[True_Pits]

Re: 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?????????

Im sorry but papers signify neither of those things because many of the lowrider blues are neither conformed or mentally sound.

I'm sorry but are you dense? I'm being serious I just saw this reply. Peter said dogs should earn the right to breed by working and breeding for mental soundness first, then consider conformation. Let form follow function is how I see it. Not that you should breed dogs who have papers and not that dogs who have papers or mentally sound/good workers/good conformation. Don't know where he ever said papers signify either of these 2 things...lol?????? Try reading comprehension. Peters statement means mental soundness/working comes first and then conformation when properly breeding and dogs should earn the right to be bred, this would be true preservation. Not that papers signifies this so you have the right to breed by having papers. He proposed why you need the papers and it doesn't mean anything, EARN the right to breed. Worry less about conformation, less about the paperwork.

 

[PitBullRoyalty]

Again True Pits.. Great Post!

I think you are probably the most knowledgable person about the APBT on this forum and I can learn a great deal from you.

I just wanted to add that my pomeranian is not show quality like her brother and sister, so she was registered with
Limited Registration (like you said) because the breeder insisted she not be bred as she is not a great standard of
the breed. After proof of spaying, I would be able to apply to get her real papers. I never did of course, because it
didn't matter to me as I wasn't breeding and showing her (nor could I anyway).

I feel there should be stricter rules on breeding, like if it were against the law for people to breed unless they were a
member of quality show professionals breeding exactly to standard, temperment, and health. That would be great,
but nobody would be there to enforce it.

 

[Miakoda]

Ok, since we KNOW the APBT is a working breed, & even though the AST is NOT a working breed (as it's been bred to look "good" & prance around a show ring) yet many consider them the same "breed", then how about actually WORKING a freaking dog before considering breeding? Just having a nice square head, a good gait, & a friendly temperament by NO means makes it breeding quality. In fact, agility doesn't make it breeding quality.....if this were the case, every mutt I've seen excel in agility would have the right to be bred.

I'm tired of people trying to pick & chose what they want to breed for while ignoring every other aspect of the breed standard...working ability especially.

 

[PitBullRoyalty]

I personally consider looks and temperment to be more important than working ability, that only matters
if you intend on working your dog. There are MANY working dogs who do not meet the standard of their
appearance, although they are awesome I wouldn't recommend breeding them if they are pet quality just
because they have fantastic drive, work ethic, etc. A perfect package would have all of the above, but like
you said that isn't always the case. That's the difference between the AKC and the ADBA, the AKC's goal is
to keep the same standard in appearance and temperment while the ADBA is more focused on working than
on appearance. IMO, there should be a balance of the two. When you see a dog of a certain breed, you should
be able to know exactly what it is because they should look as they're supposed to look.

 

[Lisa]

Tempermant and working ability go hand in hand. Drive is part of temperment, as is nerve, courage, boldness, and many different things depending on the breed.

Obviously, producing a dog that is STABLE in mind should be first and formost, but being stable is only one small piece of over all temperament.

I have seen many stable dogs, but they lack the other apsects of temperament that make a good working dog. I do not believe these dogs should be bred if they are considered a working breed. Working breeds are ruined because of this type of attitude. If everyone who bred only worried about producing a dog that looked good and was stable, how long do you think before a breed would end up being only a shell of what they once were? Oh ya, that has already started happening.

 

[PitBullRoyalty]

True.

I'm just commenting towards the idea of breeding for working ability only and not for appearance or temperment.

A dog can have a great work ethic and have the worst temperment, just as a dog can have a great appearance but
have the bad temperment. I think neither should be bred because all three aspects should form a triangle.

Just as some dogs of a certain breed are bred for temperment, but they have zero drive and unstandard appearance.
I'm all for keeping a breed of dog true to the standard for their breed, and simply reducing any negative aspects.

I don't like when people attempt to totally change the breed.