from somewhere and must consist of some bloodline and will contribute to the dog and its offspring, it came from some lines you just happen to not know what the line is or anything about it. Breeders can create their own line overtime, but a line isn't just someone taking and breeding some dogs, it takes hard work, dedication and culling to produce a consistent line of dogs who produce quality consistently and type to that particular line consistently. It can also be harder with a non-pedigreed dog if you don't know whats behind them because they can produce inconsistently not just in the 1st generation later but later on because problems arise from ancestors you didn't know about.

I really hope you took the time to read the whole post and take into consideration everything I said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
The majority of pedigreed APBTs are healthy, stable tempermented dogs. Yes, there are "breeders" who register
and breed their dogs who aren't healthy an stable temper but that doesn't mean all of them are unstable.

As you can tell from the majority of "blue pit" websites springing up, you can register anything to be a pit bull. Doesn't
mean it is, or that it is stable temperament or healthy. Generally, if you recognize the kennels in the bloodline as
producing healthy puppies with good temperment chances are that the dogs from those lines with also be good health
and good temperment.

For example, if the bloodline has many dogs titled GR CH that means Grand Champ (5 battles won). That means the
pups coming from that line are gamebred. I prefer a dog that doesn't have gamedogs close in their bloodline, I've
heard at least 3 generations away is best. If you have a dog in the bloodline labeled Ch. or TT or CGC than that is good.
That means there are champion bloodlines and they have been temperment tested and passed the canine good citizen.

It's important to know as much about where your dog has come from as possible because your dog is half nature and
half nurture. the nurture part you can form into whatever you want, the nature part is what can't be changed. the genes.

All good breeders who work/show their dogs, keep them in proper temperment, and only produce minimum pups to
improve the breed.. of course they register their puppies. Show dogs are generally OFA tested and are of sound body
and temperment because they have to be to become winning champions. bad breeders can register their puppies also,
that is why checking the bloodline is important so you know where the ancestors come from and follow the reputations
of said breeders to get the best dog you can. You can even find papered pit bulls once in a while in rescues, it all depends
on whether or not the people who gave them up turned in their papers. Although they are fixed, it's worth a look. A friend
of mine owns an AKC registered American Stafforshire Terrier from champion bloodlines, she rescued him from someone
who just couldn't care for him anymore. he's an absolute perfect speciman of the breed, show quality all the way. She
decided to neuter him. While some thought of this as an injustice to the breed (as she had the opportunity to improve the
breed from the kegs they are becoming) I honor her decision to not bring anymore into this world.

IMO, the pit bull breeders need to put some AmStaff back in their bloodlines. American Staffordshires are IMO the ideal
specimens of the pit bull breed, they are what they used to look like before people started changing their appearance
into these short and wide dogs with huge heads. I prefer amstaff style pits to most anyday, I call the perfect specimans
American Staffordshire Pit Bulls or simply AmStaff Pit Bulls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
PitBullRoyalty said:
For example, if the bloodline has many dogs titled GR CH that means Grand Champ (5 battles won). That means the pups coming from that line are gamebred. I prefer a dog that doesn't have gamedogs close in their bloodline, I've heard at least 3 generations away is best. If you have a dog in the bloodline labeled Ch. or TT or CGC than that is good. That means there are champion bloodlines and they have been temperment tested and passed the canine good citizen.

IMO, the pit bull breeders need to put some AmStaff back in their bloodlines. American Staffordshires are IMO the ideal
specimens of the pit bull breed, they are what they used to look like before people started changing their appearance
into these short and wide dogs with huge heads. I prefer amstaff style pits to most anyday, I call the perfect specimans
American Staffordshire Pit Bulls or simply AmStaff Pit Bulls.
I think this 1st paragraph is a little confusing to others. A GR CH pit dog is one that has won 5 mattles and a CH is one that has won 3 matches, but then there are show CHs and GR CHs also who have been titled under a registry through conformation shows.

I don't know if breeding to AST would be all that beneficial, most of the fad bred large monster dogs are actually high percentage AST blood if you look at their pedigrees. Thats cool if you think the AmStaff are the ideal for the pit bull type of dog, but AST is nothing what a Pit Bull used to look like. Pit Bulls were not large dogs, they were generally smaller, leggier and lighter then AST are. AST have changed a lot overtime. Gamebred APBTs actually resemble what APBTs used to and still should look like.


This is my male CH APBT, he's also in my signature. He is anything but big, large or overdone. He looks a lot like his Wallace ancestors that are in his pedigree. He resembles what the breed used to look like and what they should still look like today.

While these ASTs do not, compare them to pics of old dogs.


This is a 92lbs female GR CH AmStaff, dogs like this were not ideal in the old Pit Bulls and they didn't look like this.


Here is another GR CH AmStaff, while some may like this look and she may be fine for her breed type APBTs did not in the past have wide chest, short height and stockiness like this female. So I'd have to disagree that this is what they look like.


Here is a Staff from the 1970s, much closer to what an APBT should look like and what an AmStaff also used to look like, before the type was changed. So mixing APBTs with todays modern staffs would only create larger, stockier APBTs.

I think you have it backwards, when people started to change the breed it first started with the AST in the 1980/90s and now they do not look like what a Pit Bull used to look like. Breeders of APBTs breed Pit Bulls to look how they should look and be built how they should be built and haven't overtime changed the breed. That is what I tried to tell the OP, my dogs look like their ancestors and look like old photos of APBTs before all the fads. They said between a byb and a registered breeder but in reality a byb can have registered dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
First of all, thanks for the civil replies, its nice to see good manners and intelligence havent completely died out these days!

I read everything with interest and I have some comments to make. Theres often a line between what breeders claim and genetic truth. I actually understand genetics very well, although sure there are always those who know more, but my knowledge is of a good standard and always growing.

First up its impossible to breed genetic disorders out of a bloodline. Thats not in canines, thats in anything. Genetics are not that simple. You may have two or theree generations where something doesnt appear, and then in the fourth have cancer problems.

Let me give you another example.


Bitch A and Dog A

Litter A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7


Bitch B Dog B

Litter B1 B2 B3 B 4 B5 B 6 B7

You could have zero traces of cancer in both mating pairs for four generations.

Now all the pups could be healthy too, great, but what have you achieved?

Lets say you later breed Bitch A1 and Dog B7

they have pups and just one of those pups develops cancer. Where does that leave you. Exactly the same place you started, with two bloodlines who have the genetic possibility of cancer. That means EVERY pup in littler A and B and all of their descendants have possible genetic dispositions for cancer. The same can be applied to all natural diseases and problems. You simple cant breed them away. Breeding the stringest and healthiest will give you a lower % of weakness in the species but it will NEVER irradicate problems from any bloodline as that is a genetic impossibility.

There are however registered breeders who will make rediculous claims about how they breed, why they breed and what they achieve by doing so.


Please understand im not saying ALL breeders who register are bad, but breeding selection and DNA limiting are traits of registered dogs in many cases encouraged and supported by Clubs like the AKC and the UKC who for all extents and purposes dont give a damn about breed health I believe.

Its all very well slamming these Blue pit lowriders, but note they are mostly registered and passed by the AKC and or the UKC, so what does that tell you about the principles of these organisations. They dont have any because if they did a lowriding blue pit would never in a thousand years pass conformity for a Pit/Amstaff.

Something else id like to point out, American Pit and AMstaff are the same breed and their conformation should be the same.

When the dog moved from the Uk to the USA, over many years breeding developed the larger more athletic look of the Amstaff which at the time was been commonly called the Pitbull because it was a pitfighting dog. Eventually, the UK clubs recognised the American variation had enough genetic and conformation differences that were STABLE and allowed it as a breed. Some clubs recognise it as the Amstaff others as the American Pit, the dog is the same dog and can be registered as one the other or dual.

The first and last of those pictures shown for me are good examples of the breed, slightly larger than the original UK Bulls, taller, well muscled yet agile and athletic of frame. Not barrel chested short legged lowriders. That would be a Staffie and even then Staffies are far better balanced than these snub blues and far more agile. Showing dogs for me is not important. I dont condemn it in anyway but it doesnt define anything of the breed. A beautiful specimen mentally and physically of the Pit would be equally good shown or not. Im not into working dogs.
The Amstaff is not a working dog its breeding was primarily as a companion dog the other line was the Bullterrier was the working dog of the breed. Amstaffs were bred for stability, to be good with people and kids and generally to make great pets. Those were the characteristics of the breed and it produced a wonderfully stable and excellent house dog.
I dont see whether a breeder chooses to show and work dogs has any bearing on whether they are a good breeder or not. Maybe you can explain why you believe this to make a significant difference?

Conformity aside, of course. I understand showing and conformity are close together but then a good breeder should not need a show judge to tell him how well the dog does or does not conform to breed standards he or she should know this inside out long before they decided to breed in the first place.

Back to breeding.

I can tell you honestly that you could select four nice pedigree bloodline pits with papers, a check their parentage back as far as you wish and breed from them. At the same time select two four unregistered, well conformed health checked stable examples of nice quality Pits, whos parents and history you have no idea about and breed from these also.

After four generations of breeding only healthy well checked out pairs, you would have no assurance that your registered and bloodlined group would produce any more healthy or stable or conformed pups that the other. Genetics doesnt work that way.

The fact is this, if you start with a healthy bitch (vital since she provides the lions share of DNA) and a healthy male, in body and mind, you have a good chance of producing healthy litters. Natural genetic problems cannot be bred away so simply, you could never produce a line of dog that wouldnt at somepoint in their line have cancer, or some other disease weakness. Breeding, as nature does, from strong healthy adults limits the showing of such traits but it does not remove it from the bloodline.

So where is the difference?

Let me tell you, the dogs that didnt have papers wouldnt fall foul of breed laws, if sold by contract (something I would do on principle because I simply wouldnt permit any dog from me to be badly raised and treated) they would be house dogs, cared for and loved in happy homes, not working dogs or show dogs kept for their merit alone.
Is that really such a bad thing.

How would anyone know the history of my dogs? At first by seeing their parents, the best judgement of all. After a time of breeding and a few generations they could see the whole catalogue of pups, generations, parents from start until finish and judge for themselves.

What I am saying is I dont think that would make me a bad breeder, just someone who doesnt really feel registry with some of these places helps the dog in anyway. The Pit is much maligned and its sad because a healthy minded pit is probably the most gentle and loving dog you could own. When true to its breed standard its a beautiful athletic and powerful dog, agile, healthy and energetic.

I love Pits, for me they are a wonderful example of a stable loyal healthy animal and im sad by the misconceptions and problems the breed has these days.

If I breed I would be going the whole distance. The dogs leave me after 12 weeks but from 8-12 weeks id expect the new owners to be coming to see them once at least or twice a week, to understand the need to train through reward and praise, to extensively socialise the pup with other dogs on a daily basis from 3 months onwards. By the time the pups left me id expect all the owners to understand what a Pit is all about and the responsibility involved in owning one.

My last Pits and my current Pups put to rest any myths about this dog being anti social both with dogs and humans. I could take Kaya into any park, unmuzzled unleashed and filled with dogs and know she would never bite or snap at anything. This doesnt mean I lack control of them should the need arise, I believe a dog MUST be well trained because should you ever need to reign them in for any reason it would be reckless not to ensured they were trained for it.
I could walk her in a stret filled with cars she would never cross the road or leave my feet. If a dog bothered her, she would warn it off, i call her to heel she comes without question or problems. Its not uncommon, Im 99% sure the same will be said for my current pups.

They are socialised daily in the local park with anywhere from 5-15 other dogs each session (long walks with frisby) depending whos there. They have been off the leash since three months and come on command. I have started their road testing a month passed now, early mornings and late nights with little to no traffic of course, they stop at the kerb and cross when told. Not bad going for two 5 month old pups, I have never had to seperate them for training or hit them to teach them anything. Good and constant methods from a young age will yeild a stable healthy pit. Even not very social Pits (with other dogs) can be trained to tolerance and minding their own business. Moto we have had to work with a little to educate him on how to handle dominant older dogs and hes responded well as any healthy minded dog should. With just love, patience and some understanding this dog can be raised excellently to be a social healthy animal!

The baseline is this, I know how good this dog can be. Im saddened by the fact that in many cases its never allowed to achieve its potential or show what a wonderful animal it is.

Its not that Im rabidly against registered dogs, for a second mating pair I might well buy registered pedigree pup, that doesnt mean I would have any interest in its paper. If I had an unresigtered bitch I wouldnt think twice about breeding the registered dog with her if they were healthy. Im just saying maybe the obession with papers, registration and DNA control is too much, maybe id rather just breed the dog for the love of the dog itself. If I get that right and do things as they should be done, for me its much more important.

As for making money....LOL

Given my restrictions and demands I think most poor quality owners would run a mile from getting a pup from me. those who are willing to goto so much effort to get the pup will be those willing to go the extra yard to ensure its well trained and well loved. Actually I can imagine the look on 90% of peoples faces as I outline the conditions fo securing a pup from me.......shock and bewliderment really but thats how it goes. i could live with knowing I raised baies and sent them off to be abused and mistreated.

As I said i still havent decided. When my two pups reach two years old and they can have their hips and health fully checked, by which time ill know how they are mentally and in conformation ill decide. If all things are even I will probably have at least on littler with these two unregistered pups because I know already all the pups would be taken by firends and family. As for breed standard....in a few months you can see for yourself.

But, in for now I think youll agree they are both good examples...I think Moto will be a little wide of ear but I cant say until his head pops, they have great poise and body (lean and muscled as a pit ought to be)though and lovely eyes, jaws and head. Again the head cant really be judged yet, in a couple of months they will look more complete in that respect.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Knomad,

If you are serious about breeding, please spend a lot of time to talking with, visiting, and (best case scenario) apprenticing under experienced, reputable breeders.

There is no substitute for actual experience with real dogs.

Everything else is a bunch of speculation and made up stuff.

Go out and see people who are actually breeding, training, showing and working real lines of dogs.

Please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
No by Champion bloodlines, I'm refering to AKC Amstaff champions (champions in the show ring). I happen to prefer
the perfectly square shape of the amstaff to the more long and sleek game pit. AmStaffs are actually not that large,
they are around 50 pounds for a female and 60 pounds for a male. These new fad breeders are adding other breeds
into the mix. Kegs on legs are not pure pit or amstaff. I consider pit bulls and amstaffs to be the same thing, just pits
tend to have more prey drive because amstaffs generally weren't fought anymore. More of their breeding was done by
looks than by keeping the game temperment. Of course, this does not mean that no amstaffs have game. They can and
do excel at anything put in front of them. So APBTs and AmStaffs I consider to be different styles of the same breed.

If you look at sites that feature show dog amstaffs, they are quite the sight and are quite indentical to well bred pit bulls.
In fact, most of them are register as APBT with the UKC anyway. A show quality amstaff is not overdone at all, they are
what IMO pits should look like today. Most pits I see being bred look either overdone or scrawny.

JMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
There arent so many really lovely examples of the Pit left imho. At least in general circulation they all tend to be over built, too much neck, short of leg or too broad at the chest. They lack the balance I like to see in a Pit.

I had a google for what an image which I feel is a healthy example of a Pit/Amstaff.


http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=90688&categoryid=11111

This dog for me has beautiful frame, well muscled and toned, maybe the head is a little overdone but I think its just the camera shot, all in though hes a lovely example of a healthy male.

This second one is closer to what the AKC would class as a perfect male and I cant say I agree. Their classification is too heavy at the neck he doesnt have the same look of balance and poise atht I feel a Pit should have I i dont think he has the same agility or manouverability at the front end as the first on I showed has.

http://www.digitaldog.com/dog_breed/American+Staffordshire+Terrier

The next one is yet another bad example of registered dogs.
This dogs head has a profile that reeks of English or Bull Terrier lineage. The muzzle in particular is not right at all for a good example of the Amstaff or pit.


http://www.makdani.republika.pl/rasy.html



Last of all this little guy, im not set keen on his colour, but I like the frameset and shape of head for this, another healthy example of what id like to class Amstaff Pitbulls.

http://www.amstaff.hotmail.ru/DetiKsuxi/Donatello4.jpg


tohall said:
Knomad,

If you are serious about breeding, please spend a lot of time to talking with, visiting, and (best case scenario) apprenticing under experienced, reputable breeders.

There is no substitute for actual experience with real dogs.

Everything else is a bunch of speculation and made up stuff.

Go out and see people who are actually breeding, training, showing and working real lines of dogs.

Please.
Something id like to do, whether thats possible or not I will see. Unless you are willing to work with registered dogs always many breeders simply wont advise you on anything and those who would maybe arent worth hearing....
Over the next two years I will be continuing to gather information and facts though and I certainly wouldnt start without having a solid foundation of knowledge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
The first dog is good looking, the second is fine except his neck is a little heavy, the third and fourth IMO
are not very correct looking. The fourth is a tad too short compared to his height.

I am in love with this dog.. he would be my ideal blue boy (if he had less white)
http://www.hartagold.com/doodle.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Very nice dog, if I had one small gripe it would be the back neck is maybe a bit heavy, but id agree with him beign a nice dog. Lovely body and wonderful head.

Actually having just aid that looking down at the lower pics his neck looks just about perfect, I think the first picture just doesnt catch him right. The one on the grass standing at poise before the fence hes just about perfect except he has the tail curled up in that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Unless you are willing to work with registered dogs always many breeders simply wont advise you on anything and those who would maybe arent worth hearing....
Over the next two years I will be continuing to gather information and facts though and I certainly wouldnt start without having a solid foundation of knowledge.
Hopefully, one of the things you will learn is why it's stupid to consider breeding dogs whose background is unknown.
(unless you are actually using your dogs to work in some way, and are breeding exceptional workers for your own use).

Here's my .02:
Get the dogs you have now fixed. It removes the temptation to do something stupid with them when they are old enough to reproduce.

Spend that time you are talking about learning about pits and dogs in general, and about breeding, and breeding pits in particular. Do this by interacting with dogs and dog breeders, showers, and trainers. "Knowledge" from books and the internet is very limited and will teach you very little about dogs.

By then, you MIGHT have enough knowledge to be able to pick a puppy that MIGHT be worth breeding (and enough credibility that someone will even give you one). By the time that pup is grown, you might know enough to have a clue about whether it's worth breeding it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Knomad I'd have to say that some things I think you still don't understand.

Theres often a line between what breeders claim and genetic truth.
This is true and thats what you'll be doing if you breed your 2 dogs, only claims because you don't know. You can't say you have bred for conformation, health and things like that without giving the buyer any type of proof. Your dogs could be carriers of a problem you don't know about and you have not shown them in conformation. But then again thats why you buy from a good breeder who does more then claim they have proof of what they say. I never said you could completly eliminate all health problems from a bloodline. But if you breed two dogs who you have pedigrees on therefore know their history and there isn't a problem in the last 5 generations you are much more likely to keep a line of healthy dogs going rather then breeding dogs of unknown lineage-you could either be breeding pretty healthy dogs or dogs doomed for problems in the entire litter because you don't know.

There are however registered breeders who will make rediculous claims about how they breed, why they breed and what they achieve by doing so.
Exactly thats why its up to buyers to research and find a good breeder, I think buyers need to wake up learn and listen. Thats why its important to educate. However, some express they don't even care if their dog comes from a puppy mill or pet shop, but then whine and complain about their dogs temperament and health issues and how bad these people are breeding/selling them while they are the ones supporting them. Same things with the huge fad dogs, many of them end up with a lot of health issues but the buyer is the one who made the choice. People should quit assuming that high price and having papers means quality because it sure does not. All it means is you're getting ripped off monetarily and that the parents of the litter were registratered, thats it!

Its all very well slamming these Blue pit lowriders, but note they are mostly registered and passed by the AKC and or the UKC, so what does that tell you about the principles of these organisations. They dont have any because if they did a lowriding blue pit would never in a thousand years pass conformity for a Pit/Amstaff.
"but note" I'm the one who mentioned this, as an example I thought it'd better help you understand my point but you still didn't get it. Registration doesn't mean your not a byb and nobody ever said that, these lowrider breeders are your basic money hungry bybs and they have registered dogs. The reg. is NOT the problem the breeders are. There priciples? Registries are here to keep records of breedings thats just about it, its up for the breeders to be ethical! The reg. is not a breed police as I mentioned. These are however 2 mainly good registry, they have code of ethics if breeders chose not to follow it thats their choice actually its one reason why there are so many "sham registries" like ACA and CKC because a lot of puppy millers, paper hangers and people of this nature were found out by the AKC/UKC and are banned from being able to register with them. So then enter the registries that will register any mutt with or without a pedigree, of which could be fake anyway. Besides keeping records registries offer show and working competitions for the GOOD BREEDERS to go to and show that there dogs are what the breed should be, meet the standards and can do what they say they can do. Its the breeders who chose not to show/work their dogs and breed away from the standard. That will answer your other question of why I consider a person a good breeder if they show/work there dogs, because I know when they are telling a buyer that their dogs are good reps of the breed they really are. Not just because they are registered or have CH lines but because the parents are proven and great reps themselves.

Something else id like to point out, American Pit and AMstaff are the same breed and their conformation should be the same.
Thats your opinion, some would agree with you others would consider the long years of breeding apart to have changed them. Some hardcore AKC people would totally disagree a mere "pit bull" is the same as their refined breed and hardcore working APBTs breeders would totally disagree that a pretty bred AKC show dog is the same as their rangy, athletic hard working hog dog. Others will agree they are the same breed but different type. You get this in many breeds, working GSD owners and show GSD owners claim them to be different, the same with Belgian Mals, Border Collies, Beagles, ect. So it depends on where you stand.

When the dog moved from the Uk to the USA, over many years breeding developed the larger more athletic look of the Amstaff which at the time was been commonly called the Pitbull because it was a pitfighting dog. Eventually, the UK clubs recognised the American variation had enough genetic and conformation differences that were STABLE and allowed it as a breed. Some clubs recognise it as the Amstaff others as the American Pit, the dog is the same dog and can be registered as one the other or dual.
I'm not sure where you researched your history, but the breed did come from Europe and was a pit dog commonly reffered to as Pit Bull. In 1898 the UKC started to recognized the "working" (fighting) pit bull and the name was American Pit Bull Terrier. The AKC didn't recognize them until later (1936) and thats when they were given the name American Staffordshire Terrier, the name many faciers wanted was American Bull Terrier but the Bull Terrier breeders didn't want this. Staffies are kind of bulky while still being smaller, but a lot of AST look like larger versions of the SBT. Anyway when the AKC recognized the breed many dogs were dual reg. with both and they were mainly the same fighting stock that was in the UKC and were the samething. If you research far enough in an AKC pedigree you will find lots of Tudor/Colby dogs and others. However the AKC started an evolution and changing how the breed looked and breeding away from what the original APBT was. This started in the 80s and now if you take an average AST and put it next to an APBT they look very different. The UK had nothing to do with allowing our breed to be recognized, the revolutionary war was over. The ADBA was later started (in 1910) again for the working performance part of the breed and that look as seemed to hold true in that registry.
Again its your opinion that they are the same. APBTs can not be registered as AST with the AKC, but the AST can be reg. with the UKC/ADBA as an APBT. Which really doesn't make them the same, a SBT is also different, its recognized as a different breed but can still be reg. as an APBT.

The first and last of those pictures shown for me are good examples of the breed, slightly larger than the original UK Bulls, taller, well muscled yet agile and athletic of frame. Not barrel chested short legged lowriders. That would be a Staffie and even then Staffies are far better balanced than these snub blues and far more agile. Showing dogs for me is not important. I dont condemn it in anyway but it doesnt define anything of the breed. A beautiful specimen mentally and physically of the Pit would be equally good shown or not. Im not into working dogs.
The Amstaff is not a working dog its breeding was primarily as a companion dog the other line was the Bullterrier was the working dog of the breed. Amstaffs were bred for stability, to be good with people and kids and generally to make great pets. Those were the characteristics of the breed and it produced a wonderfully stable and excellent house dog.
I dont see whether a breeder chooses to show and work dogs has any bearing on whether they are a good breeder or not. Maybe you can explain why you believe this to make a significant difference?
The first dog is my male ADBA CH APBT who comes from OFRN/Clouse lines mainly. These dogs have been kept true to what an original APBT should look like.
The last dog is an AKC CH AST from Ruffian lines who was born in the early 70s, back before the AST had been changed into a different type.

So what do you really think a Pit Bull is? Whats a good representation of the breed for you? If its not one that meets the written show standard and can work its butt off then what is it? A standard for any breed is what the breed should look like in appearance (which is important) and their working ability is what the breed should be able to do and that it should be able to function again very important. Both are defining characteristics of a breed including this one. A pretty dog in your opinion who in your opinion is also healthy doesn't make it the samething. Now of course a truly good specimen is good either way, the breeder just hasn't done anything to prove such things.
I never said the AST was a working dog, its almost strictly a show dog, AKC has got a little rediculous with its show scene even allowing hair pieces and bleaching of coats, its supposed to be to judge a dog on its conformaty to the standard not a beauty contest. Some AST can still work, they are just few and far between. A Bull Terrier and an AST are 2 completely different breeds, most Bull Terriers these days are also bred only for the show ring so I don't know where you got that info from. The working counterpart is the APBT, many of them still can work and hold titles in both show/work. But it isn't 100% there are also many APBTs bred just for the show ring nowdays. So it depends on the breeder. APBT have also been bred for stability and are usually good by nature with people. When they were bred for fighting they were usually culled if they were man aggressive as not to be a danger in the pit while fighting. APBTs IMO have some of the best temperaments and personalities to be found, I think they make wonderful pets in the right hands from the right breeders. They love children and have a very high tolerance for them. I mean I was babysat by one when I was a kid. AST come from APBT and too have these wonderful traits still in them.

If you read my ealier posting above I explained why I think it means they are good and its personal choice. I would rather buy from a breeder who shows/works, keeps stable temperament and concentrates on breeding out health problems and can tell me about the ancestors, the bloodline and offer me a history on the pup I'm getting vs. one who breeds 2 pets because they think they look good, think they act fine and appear to be healthy. Its simple one breeder has proven and shown that they truly care about the breed and want to breed good dogs and preserve it, while another only claims thats what they are trying to do and then doesn't even know the parents background to have any idea of what they will be producing.

The fact is this, if you start with a healthy b-witch (vital since she provides the lions share of DNA) and a healthy male, in body and mind, you have a good chance of producing healthy litters. Natural genetic problems cannot be bred away so simply, you could never produce a line of dog that wouldnt at somepoint in their line have cancer, or some other disease weakness. Breeding, as nature does, from strong healthy adults limits the showing of such traits but it does not remove it from the bloodline.
Lol, she doesn't provide anymore then the sire. Both parents contribute 50% during conception, then the dominant and recessive takes offer which can be from either parent. Please study more DNA/genetics. A males traits can come out more or her traits can depending on who's genes were dominant and took over. You have a gamblers chance of producing healthy litters without knowing the background, because his and her genes come from their ancestors, they can pass these on to their pups just like in humans. Both parents may be perfectly fine and then their baby has a rare defect that comes from a great grandparent, thats why they ask you about your Family History at the doctor it contributes to your and your childs health even if you are just a possible carrier. I never said you can know for you sure have bred out a genetic problem however it doesn't hurt to at least breed away from problems and try to be a good breeder who cares if they produce a defective dog rather then saying I think my 2 dogs are healthy, they seem to have good temperaments and I like their build so why not I should just go for it.
The difference is clear on one hand you have an idea of what you are likely to produce in high % and on the other hand you don't know what you are likely to produce could be as good as the parents appear to be or could be a complete mess, good breeders aren't willing to take that risk.

Let me tell you, the dogs that didnt have papers wouldnt fall foul of breed laws, if sold by contract (something I would do on principle because I simply wouldnt permit any dog from me to be badly raised and treated) they would be house dogs, cared for and loved in happy homes, not working dogs or show dogs kept for their merit alone. Is that really such a bad thing.
Why do you say this? Breed laws effects many dogs without papers? Including Pit mixes and even dogs who are not Pit Bulls at all.

Selling by contract is good always.

So what is wrong again with show or working dogs? Why do you think they are kept for merit? I show my dogs and I have them because I have loved this breed from a small child and love my dogs not just as pets but like they are my own children, each have a different personality and a love for life. I don't show them/keep them for merit. I first started showing because it was FUN and not just for me but for my dogs as well, socializing, getting out, meeting people, ect. One of my females actually HATES to loose and gets very upset, I just laugh at her. I tell her she's a good girl either way and mamas baby, but she's too upset to hear it like a stubborn child. Of course there is bad in show people too, dogs they don't care about except for the title, dogs that are kept in crates all the time, dogs they don't even handle themselves but send away for months with a handler. My dogs are loved, care for and in a happy home, I wouldn't have it any other way, the fact that the compete doesn't make them less loved which is something I don't understand. One owner I know has APBTs (both reg and unreg) and a couple other breeds, ALL are house dogs, ALL compete and have titles and all are very much loved. Her rescued drug dealer own APBT seems to really love life with her now and enjoys competing in agility, most of these dogs love to play and work and work seems to be just like play for them. They need to keep their minds active, I think IMO this dog feels much more love with this lady then she did with the punk who used to starve her and never socialized her.

Thats the point they wouldn't know the history of your dogs, nor do you whether it is good or bad. The parents are definate contributing factors and important however them seeing your dogs isn't the absolute!? How can they look at your dogs and tell if you dog is a carrier of a genetic health problem, just like you can't they can't either. They will only be able to see the same thing you see. Most buyers are not educated and thats why they buy dogs from parents who have health problems and poor structure, they don't know how to judge what good parents look/act like, thats why they need more education. Thats why they buy fad loweriders and believe thats what a Pit Bull is supposed to look like and the breeder said they had good conformation and are healthy. They would be buying into the unknown, seeing you dogs doesn't tell them all about how their pup will end up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
True Pits..

You just took all of what I was trying to say, out of my head and put it down correctly and understandable!
:eek:

I should hire you as my personal message board speaker!

:D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,926 Posts
PitBullRoyalty said:
True Pits..

You just took all of what I was trying to say, out of my head and put it down correctly and understandable!
:eek:

I should hire you as my personal message board speaker!

:D
:lol: i agree :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Here you are making my point.

It was the US Kennel clubs who have been responsible for changing and fabriocating this breed. They started changing the APBT and AMST whcih ARE the same breed. There is not enough genetic or breed difference to justify dual breeds and though an orginasation may claim otherwise, this is just another reason to show these organisations arent healthy for conformation.

They have taken the original breed which came from Britain (the old britain) and tampered and meddled with it over and over, still not staisfied they continue to do so. Next we will be claiming the Blue Pit is a "breed" and god knows what else in the next ten years.

It was a push to get the fact that the American version was sufficiently diverse to be a breed in the first place, now you want to have 95 different versions of it. THEN you talk about breed preservation and breed conformation?

You arent making much sense. What exactly do you call conformation?

Since clearly the UKC and AKC have taken a breed and inbred it and selectively bred it to try and create other breeds, how can you suggest any form of breed security can be gained from this?

As far as im aware the AKC does not recognise the Pit as a Breed in itself, only a line of AMstaff.

Still im aware people push for the distinction which is crazy.

If these organisations continue to give FALSE legitimacy non conforming dogs, we will wind up with 100 variets of Pit, Staff and god knows what else.

I dont see how this preserves the breed.

A dog should have only provisional papers until its 2 years old and then should be checked for conformation before being given breed papers. So long as that doesnt happen these clubs are nothing more than money cows who do little to nothing for the breed and endanger its roots be falsely ligitimising dogs which are nowhere close to the breed standard. How anyone can call lowriders pedigree Pits or Amstaffs is a joke, they are inbred freaks and cannot be called pedigree.

Id take a well conformed, well balanced mongrel over a pedigree mutant anyday!


Id like to add something else here. I wouldnt be so against these registries if they behaved more responsibly like they actually gave a damn about breed standards and not about gene facism and milking money while stifling the DNA pool.

Id like to see a radical change in the registries.

1) The possibility to register NON Pedigree dogs which pass conformation tests, health tests and stability tests. Of course these would have to be PROVISIONAL Pedigrees. Id like to see this remain until 5-10 generations have passed and been similarly screened. At which point, conformation and health allowing the line would recieve full pedigree listings.

Why? Because it shows that the breed standard is more important and allows the gene pool to have the chance to grow a little more with healthy, conformed animals being admitted to it.

This would NOT damage existing bloodlines because these breeders would not breed PROVISIONAL pedigrees into their lines anyway. Its would however allow future generations of clean healthy DNA into the loop.

2) These dogs should be allowed to compete against fully registered dogs in comeptition. Theres no justifiable reason not to allow this. The only possible reason these group currently have is that it would shown how wrong they are currently if a conformed mongrol could outclass a 20th generation champion bloodline dog in conformation, obedience and breed standards.
It would be healthy for the breed because it would show that CONFORMATION, Ability, Mentality and Breed standards are much more important that a piece of paper. If 1st generation provisional Pedigree can become a chmapion then its a sound and great example of the breed is it not and shouldnt its DNA be considered a healthy future line a few generation down the road?

Also ALL dog should be given two classes of papers, bloodline papers and conformation papers with the second ONLY obtainable when the dog is at full maturity and has been assessed for its conformation to breed standards. This would mean that lowriders might have bloodline papers but they would never hold conformation papers because they are not conformed.

The question is why these groups resit any and all attempts to update their archaic and neolothic systems. Come on, we all know the truth, they prefer it restricted, controlled and profitable, breed health be damned along the way.

Id like to see these changes forced and some real action that shows they care about breed standards instead of cheap talk and blaming breeders. THEY set the standards and control registry, they have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their system imho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
all wanna be byb talk this way.

why need papers? it does not mean anything? How about earning your right to breed like the shepards to in Germany? How about breeding ONLY dogs that are mentally sound FIRST before you look at the confirmation?

If it is a bulldog, it should ACT like it.

Why do you care about the ukc or Akc if you live in Argentina?????????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Re: all wanna be byb talk this way.

PeterC said:
why need papers? it does not mean anything? How about earning your right to breed like the shepards to in Germany? How about breeding ONLY dogs that are mentally sound FIRST before you look at the confirmation?

If it is a bulldog, it should ACT like it.

Why do you care about the ukc or Akc if you live in Argentina?????????
Im sorry but papers signify neither of those things because many of the lowrider blues are neither conformed or mentally sound.

Of all of the Pits which were more or less the same age as my current two, all the others are pedigree pits, mine are the only ones still safe around other dogs. On top of that the ones who have reach 8-12 months are now a risk with people and are having to go into behavior traning.

That doesnt suggest that papered dogs are in any way better since nei9ther of mine have papers and they are both of sound mind and conformed bodies!

The FCA in Argentina follows suit from the US organisations.

Breeding dogs of sound mental mind has nothing to do with papers, in fact its reg papers that allows some of these unsound dogs to continue breeding into the pedigree pool because the organisations that control the papers dont do anything to stop it. The same as with conformation.

As I said, a dog going for conformation papers at 2 years old should be tested for MENTAL and physical conformity. By 2 years old most breeds have reached an age where they can be very well assesed in both aspects......
Why isnt it done? Because it would open the door to assessing unregistered dogs because if an unpapered dog is of good mind and body in conformation its a good example of DNA for the breed and should be slowtracked into the breeding pool.

They know all of this, the same as they know that the larger the gene pool of healthy DNA the better the breed, so the questions remain why do they not do something about updating their money cow?

Im sure theyd be quite happy to make new breeds for blue, pink nosed, purple arsed taiwanese, irlandishanese, "Pit Bulls" though, what joy.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Knomad said:
Here you are making my point.

It was the US Kennel clubs who have been responsible for changing and fabriocating this breed. They started changing the APBT and AMST whcih ARE the same breed. There is not enough genetic or breed difference to justify dual breeds and though an orginasation may claim otherwise, this is just another reason to show these organisations arent healthy for conformation.
Yes this is true, they are responsible for changing many breeds, if you look at a lot of AKC breeds most are different then when they were first recognized. I never said they were not the same breed, some believe they are and some say they are not. Tech I believe they have to be the same breed, they are not genetically a different breed because an AST is just a different name given by the AKC and the dog have never been outcrossed to another breed. However lots of breeders of a certain breeds consider different types to be the "real" deal and others to be not true to the breed, its all opinion. Why does this show they are not healthy for conformation? It is not the registries who claim them different? Its breeders, competitors, pet owners, ect. It doesn't have to do with the registries, conformation or even the fact that the name is different in the AKC then it is in the other registries.

They have taken the original breed which came from Britain (the old britain) and tampered and meddled with it over and over, still not staisfied they continue to do so. Next we will be claiming the Blue Pit is a "breed" and god knows what else in the next ten years.

It was a push to get the fact that the American version was sufficiently diverse to be a breed in the first place, now you want to have 95 different versions of it. THEN you talk about breed preservation and breed conformation?
I highly doubt anyone but idiot bybs will be claiming blue pits are another breed...lol They have changed it overtime, like all other breeds, even those breeds you see where they say they are virtually unchanged for centuries doesn't mean its true. Do they have the same temperament? We don't know. Working drive. Identical look or are they slightly different? Times changed the breeds, but whats your point really, it wasn't only the registries that did this with a standard. You think that unregistered dogs aren't changed? That they just stay the same? How many unregistered dogs have breeders changed into dogs with health problems, poor structure and bad temperament in just a few generations. Thats why there is so much varience in a breed. Look at Labs, they are extremely popular and people breed what ever the heck they have they can be small, large, slim, heavy, wide head, narrow head, just like all the other breeds being bred by bybs.

You statements really don't hold water. Who said anything about 95 versions? I would like to have the one true version (IMO) but I can't always have my way. There are only a couple different correct types, but there are so many versions and variences becuase of BACKYARD BREEDERS they breed what they think sells well, looks cool, will make cute pups or whatever is convienent, thats why there are so many different looking pits, labs, chihuahuas, ect.

You arent making much sense. What exactly do you call conformation?
I call conformation, how the dog is build and "put together" (how its conformed) whether it be terrible conformation or excellent conformation, what conformation is, its pretty simple to understand. How the dog is in build.

Since clearly the UKC and AKC have taken a breed and inbred it and selectively bred it to try and create other breeds, how can you suggest any form of breed security can be gained from this?
I never said I supported the UKC or AKC, I personally do not like what AKC has done to many breeds or what it allows for its show dogs. I like the UKC better in that they seem to have more working dogs in it and that there are still some good old school judges who will put up an actual correct APBT. None of my dogs are AKC/UKC reg they are all ADBA registered dogs in which the standard is based off the original working dog and not an all breed registry, so I'm not sure where you get the idea I ever suggested to anyone that the AKC or UKC were secure in the breed or that I in anyway support them or what they have done to these breeds, thats why I chose to stick with ADBA. However they haven't tried to make other breeds by inbreeding.

As far as im aware the AKC does not recognise the Pit as a Breed in itself, only a line of AMstaff.
Thought you said they were the same breed? So infact they do recognized the APBT just under a different name, doesn't make it a different breed. Haven't you seen dual registered dogs who are called AST in AKC and registered as APBT in UKC/ADBA?

If these organisations continue to give FALSE legitimacy non conforming dogs, we will wind up with 100 variets of Pit, Staff and god knows what else.

I dont see how this preserves the breed.
I will say again it doesn't have anything to do with registry! That has to do with breeders, it doesn't matter at all what registries do or do not do. No matter what dogs are bred and registried thats not the problem, once again the problem with with BREEDERS who do not breed to preserve the breed. They are the ones who chose to change dogs into mutant blue freaks, bow legged crippled dogs, large headed giants or whippet looking grayhoundish dogs, they are the ones who breed dogs with conformation and horrible structure faults, genetic weaknesses and other such things, that is why there are so many variations of nearly every (mainly popular) breed.

Its up to breeders to preserve the breed, the registries should be part of this and they do offer comformation and working events for legitimate breeders to compete in, others chose not to do it even if they have registered dogs. What do you care if they give false legitimacy anyway, you said you were not into show or working dogs, just breeding healthy pets to good homes, but somehow you're perserving the breed and no one else is?

A dog should have only provisional papers until its 2 years old and then should be checked for conformation before being given breed papers. So long as that doesnt happen these clubs are nothing more than money cows who do little to nothing for the breed and endanger its roots be falsely ligitimising dogs which are nowhere close to the breed standard. How anyone can call lowriders pedigree Pits or Amstaffs is a joke, they are inbred freaks and cannot be called pedigree.
I understand where you are going with this part, its actually a noble thought but only works in theory and not reality. Not that you should care because you don't care about preserving conformation, working ability and keeping pedigrees. But what you are saying is something I've thought would be a good way to keep quality and preservation, however it just doens't work that way. Nothing will stop bybs from doing what they want. I'd disagree 1st about the money because they will always get that and money has nothing to do with why things are done differently. If the dogs can still get bloodline papers (as you call pedigrees) they will get their money for that on ALL the dogs, at the age of 2 they could then get full breeding papers which would again cost MORE money so they'd make 2 times the money. Now if the dog isn't quality or correct then these papers would be denied (so they wouldn't get money there), but I would bet that if this is how they decide to do things you better believe that when the dog is 2yrs and you want your full breeding papers they will charge you for the inspection, so whether your dog passes or fails they still make the same (or more) amount of money as they were before. They get pedigrees/litters paid for, then they get an inspection paid for at 2yrs and then if you dog passes that inspection you have to pay for full breeding papers, yeah they'd probably be making more money with this or at least the same as they are now.

As I said this only solves the problem in theory of poorly bred pits, what happened when the ADBA disallowed the merle color? Did that stop breeders of the merle colored dogs to quit breeding them because they couldn't register them? Um, no they went to sham regs like APBR or CKC and others didn't care about reg at all. They just sell rare merle "pit bulls" with no papers for $1,000 still. There is a message board where these people hang out and bad mouth the legit registries for their responsible decisions and breed to eachother dogs and have their own little clubs. They still continue to breed these dogs.

Even hear of Limited Registration? Limited registration means your dogs has papers and is registered, you get your dogs pedigree however can't breed that dog, if you chose to breed that dog you can't register its offspring. This is almost like the idea you are proposing and its something regs have been doing for awhile. Anyway has it at all stopped bybs? NO! They still either register under sham regs or breed without papers. So it doesn't at all deter bybs. One lady bred 3 litters out of a female Golden who had limited registration and just sold the pups without papers since she wasn't allowed. Dogs have limited registration for a reason, generally they are not breeding quality but its doesn't stop them from being bred one bit.

Id like to see a radical change in the registries.

1) The possibility to register NON Pedigree dogs which pass conformation tests, health tests and stability tests. Of course these would have to be PROVISIONAL Pedigrees. Id like to see this remain until 5-10 generations have passed and been similarly screened. At which point, conformation and health allowing the line would recieve full pedigree listings.

Why? Because it shows that the breed standard is more important and allows the gene pool to have the chance to grow a little more with healthy, conformed animals being admitted to it.

This would NOT damage existing bloodlines because these breeders would not breed PROVISIONAL pedigrees into their lines anyway. Its would however allow future generations of clean healthy DNA into the loop.

2) These dogs should be allowed to compete against fully registered dogs in comeptition. Theres no justifiable reason not to allow this. The only possible reason these group currently have is that it would shown how wrong they are currently if a conformed mongrol could outclass a 20th generation champion bloodline dog in conformation, obedience and breed standards.
It would be healthy for the breed because it would show that CONFORMATION, Ability, Mentality and Breed standards are much more important that a piece of paper. If 1st generation provisional Pedigree can become a chmapion then its a sound and great example of the breed is it not and shouldnt its DNA be considered a healthy future line a few generation down the road?
1) Why should they register non pedigree dogs? Why do you think that unregistered dogs are better? I'm having a problem with this, they came from the same place as registered dogs and have been changed over years just like registered dogs. So whether an APBT is registered or unregistered they haven't remained true to the breed. But to you the breed standard isn't important, so why do you care. You don't agree with it. You say its changed and fabricated the breed into something else. Why you think that unregistered dogs haven't fallen prey to this I'm not sure. As well there are more then enough registered dogs (many of whom shouldn't be bred) why ad more, with all the jacked up registered dogs there is still more then enough good examples and reps of the breed already registered and in the gene pool to continue a healthy breeding program.
Some dogs have papers some dogs dont. Some dogs haven't had papers for several generation some without papers have parents who were registered and all came from the same foundation dogs, so really you are not gaining anything by adding dogs with unknown history. Just because you don't know it, its still there. The unregistered dogs don't have better conformation then ones who still have papers. How is the gene pool growing a little more? Can you explain this to me. I'm seeing totally different from what you are then. The APBT no matter if it has papers or not comes from some known bloodline (whether it is known by the owner or not is different story), all living animals have a pedigree including unregistered APBTs, all APBTs come from a bloodline and all come from the same foundation dogs brought from the UK. Therefore you are not adding anything or growing the gene pool in the since of new genes and I'm unsure why you think you would be. These unregistered dogs didn't magically appear with no bloodline, pedigree or relation to registered dogs. Lots of dogs are only a couple gens away from their reg ancestors and the genes are the same for the ones who are registered. If I decide to breed 2 of my dogs and sell the pups without papers/pedigree and the buyer breeds those and the offspring are allowed to be reg. even though they don't have a pedigree it won't change the fact that they are still what they are even if the owners don't know what the heck they are it doesn't erase their genetic history or relation to other dogs of the same line. This idea is just rediculous. No new DNA is added. If they allowed unregistered dogs to be registered this wouldn't add anything new, essentially it would just be allowing back in dogs who for whatever reason don't have papers and would just be letting dogs with the same bloodlines and ancestors into the registry as the dogs already registered.

If you breed a Boudreaux male x Bullyson female, don't register the litter and take a male from that and breed to an unreg Sorrells/gator female, then you have an unregistered litter that is still boudreaux/bullyson/sorrells/gator and allowing those dogs to be register you haven't added anything new or that wasn't already in many other reg dogs. Just because the person breeding that male and female together didn't know the bloodline/pedigree sure doens't mean its anything new or better then the others.

2) Dogs with limited registration can compete against registered dogs in events. There are a host of events put on by regs that unregistered, no pedigree dogs can compete in at the same time as registered dogs so I think you need to research. Even cross breds can compete in various things. This includes obedience, weight pull, agility, flyball, frizbee, working/protection dog trails, tracking, herding, and other activities offered by registries. So they already do that. The only thing they can't compete in is conformation because they shouldn't be bred due to the fact that they either don't meet the standards/have a known breeding problem or because they weren't from registered parents and don't have a traceble pedigree so there are too many unknown genetic factors to take the risk of breeding them. They can compete in conformation at fun shows right along side registered dogs, some reg dogs wins some unreg dogs wins, just depends on the dogs competing. Like I said most unreg dogs really aren't too many gens from their reg ancestors and some of them come from good bloodlines and just don't have the papers to show the pedigree therefore their conformation is equally as good as a reg dog. I think thats well justified still.

I think your statement simply put is stupid. It would prove they are wrong? A mongrol would outclass a 20th generation CH bloodline dog? This just doesn't make sense. You think a cross or mix breed is going to win in a conformation event against a purebred conterpart? That really makes little sense at all. There conformation would be totally different. Secondly the judges are still going to judge the same and not pick that other dog. As far as the other events, I'd have to say I'm sure they could be outclassed, thats been proven before since THEY DO ALLOW MONGRELS to compete against registered dogs side by side. Some of the best frizbee dogs (disc dog trials) are mix breeds dogs, some excellent agility and obedience akc and ukc titled dogs I know are pure APBTs who just are not papered/pedigreed. I've also known of some very high titled obedience, protection and tracking titled dogs who were of crossbreeding. Most people have good sportsmanship, they don't care if a mixbreed or unpapered purebreed beats there dogs, those who do throw a fit when another registered dog beats their registered dog so it really doesn't matter to them they will complain either way.

Everyone knows those things are more important then a peice of paper. As already explain the paper isn't of whats important, the individual dog itself it. It doesn't matter if it comes from an excellent CH pedigree it doesn't mean that dog is CH quality. Thats why they have limited registration and people still breed even though they aren't allowed to register. The paper is only of partial importance when it comes to making breeding decisions, keeping track of lineage and seeing how evertime a line and breedings have produced to set a precedent for whats worked and whats failed. Other then that it depends on the individual dog to be breeding quality and not the fact that it is registered which is of little bearing on the dog itself-besides the wellbred influence of genetics which gives it a higher chance of being breed quality, its not the win all, beat all it has papers so thats all thats important.

No if that 1st generation can become a CH it doesn't mean its a healthy specimen for breeding. Why do you hold these unregistered dogs higher then the registered dogs? If a registered dog with a traceable pedigree back to imports can become a CH it doesn't mean its a healthy specimen for breeding. Showing/conformation are just one part of what makes a dog a good representation of the breed and breeding quality. A Champion title doesn't make a dog sound/healthy and breed quality, no matter if it has pedigree or not. More people should learn this, theres much more to breeding then taking 2 CHs and breeding them together to get a litter of quality dogs. 2ndly we don't have this 1st generation dogs pedigree to know what it will likely produce genetically.

Id like to see these changes forced and some real action that shows they care about breed standards instead of cheap talk and blaming breeders. THEY set the standards and control registry, they have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their system imho.
Well I'd like to see blame laid with the breeders who are the ones screwing up the breed, not the registries. They set the standard and the breeders chose not to follow it. They deny full registration/breeding rights and the breeder choses to breed the dog anyway. If they deny a 2yrs low rider APBT from obtaining breeding right papers, how in the world do you think that is going to stop the lowrider pit from being bred. It doesn't. The breeder will just breeders will just breed them WITHOUT papers/pedigrees or will just go to a sham registry or create their own registry and variation of the breed maybe change the name and maybe not. Do you think the guy I know here quit breeding dogs because the UKC banned him from registering with them for falsifying papers? Nope, because another guy was just here 2 weeks ago and mentioned his name, found out we both knew the same low life breeder and guess what. He has 2 litters for sale right now, even though the registry won't allow him to ever register with them for his lifetime. Then when we ran into a friend at wal mart who took him to court over a different matter, she informed us that he just bred one of his females AGAIN for like the 4th time back to back heat, he keeps doing over and over again. She doesn't have papers (and never did in the 1st place) but he still breeds her. His others did but all were revoked when he was no longer allowed to register. He keeps breeding her to his big monster male (she's small herself) and has also bred to a couple other giant males that were not his but owned by some other person who obviously doesn't care if the pups get registered or not. So you really haven't at all solved the problem by not allowing badly conformed 2yr old to have breeding rights. Bybs will never stop no matter what a registry does. So many puppy millers have had their registration rights revoked, but they still have 100s of dogs in puppy mills don't they? If these regs were all about the money you'd think they'd be more then happy to register 100s of litter a year from one person because thats a lot of money. Instead they bare them from being able to do so and the millers just breed without the papers.

What is it to you? You are not into preserving the breed. You said so yourself, you want to breed your pets who build you believe is good, have good temperaments and are healthy. You don't like conformation shows and aren't into working dogs. Which are the 2 basic parts of preserving any breed. Its original working function/working ability and its physical type to the breed.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top