ricey

Hi there, just how many Dogos have you have experience with in South Australia? Unless you have spent a lot of time in South America, I'd suggest that you probably have not had too much experience with Dogos. The Dogo is a hunting dog, in a similar way to the Ridgeback, the "pig dog", or any other hunting dog. The source dogs for the Dogo included pit bulls, great danes, dalmatians, and so on. I do not pretend to know everything there is to know about Dogos, but I do know a lot about the American Pit Bull terrier. To say that American Pit Bull terriers would not guard their humans is to deny one of their attributes. Cheers, ricey

This is actually not a great description of a dogo, they are quite a different dog compared to the APBT. And most of them aren't dog friendly either (dog friendly to me means that they will tolerate most dogs). Dogos rarely get along with the same sex and I know of several people who have had to separate their own pack because of their dogos not getting along and that is something you should be prepared for. A pit bull is a lot more "terrier" in nature than a dogo, which is a full on molosser. They are very protective which isn't an attribute pit bulls often possess. Actually, Antonio Nores Martínez (the original breeder of the Dogo Argentino) specifically bred Dogo Argentinos to allow better socialisation with other dogs and as such, they are well suited for group environments. If the Dogos that you have experience of are not good with other dogs, then they are not good examples of the breed. Dogos were bred to hunt large animals in packs; they therefore had to focus their aggression on the target animal, not each other. Dogos should get along with other pets in most rural and urban settings ranging from a complete outdoor farm dog to urban housing with a small yard, to crowded apartment buildings. Because aggressive traits were purposely bred out, attacks on humans or other pets are extremely rare (or should be; Dogos that bite humans or attack other pets are not good examples of the breed, and certainly should not be bred from). So, well bred Dogos are like big white pit bulls in appearance, but they should not be dog aggressive. Not all pit bulls are dog aggressive either, but some can be. Dogos shouldn't be, ever. And most of the pit bulls that I have had experience of are very protective of their humans, and to say that this is an attribute that pit bulls don't often possess is simply not true. Cheers, ricey

I love the concepts that Bill Bruce presents, but I put truth above my personal convictions. The numbers don't look that good. Slide #74 in his presentation shows significant increas in aggressive dog incidents since their program began . . . though the pattern has been for decline in the decades before it was implemented. I would like to believe that the Calgary approach works. But I'm not sure the Calgary statistics look so good. Edited to correct errors In the time that the Calgary model has been in place, their human and dog population has nearly doubled. I would recommend that you look at slide 52 from the presentation, sandgrubber. This slide shows that aggressive dog incidents in 2008 were less than 150, compared to over 650 in 1985. In that time, the Calgary human population grew from 620,000 to 1,100,000. Me, I'd think that those stats were fairly compelling; what part of these stats supports your view that there has been a significant increase in aggressive dog incidents since the implementation of the Calgary model? I'd really be interested if you could back up your views, sandgrubber. Regards, ricey Edit: Slide #74 from the Chilliwack presentation that sandgrubber is referring to is slide 52 from the Bill Bruce seminar that I am referring to. I can not see any evidence that would suggest that the number of aggressive incidents have gone up; they have gone done, and they have gone down consistently and remarkably. And they have stayed down. Sandgrubber, I'd appreciate it if you would give your reasoning for your assertion that aggressive dog incidents have gone up.

I went to the Perth Bill Bruce seminar; so inspiring! Bill's presentation was clear, logical, and I would think hard to refute by the "pro BSL simpletons". His Calgary model has been shown to work at reducing dog bites and encouraging owners to be responsible for their dogs. While he said that the Calgary model is not 'plug and play' or 'one size fits all', the process of implementing similar programmes to fit the needs of individual communities very much is. Bill re-iterated what most of us here already know; the problem is not with vicious dogs but with irresponsible owners. He was at pains to point out that most times it is not the deliberate failings of the individual dog owner, but their lack of knowledge, awareness of available support, or understanding of the available alternatives. One thing that Bill said that struck a chord with me was when he was faced with some of his rangers crying because they had to euthanise a lovely stray dog. When he asked why the dog had to be killed, he was told because it was a pit bull terrier and that was the local policy. Bill used a method that I have used many times "that's not a pit bull; it's a staffy/lab cross". That pit bull was was successfully rehomed and so it should have been. Thanks to Bill, Calgary has a policy that no healthy rehomable dog of any breed is euthanased. Interestingly, the average length of stay at the Calgary 'pound' is 3 days. Yet they don't kill any healthy rehomable dog...... Graham McEwan ((chair of BAWP) also spoke, and spoke well. Although the West Australian legislation is no where near as awful as the Victorian legislation, it is still awful. An interesting point he made was that 85% of council 'pit bull' determinations are overturned at VCAT. He made a case for encouraging 1 or 2 Perth metropolitan councils to trial the Calgary model, and then to use the statistics to encourage other councils to follow. Apparently this plan is being implemented in WA and I hope it takes flight. Sadly, no WA state parliamentarian from any party attended the seminar. ricey

If you want to see good pictures of pedigree American Pit Bull Terriers and see just how varied they are, get yourself a copy of Mark Joseph's " American Pitbull" (ISBN 3-88243-914-9) and check out pages 114 to 125. 48 pure bred "show standard" American Pit Bull Terriers. These range from wiry 16kg dogs to big blocky dogs that look like crosses between Labradors, mastiffs and Tonka toys. All are pure bred American Pit Bull Terriers but I think that only the lean athletic dogs are good examples. If you do a search on DOL, I posted up the 48 photos around 5 years ago. I can't be bothered to re-post the photos. I am somewhat horrified by what some American Pit Bull Terrier breeders consider to be good examples of this breed. The APBT above anything else should be a canine athlete, not a rhino. And the APBT should never resemble the dog that the AmStaff has come to be in Australia or the US of A. The AmStaff has become bloated and blocky, and would have difficulty in biting its own bum, let alone biting anything else. ricey

Hi Kylie, apologies for taking this long to reply. I don't visit DOL that much, and I missed your post. My wife takes Lizzie the corgi/dingo/kelpie/ferret cross and Lulu the Maltese/Shih Tsu/Silkie/hyaena cross to Riverside Gardens most days, but Hobbes does not go there. It is a little bit too uncontrolled for him and it would end in tears. I live 350m from the Frank Drago Reserve on the corner of Garratt Road and Whatley Crescent int Bayswater. This a soccer ground, but it is also one of the best off-lead dog parks in Perth. Totally surrounded by Cyclone fencing, with only the car entrance open to the road. Very few dogs! (and those dogs that get there mostly know each other and are socialised). Always well supplied with poo bags (it is a soccer ground frequented by kids, and nobody wants their kid to put their soccer boots in dog poo). Hobbes is an old dog now, probably around 13 years old or more. I have owned him for 12 years (more like he has owned me for 12 years). Hobbes is fine with other dogs if he is introduced in a controlled manner. I like to get him around other dogs and most times he is a perfect gentleman. He can be little noisy and he used to be a bit boisterous but nowadays he is just an old dog. He is good with kids and he is great with puppies. I hope I haven't scared you off; Hobbes is a fine dog but I like to be honest about him. He is an American Pit Bull terrier, but he is just another dog. And I'd love to see your Tamaskan dog. My understanding is that they resemble grey wolves but are slightly bigger. Cheers, ricey

Great work Aphra and BCE. Barney looks as though he has found his love match. The bit I've quoted and highlighted from your post is the scarey bit, though, isn't it. So many dogs just don't show their true personalities in the pound. Luckily, there are increasing numbers of experienced rescue people and pounds who work with them to be able to see past the unnatural environment and surroundings. Have fun, Barney Oh totally - it's so sad. My current foster was considered "deaf as a post" and "stone deaf" in separate vet reports from 2 vets in a pound. He's not deaf at all, though! He had basically just shut down in the pound environment. If he is hard of hearing, he certainly doesn't show it and if I hadn't read those vet reports and been told he was totally deaf, I wouldn't have even considered the prospect. I'm special; it said so on the side of my school bus. And my rescue pit bull Hobbes is special too. He is 13 years old now, majorly grey around the muzzle, and somewhat (a lot deaf). He used to be a really good ratter; he'd hear the scratching, and then the rat would be dead. So quick you'd be hard pressed to actually see him kill it. Now that he is deaf, the only rats he kills are those that he sees. They have to prance about in front of him now for Hobbes to recognise them and do the quick crunch kill. All my dogs have been rescue dogs and all of them have been unique individuals. I don't know that 'special' is the right word to describe them; I think that the words 'unique' and 'individual' are more apt. ricey

There is no recognised DNA test for the American Pit Bull Terrier; likewise, there is no accepted DNA test for the American Staffordshire terrier. ricey

Are you seriously saying if you were offered a dog from say Tatonka's next breeding (Sorrell dogs), and you knew the ped was genuine you wouldn't take it in a heart beat? I bet Ricey would jump on it no hesitation! Dogs like Chinaman, Honeybunch, Jeep, Eli, Spook, Butcher Boy, Buck, Eli, Red Boy etc... etc... I am sure you know all the more famous sires and dams as well I do, we do tend to be obsessive about our breed history we APBT fans, no need for a list. They were extensively line bred on the proviso gameness tends to be hereditary, so a distinct breed was created from these dogs, to capture that trait and propagate it. These old dogs, with that trait of gameness are the basis for the APBT breed, and it is most certainly a breed. The lines that were based on the old dogs - Garner's dogs, Boudreaux's dogs, the Red Hemphill dogs, Colby dogs, Reid dogs, pick your favourite lines... the list goes on, all those men that linebred their best - they created a breed based upon those dogs. There are differences between these lines, both physically and temperamentally, the red dogs are bigger, the Colby dogs are calmer, the Sorrell dogs are all action... Different lines, differences in temperament and structure (the same can be said of GSDs, Kelpies, lots of breeds), but still one breed - the one breed that emphasised gameness as it's primary trait. Sure there are hung papers, but there's a lot of genuine papers too (very, very few in this country though I think....). The APBTs of modern times, a breed descended from the greats, carrying the genetics for gameness, are incredibly valuable. Gameness is a maladaptive trait, a dog too willing to die does not have the opportunity to pass on his genes, even within APBTs it doesn't crop up with any reliability, since it's fundamentally contrary to the survival of an individual. It's a genetic trait that hasn't been selected for as comprehensively in any other breed that I am aware of, some other terriers perhaps, but those were also selected for breeding for other reasons as well, gameness wasn't the sole determiner for the other terriers. An APBT of genuine good pedigree is about as valuable as it's possible for a dog to be in my eyes, animals carrying this genetic trait of gameness (whether it's expressed or not) there is nothing else like them. Problem in Australia is we don't know what we have, just a bunch of Pit Bull type mutts, no known pedigree, it's anybody's guess whats in these dogs. The BYBs pumping them out don't even know what an APBT is, they think their poorly formed dogs of incorrect temperament and structure are APBTs, because they have a red nose or a big head or whatever. Bet there's lots of Visla in a lot of the red noses hereabouts, it's weird to me how the red dogs are so popular in Australia, what is with that? Stratton thought they were too big, well they're even bigger here now the idiot BYBs have mixed Viszla and even Dogue De Bordeaux in to get that all important money spinning red nose. If there is no pedigree they aren't APBTs, they aren't American Staffordshires, they're Pit Bulls, the catch all term for generic Bull breeds of no known ancestry. Just IMO, feel free to differ. I think there are really no absolutes here - it's like the question of whether an AmStaff is an APBT or not, opinions vary, it's hard to say who's correct on points with no absolutes.

Yeah, Hobbes' rcall ain't that fantastic either. I'm in Bayswater. Hobbes is a Pit Bull and he is fine with other dogs but he does need to be introduced to them properly. My other dogs are Lulu (shih tsu/silky cross); Lizzie (corgi/dingo/ferret/otter cross) but Hobbes is the one who is good with kids and people. ricey

I have a friend who used to have a Dogo. Possibly the only genuine Dogo in Australia but maybe there were others. Rachel's Dogo was female and sterilised, and her Dogo is now dead. Rachel's Dogo came with her from France around 5 years ago and managed to sneak in (with Rachel's American Pit Bull terrier). Both of Rachel's "banned dogs" have now died. I'd think that anyone who is offering Dogos for sale in Australia is just pissing in the wind or just pissing in your pocket. I'd love to have a Dogo; big white pit bull that was bred to be dog friendly. Everything good about pit bulls with none of the down sides. Having said that, it is a pity that they only live 8 or 9 years at most. My pittie Hobbes is 13 years old and he'd have to have another 2 or 3 years left in him at least. Really though, I think that we all should chill out a bit about these "banned dogs" and the people who are breeding them and advertising them for sale in Gumtree and eBay. Me, I'd be happy to think that there are people out there breeding good examples of American Pit Bull Terriers. But I am not happy; I'd think that most are breeding shit dogs. Really, the only pit bulls in Australia being bred right now are questionable as to their breeding. Good bye to the well bred dogs, good bye. ricey

One has to ask; what is gameness? We all "know" that 'real APBT's' are bred for gameness, but really, what is gameness? Is gameness the willingness to fight another dog to the death, or is it the willingness to not give up? Is it the drive to achieve what the dog wants at the moment? Me, I think that a load of shit is spouted about gameness and most of it is spouted by cowards who want their dogs to make them look tough. APBT's are the best of dogs, but they are just dogs. A truly game APBT might be possibly too much dog for some pet dog owners, but I'd like my next dog to be a game APBT. I'd like to have a calm, confident dog that is OK with people and not phased by other dogs or other circumstances. Gameness, whatever it is, results in dependable dogs. Don't we all want dependable, calm dogs? The APBT is the best of dogs and I am really pissed off when this magnificent breed gets vilified in the news. ricey

Hi all, The RSPCA has come full circle on this issue, and I think that this is mainly due to the efforts of Lynne Bradshaw who is national president of the RSPCA. Lynne has worked tirelessly to overturn the previously pro BSL policy of the RSPCA that was instigated by Hugh Wirth. It should be noted that Hugh Wirth was responsible for the political agitation that resulted in Australia mindlessly copying the UK's Dangerous Dog Act of 1991. Even Hugh Wirth has seen the error of his ways and has since recanted, stating that all the research shows that breed specific legislation does not work. I think that we are at the edge of a possible breakthrough; the AVA and the RSPCA have an unambiguous policy platform- breed specific legislation does not and can not work. However, it is a pity about the shameful stance of the gutter press, and opportunistic politicians. Bill Shorten for example, who has referred to pit bulls as 'sharks on legs'. Bill is, as we know, the only reason that there has not been a prime ministerial spill and subsequent vote...... Not a person who likes to accept political realities..... I have a pit bull, and I am embarrassed to admit that my Hobbes would probably love Bill Shorten and cover him with licks and kisses. Pit bulls, they are probably not the best judges of human character. After all our species has done to pit bulls, they still seem to love us. Aren't dogs crazy!? Seriously, if the AVA and the RSPCA are behind us on this issue, then I think we have a chance of winning, or at least laying claim to the high moral ground. Any of you know a tame journalist who works for one of the major papers that could possibly run with an "enlightened" article on dogs? A young gung ho journo could make their reputation by breaking this story. ricey

That is a really, really intriguing idea. It would definitely take a while, and wolves probably wouldn't adapt to a human's modern lifestyle as they did oh so long ago (considering the issues people have with living with hybrid wolves already), but still, definitely interesting. A solution like that though, it gives no room for improvement. When people conduct a trial and then make a mistake, wouldn't it sometimes be better to try and fix the mistake, rather than to scrap the trial and start from scratch again? What if people forget protocol during the restart, and make the same mistakes again? Finding a better detection system for the illnesses common in the Cavs, or even better, finding a cure, I think that would be more beneficial all around, especially since a new scientific discovery, especially in the area of health, can have a positive affect in so many other arenas. I guess I'm trying to say something along the lines of, human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw too, but I think to start talking about human nature would be a little too off topic :laugh: I agree, Starting over is a bit of a stretch. I think going back in history to undo all the wrongs of the past is counterproductive. I think focusing on the direction you want to go from where you stand is more productive. If a car of today doesn’t pass today’s safety ratings. Should we go back to a car of the 60s and begin there? And start pin-pointing all the problems we made all along the way? Or should we begin with what we have today and focus on improving it? People love to talk about the ‘good old days’ and how good everything was. Yes things may have been great, but great compared to what was available and accepted back then. The cars back then were great, compared to the horse and cart. Then some people love to beat the drum about all the social, economic and health problems of today and how ‘bad’ everything has become. I know the world is not a perfect place. But on a whole everything has gotten better. Life expectancy, intelligence, health, wealth, technology, quality of life and world peace has improved greatly compared to 40 or so years ago, as a whole. If you take a person in Australia today who is living under the poverty line and compare him to someone living in the 60s. They would be considered very well off in terms of what they have and what they have access to. The same applies to dogs in my opinion. Going from the chain dogs kept in dudgeons of past, to the fleabag chained up in the yard. Nowadays dogs as a whole are healthier, more intelligent, more trainable, more sociable, and more domesticated. And just more widely accepted in the community. Then you see a dog riding a skateboard and you think to yourself ‘ Shit, I can’t even ride one of them’. That’s when you know we’ve come a long way. And what has allowed expansion? It certaintly wasn’t conformity. ( and also, what do you mean when you say "human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw " ?? ) Hi Corie and Rocketeer, I take onboard a lot of the points you both make; I was only semi-serious when I suggested going back to square one and start breeding wolves to produce a new domestic dog. The gene pools of some dog breeds have become somewhat stagnant and inbred, and shallow. The obvious way to improve the gene pool of a breed with health deficiencies is to introduce genes from other breeds that do not have the same genetic disease deficiencies as the initial breed. This is heresy in the minds of a lot of breeders that want to keep their breed 'pure'. However, the American Staffordshire terrier breed club in the US of A did exactly this when they perceived that the AmStaff needed a fresh injection of American Pit Bull Terrier genes. And the AmStaff benefited from this far sighted intervention. I think that it is fair to say that there have been a multitude of mistakes made when breeding dogs to a conformation standard. To be fair, there have been just as many good decisions made that have resulted in fine healthy breeds. I do not accept the analogy you make when you compare the breeding of dogs to the designing of cars and suggest that starting over with dog breeding is similar to starting over with cars. Any engineer/car designer can start with a clean sheet of paper; today's dog breeders do not. Any engineer can take onboard all that has been learned about cars in the last 110 years and p*ss off all the cr@p decisions and wrong turns made. They have an opportunity to design a totally new car without any of the imperfections of previous cars. It is not quite so easy to p*ss off all the genetic imperfections of a dog breed that have built up over many decades or centuries. Cheers, ricey

Yes, I agree; an American Staffordshire Terier without breed papers is by definition a pit bull terrier. Only the AmStaff breed papers separate the AmStaff from their progenitors, the American Pit Terrier. Apart from a piece of paper, they are the same breed. Bred along differing lines for nearly 80 years now, they share the same DNA. Having said that, in 80 years of breeding for a somewhat different temperament and look, after at least 25 breeding cycles the American Staffordshire is quite possibly a different breed. AmStaff breeders would say that they are different breeds, and I think that I am now starting to believe them. Only just starting to believe them though..... Cheers, ricey

That is a really, really intriguing idea. It would definitely take a while, and wolves probably wouldn't adapt to a human's modern lifestyle as they did oh so long ago (considering the issues people have with living with hybrid wolves already), but still, definitely interesting. A solution like that though, it gives no room for improvement. When people conduct a trial and then make a mistake, wouldn't it sometimes be better to try and fix the mistake, rather than to scrap the trial and start from scratch again? What if people forget protocol during the restart, and make the same mistakes again? Finding a better detection system for the illnesses common in the Cavs, or even better, finding a cure, I think that would be more beneficial all around, especially since a new scientific discovery, especially in the area of health, can have a positive affect in so many other arenas. I guess I'm trying to say something along the lines of, human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw too, but I think to start talking about human nature would be a little too off topic :laugh: Hi Corie, I am not that sure that it will take that much time. Might take 9 or 10 breeding cycles, or possibly a few more. The well known Russian experiment into the domestication of the silver fox had, by well before the 20th breeding cycle, resulted in pet quality foxes. They now sell these foxes as pets to Russians who can afford to buy them. You can read about the Russian experiment here, on Wikipedia (gulp) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox Thing is, all dogs were puppies once, all dogs were wolves once, and we should all accept that all dogs could be wolves again. My Lulu of all my dogs is the one closest to a wolf. Lulu is a Maltese/Shih Tsu/Silky cross but she has survived mast cell tumout; pyonephritis; and anything else that gets thrown at her. Tough little shit. Scared the f*#k out of the rescue pit bulls that dragged their sorry arses through my yard. Hobbes my pit bull is so far away from being a wolf; he is a woose bag. ricey

Just from a factual point of view - Cavalier King Charles spaniel were not bred with pugs, it was the King Charles/toy spaniel that came to be with the addition of pugs. The Cavaliers were bred specifically to regain the look of the original spaniels - the ones from the paintings - a look they had before the introduction of pugs with the King Charles. As for their health problems, it's stated from wikipedia (I know, always to be taken with a grain of salt, but there are references to the information) that it is largely the result of Cavs having a limited 'founding' gene pool, something that modern selective breeding can't control for. I agree completely that health should never be compromised when breeding for any standard. But that itself is a general statement. With the Cavalier example, MVD can't be guaranteed clear by one test before breeding, and MRI machinery for screening SM for dogs is quite uncommon (and very expensive). SM is also a progressive disease, some dogs never showing signs of SM even though they are affected, and on top of that most cavaliers already have a degree of skull malformation. So without even an absolutely clear standard yet of what categorises a Cav 'clear' for SM, it's not fair yet to say that the breeders aren't breeding for health when the technology and information isn't there yet. With your Ridgeback example - I didn't look beyond the wiki page for that documentary, but it says in there that 'The programme mistakenly claims that the ridge itself is a mild form of spina bifida'. I learnt myself the hard way to always remember to think critically about documentaries, regardless of how well it's presented. This of course doesn't mean that all the information they provide is false! Also my 'problem sellers' wasn't directed at the breeding practise (although now that you've put it that way, they can certainly be included) - it was more about people who sell dogs to pet homes when they are unsuited for them (from working lines, high energy level, dominant temperament to inexperienced owner etc), which then results in a problem dog. Edit to say that I got completely sidetracked - I definitely agree that historically, conformational breeding has led to breed-associated health issues. But I also think that breeding for health as the only criteria isn't always viable either. Hi corie, I think that we probably agree on a lot of things; I accept that I was sloppy to accept the statement from "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" that the ridge indicated a mild form of spina bifida without checking whether that statement was valid. I guess that I have been lulled into a false sense of security by BBC documentaries; generally they get it right and then they hammer it home. I would never say that breeding for health is the only consideration when breeding dogs; I'd just say that it should be the first consideration. Once the 'health box' is ticked, then other considerations can be entertained. Really, if the dog is unhealthy why would you breed it? The Cavalier King Charles spaniel was interbred with flat nosed dog breeds, but possibly not with pugs. I do not have evidence to support one or the other. Either way, the cav did not benefit. The thing is, this breed (Cavs) is recognised as being more than just somewhat sickly. And that is due to decisions made by its breeders. Maybe we should just go back to square one and start again. Get a breeding pair of wild wolves and start breeding for a new companion/hunting/protection dog (and I am only joking a little bit when I say this). ricey

Wow! The Tamaskan dog is pretty damn rare! I'd love to meet up with one of these just to have a look. Two of my dogs are fine with meeting other dogs, but the third needs to be introduced to other dogs in a controlled way so a 'play date' with a lot of other dogs really is not a viable option. I am in Perth (Bayswater). Cheers, ricey

You forget the 'problem dog seller' :p For my own clarification - what do you mean exactly when you talk about 'a way'? Selection, breeding practises? 'What a dog is bred for' is quite a general statement - and general statements hardly ever hold up when put to practise. Working and companion animals are the obvious example. I don't think it's unfair for a family to like 'the look' of a certain breed of dog and want to bring it into their home. It's just important that that particular dog has been bred from companion animal lines. Variety isn't always a good thing, but it definitely isn't a bad thing. Interesting discussion, just my two cents :) Hi corie, My personal view (and it is certainly not the view of a lot of breeders) is that breeding for a conformational 'visually ideal' dog historically has tended to result in dogs that look pretty but are very unhealthy. A good example of what I mean is the Cavalier King Charles spaniel; over the last 90 years or so these were bred solely to resemble the idealised spaniels that could be seen in some rather bad paintings from the King Charles the Second era. Interbred with flat nosed dog breeds such as the pug, this breed is recognised as having mitral valve disease (resulting in heart failure) which affects most Cavs at some stage and is the most common cause of death in this brred. Also well known is the common issue of syringomyelia (google "pedigree dogs exposed") which UK breeders of this breed were shown to have knowingly continued to breed from stud dogs with this awful disease. But the stud dog did look rather pretty.... And then there is the Ridgeback; the ridge indicates spina bifida occulta, and by continuing to breed for the ridge, breeders knowingly continue this problem. Quote "if it doesn't have a ridge, it wouldn't be a ridgeback", as one breeder said on 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'. So, when I said there is 'a way' that dogs should be bred, all I mean was that the health of the resultant pups should be the primary concern; not what the dog looks like. I'd feel rather sorry for a young family who bought themselves a Cavalier King Charles spaniel because they and their kids liked what it looked like. When the dog dies at an early age from heart disease (as most do), or when the dog dies from the unspeakable agony that is syringomyelia (sadly, very common), how do they explain this to their traumatised kids? This is not a rhetorical question; really, how would mum and dad explain to their kids why little Charlie spent his last months increasingly agonised by the pressures building up in his skull? "Sorry kids, Charlie's breeder didn't give a sh*t" How well do you think that is going to go down? Don't get me wrong; the vast majority of dog breeders want their pups to be healthy, and most go to incredible lengths to ensure this. I have a lot of respect for dog breeders that do all the genetic testing and really put the effort in. But as you point out Some breeders are a problem and I don't resile from that. If a breeders motivation is to produce popular examples of a breed by appearance alone, then I'd have to say that the breeder really does not have the breeds health or best interests at heart. Like I said in my previous post, there really is not a breed that I don't like; however, I am appalled by what has been done to the Cavalier King Charles spaniel by breeding it solely for its looks (conformation). This has happened to a lot of breeds. ricey

Hi Rocketeer, Yes I am passionate about the APBT, and probably a bit over-passionate. I wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to American Pit Bull terriers. If I ever got a tattoo on my wrinkly 56 year old body, it would be an APBT (it will never ever happen LOL). I never intended to become an owner of one of these dogs; it all happened by accident. There are many breeds that I like (really, I'm sure there probably isn't a dog breed I don't like) but I am passionate about the bull breeds in general and the APBT/AST/SBT in particular. And the Boerboel, and the Canary Island dog, and the Dogo Argentino, and the Tosa Inu, and the Fila Brasiliero, and the German Shepherd, and the Dobermann, and the Rottweiler; and all the other so-called 'dangerous breeds' dog breeds that really just are nothing more than just dog breeds. I know it sounds simplistic of me, but I'd say "you show me a problem dog and I'll show you a problem dog owner". I do believe there is a 'right way' for the APBT to be bred, and I believe there is a 'right way' for all dog breeds to be bred. Again, maybe a bit simplistic of me but I think that the health of the breed should be the main consideration. Not what each individual dog looks like, but how healthy is it, and how well can it do what it was bred for? Cheers, ricey

Yep; me too! I think that most pet dog owners really don't want a working dog. This is why I'd never recommend someone with a small back yard and a laid back personality get a border collie. These are working dogs that need to be worked. I think that a balanced/functional APBT is not a massive dog and should not ever be a massive dog. As for your question and statement "How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe." I'd have to say that the breeders have probably gone way off track. My personal belief is that many fine dog breeds have been totally stuffed up by breeders who seem to want to breed dogs that do not conform to the breed standard. And then they manage to get the breed standard altered to match their view. To give an example of what I mean, the British bull dog originally was a fine athletic dog and an example of what this breed was can still be seen by viewing google images of the Dorset Old Time Bulldog. Granted, not quite the same but close. But the British bull dog got f*cked over when breeders around 100 years ago chose to breed their athlete dog with pugs. I think that if the individual dogs of a particular breed now look nothing like like the foundation dogs then the breeders have stuffed up. Stick to the programme and breed dogs that meet the breed standard. If you can't do that and want a dog that is totally different, just call it another breed and move on. Do not call your bastard new breed the previous breed. I'd have to say that performance breed standards result in far healthier dogs than conformance breed standards have, and I like that APBTs have traditionally been bred to a performance standard. Should a dog owner really care about whether their dog is blue fawn or grey merle, or should they care about what their dog can do or how their dog behaves? I'd like to say that I am really enjoying this discussion and I hope I am not offending anyone when I put forward my views. I'd like to continue this discussion with you all. Ricky (I'd better shut up now before I say something that will really shoot me in the foot) Working dogs have their place and so do non-working dogs. Yes performance bred dogs are healthier. But performance-bred dogs also carry certain characteristics that not everyone wants in a dog. There's something for everyone. In terms of dog breeds changing. Nothing in life stays the same forever. As for the Bulldog, I guess when bull-baiting phased out then so did the Bulldog. People change and things change. Many things have been adjusted or discarded as society changes. Then some things are brought back. It's like fashion I guess lol. I'm not interested or bothered by the Bulldog of today. If I wanted a working dog there are many capable breeds out there now days. Change is inevitable and change is what created many of the great breeds we have available today. The Apbt itself was an offshoot of the Staffordshire dog. The Americans made the dog more leggy, more functional and more capable. In terms of what dog is called what I think it's just all politics. In saying that I do believe it can be confusing if you out a 70kg dog next to a 16kg dog and call it the same breed. Rocketeer, I am not sure how to respond to your posts. Most of what you post I agree with totally. I believe that the "British bulldog" was a fine breed but its demise as a healthy breed was not due to the phasing out of bull-baiting. It was when some breeders decided to breed their dogs with pugs. Whether their decision was somehow related to the demise of bull-baiting is immaterial. They chose to breed their fine healthy breed to pugs. Personally, I like pugs but I'd have to say that this breed is certainly not the best or most virile dog breed out there. I agree that performance bred dogs are not for everyone. But they are for me. I want a dog that is stronger, more determined, more reliable, more trainable, even more than a bit head strong and probably more than just a bit of a tough nut; I want a dog that is more like what an APBT is supposed to be. There is not a breed other than the APBT that fills my selection criteria for a dog. I love this breed; I love this breed for many reasons; I love this breeds resilience; I love this breeds stamina; I love this breeds strength; I love this breeds gentleness with human babies; I love this breeds perseverance; I love that APBTs don't give up and quit. The best things about this breed are that they don't do the things that humans do to disappoint us. ricey (again, I'd better shut up before I say something to really embarrass me; I really love the APBT and I really do not understand why some people think they are dangerous).

Yep; me too! I think that most pet dog owners really don't want a working dog. This is why I'd never recommend someone with a small back yard and a laid back personality get a border collie. These are working dogs that need to be worked. I think that a balanced/functional APBT is not a massive dog and should not ever be a massive dog. As for your question and statement "How many of todays purebred dogs resemble the original foundation dogs of the breed? Not many I believe." I'd have to say that the breeders have probably gone way off track. My personal belief is that many fine dog breeds have been totally stuffed up by breeders who seem to want to breed dogs that do not conform to the breed standard. And then they manage to get the breed standard altered to match their view. To give an example of what I mean, the British bull dog originally was a fine athletic dog and an example of what this breed was can still be seen by viewing google images of the Dorset Old Time Bulldog. Granted, not quite the same but close. But the British bull dog got f*cked over when breeders around 100 years ago chose to breed their athlete dog with pugs. I think that if the individual dogs of a particular breed now look nothing like like the foundation dogs then the breeders have stuffed up. Stick to the programme and breed dogs that meet the breed standard. If you can't do that and want a dog that is totally different, just call it another breed and move on. Do not call your bastard new breed the previous breed. I'd have to say that performance breed standards result in far healthier dogs than conformance breed standards have, and I like that APBTs have traditionally been bred to a performance standard. Should a dog owner really care about whether their dog is blue fawn or grey merle, or should they care about what their dog can do or how their dog behaves? I'd like to say that I am really enjoying this discussion and I hope I am not offending anyone when I put forward my views. I'd like to continue this discussion with you all. ricey (I'd better shut up now before I say something that will really shoot me in the foot)

Hi all, I guess this discussion we are having is very much "on topic". The original poster did ask 'what constitutes an APBT?' Historically, the APBT has been bred to a performance standard rather than a conformation standard. Generally speaking, this has been a good thing for our breed as they have been bred for their working abilities rather than their looks. There have been some positive outcomes with regard to the health of our breed. The two most accepted breed standards for American Pit Bull Terriers are the United Kennel Club's breed standard, and the American Dog Breeders Association breed standard. Some would say that the ANKC American Staffordshire Terrier breed standard also describes American Pit Bull Terriers and I guess this is true to a degree. However, the ANKC American Staffordshire Terrier breed standard is a show and conformation standard and not a working dog standard. I am in two minds here; I'm working out what I think as I type :laugh: . Part of me thinks that it does not matter what an American Pit Bull Terrier looks like as long as it comes from pure bred APBT lines and is an athlete, but part of me thinks that some dogs that are called American Pit Bull Terriers are so overly large that they couldn't lick their own nuts. And you'd have to agree that any dog who can't do that is really not a dog The UKC breed standard does mention ideal sizes and weights, but also states that bigger dogs should not be penalised as long as they are not overly massive or out of proportion. The ADBA standard (which both my gut and my head tell me is the better standard) does not mention size or weight at all, but states that the APBT should be both an athlete and a thing of beauty. You can google the UKC and ADBA breed standards and make up your own minds. My personal preference is for APBTs that are under 26kg and athletic (if I dieted and worked Hobbes he'd probably be no more than 23kg) but I also had a rescue American Pit Bull Terrier come through my yard that probably weighed nearly 40kg. I know this dog's breeder and I know his lineage, and he is a fine athletic dog. If you looked at this dog, you'd have to say "American Pit Bull Terrier". So, I'm having a bet each way here; I know what my personal preference is for APBTs, but I am not about to say that other peoples preferences are wrong. Each to their own. ricey (edited for spelling and grammar)

Our old dogs are so dear to us; so grey, so great. I've been thinking about maybe a puppy when Hobbes my old pit bull goes, but I'll probably go for another senior rescue. You can't teach an old dog like me new tricks. ricey

Hi Juice, Ivy would have had no problem rehoming a lovely dog like Nudge. Ivy was really fussy about who she would rehome dogs to, and there was no chance that a d#ckhead would get a dog from Ivy. So Nudge would have gone to a good owner. You have to worry about where the dog ends up; maybe the aggro person you mention had plans for Nudge that don't bear thinking about. I've had d#ckheads ask me "do you want to fight him?" when they see Hobbes. FFS! Hobbes is my best mate, and no, I don't want to effing fight him scumbag! This breed sometimes attracts people who don't deserve to be called people. Pah! People! Some times I think that there are some people that I would not p!ss on if they were on fire and most times I think that dogs behave more honorably than a lot of people. The old line is, "dogs are a man's best friend" but some humans are certainly not a dog's best friend. Hey, I am getting old and a bit jaded and if I sound a bit down on humanity at the moment I am sorry. I am quietly surprised at the amount of sh!t that dogs put up with from humans. All dogs are well equipped in the mouth and teeth department and I am surprised (but pleased) with how few dogs bite people. ricey