Gameness vs. Breeding

I think I had a debate here a looooong time ago (about Matrix Kennels originally) about what gameness is, but that's not what this thread is about (or at least it's not what I INTEND for it to be about). I know many of you are supporters of game dogs and "Amstaffs" aren't considered pit bulls, in many of your eyes. (I say Amstaffs that way because I've gotten the impression that any show pit bull is labeled as an Amstaff on this particular forum...I just call them show pit bulls...to each his own). ANYWAYS...to get to my point...I don't support the breeding of WORKING breeds unless they have proven their working ability. To me, with this breed, that could mean weight pull, agility, Schutzhund (that's another debate we won't get into)...something other than just standing there and looking pretty that requires strength and brains and preferably good nerves...hence the reason I included a bite sport. I don't support breeding pit bulls who are only show dogs, I guess because I don't see the point, especially with the horrific over population problem facing our breed.

SO, is that how ya'll feel about breeding non-game dogs? Place nice now!

 

I think breeding for structure only is what should be discouraged. Breeding of good game dogs preserve the temperment that should be highly valued in the APBT breed. The thing I struggle with is owning a GOOD game dog in an environment that does not allow the dog to do what it is bred to do thus possibly creating a bad situation for the dog.

 

That is my main problem with "preserving" the breed in the sense that some claim to do. I mean, the Boudreaux dogs certainly haven't been preserved all the well, now have they? Plus I'm not a huge fan of the original intent for this breed anyway...I am obviously very grateful it occured to give us the dogs we have now, but anymore, especially in light of recent events, it's just not a good idea.

 

I can't speak to the comment regarding Boudreaux, possibly someone more knowledgable can. I think the original intent for this breed was to test it's "game" or it's willingness to continue in it's given job, dog fighting just happened to be the vehicle for the show of game. Today there are chase sports, pull competitions, hunting. I'm sure there are more, I see nothing wrong with maintaining by careful breeding, good game dogs. As a matter of fact I think it is critical, I think those who choose to own them better understand what they are meant for. If you are not gonna let them hunt or pull then you better modify their environment so they have a job or you will have problems. This, as you know takes effort to understand and then execute.

 

This is not a show breed and shouldn't be bred like one. Once you lose the original intent of the originators (working breed) then you are losing the breed. This breed is just now starting to see the effects of "show" breeders. Many other working breeds have displayed the issues associated with people's "best" opinion of what the dog should look like. The breed is so robust and healthy because of its working history. These "show" dogs will eventually start to display the same issues afflicting many "show" breeds with hip issues and various other genetic problems. When you breed best working dog to working dog you can't tolerate these sort of problems. "Show" breeding, especially with the extremely large disproportianate (semi deformed in my opinion) animals will lead to genetic issues. Among those can be health problems and even total changes in temperment due to the breeding methods and crossing of "guarding" breeds to the strain. Obviously not all are bred that way and there are some "show" bred APBT. These animals will still end up showing ill effects after the generations of breeding animals for a "look" start to deteriate their working potential. There are exceptions to every rule so I'm not blindly stating this about all show animals but you know as well as I do that many (not all) "show" bred dogs are bred soley to make the breeder money. These people disregard basic confirmation and genetic issues and many times breed strictly to make their piggy banks larger. Size, color, and look determine when and how often they breed. This is a complete 180 degree turn from what made this breed what it is today and will end in the eventual loss of the APBT in its true and only form.

Best Regards,

B

 

Exactly. I guess when I said game in terms of this thread, I meant the original definition of the word. As I've said, I think other activities can prove the dog worthy of breeding, whether or not somebody else might define him as "game." I think the closest legal activity we have to prove dogs game by the original definition is hog hunting, and unfortunately a lot of people do that for sport rather than necessity, which I've got problems with, but again, that's another argument! lol

BnD - what you said is why, for the most part, I'm not a huge fan of exclusively show breeders. Without function, what good is form? Unfortunately, even many judges have lost sight of what a real APBT should look and act like....hence the seriously suspicious looking show dogs with BAD temperaments who win anyway for one reason or another.

And then, I have issues with the original function of the breed...hence my approval of other working events to prove "worthyness," for lack of a better term.

 

AmStaffs ARE considered "pit bulls". What they AREN'T considered are as true American Pit Bull Terriers. The pit bull term has become a generic term for many breeds. The American Pit Bull Terrier is just that.

 

Right...many times I've seen show APBT's called Amstaffs by gamedog folks (not just those on this site). It seems to me that a lot of folks call the typical show pit bull (overdone when compared to a "game" dog) an Amstaff, regardless of whether or not he's AKC registered...and/or folks will post comments like "you can be sure he has Amstaff in him" when referring to a UKC show dog...that's basically what I was getting at.

 

If a dog has any Am. Staff in it (unless it's 30 generations back & only 1 dog), then it to me, it's not a true APBT. The show UKC "APBT" is nothing more than another Am. Staff. Show dog breeders breed for color, for markings, for big heads, for wide chests thereby ruining the breed & disqualifying the dogs from being considered APBTs. An true APBT should be held to the ADBA standard, not the 80+lb UKC standard. (Plus, dual registered UKC/AKC dogs are in NO way APBTs. Am Staffs are pretty for what they are, as are some UKC dogs, but they are not, & will never be a worthy APBT.

It seems with all these conversations more & more people are pissed off at the prosepect of not being able to call their dog a "pit" or "pit bull" or American Pit Bull Terrier. This is a breed. This is a live, breathing animal. Not an ego boost.

BnD said it best......
"This is not a show breed and shouldn't be bred like one."

 

Anyone else want to share views on the topic?

B

 

I think a lot of the "issue," if there is one, comes from folks telling people new to the breed that Amstaffs are just APBT's with a different name. Techinically, yes...but in reality? Not so much.

I just don't like getting into the "official" name thing...a show dog is a show dog...a working dog is a working dog...A UKC/ADBA registered dog is TECHNICALLY an APBT, and AKC registered dogs is TECHNICALLY an Amstaff. I'll attach a link of an Amstaff (neutered, so he's not shown, but competes in Schutz.) He is a little more bulky than some gamebred dogs, but IMO, he's pretty true to the standard. For the most part, I'd agree with what you've said about show dogs/Amstaffs, but there are always exceptions to the rules. Some Amstaff breeders HAVE stayed true to the standard, as have some UKC show breeders...just as some ADBA "APBTs" are some of the most non-standard dogs I've ever seen (can you say Whopper?)

But anyways...we can do the registery debate round and round, but in the end, to me, it's about judging each dog on his own merits, not what he is on paper...and I'll agree...as long as the dog is a good dog, it doesn't really matter what he's labeled as.

 

Gameness versus Breeding? Granted, I have not read the post yet but if my statement below is redundant or somehow (coincidental) argumentative, please excuse.

In my opinion, breeding programs should always include these basic traits:

Ability to Reproduce in the wild
Ability to Live in the wild

These two traits are essential to any breed of any animal meant to exist. I do not believe (presently) we, as humans, should create animals that could not live in the wild. We should strive to produce ULTIMATE samples of our breed (GAMENESS) with the above traits in our breeding programs. Thus, here is a general view of what I believe a "good" breeding system should include (in order of importance): Above traits, ability, gameness, wind, intelligence, mouth. I believe ABILITY should be place a bit higher than gameness. Enough said!

 

Is hog-hunting really an indicator of a dog's gameness? In my opinion it only shows the dogs tenacity and persistence and determination. I have never been or seen a hog hunt but the way I imagine it is the hog fighting for his life to get away. It is not biting back. Yes, some dogs do get hurt or killed while hog hunting but in my opinion the best way of testing gameness is now illegal. In the old days, dogs tested were evenly matched, but in hog hunting you have 200 to 400lbs hogs against 40 to 60lbs dogs. I know this is a game dog forum and many of us prefer the smaller game dogs but we need to devise other forms of game testing that are legal or in the next 50 years we will be feeding staffs.

 

ive seen a few curs do quite well at hog hunting....

but Rocky's human.. Im not following what you are saying about living in the wild.. since dogs have been domesticated for hundreds and hundreds of years.. and breeds have been specificaly desgined for man..

can you elaborate more on what u are meaning??

 

When you go back and look at Maximillion and dogs like that they produced gamedogs that produced gamedogs. The AMSTAFF did not get its name because it was not game! it was because the UKC, AKC got away from the label American "Pit Bull" Terrier to cut ties with this breed that was getting a bad rap! History tells us this and its in the files. They were APBT'S but the registry named it something else for its reputation standings. Somewhere along the line the AMSTAFF started to lose its fire and evolution went the other way took its toll after people started breeding for conformation only. The old school AMSTAFF'S were real and the only thing diff was the name unlike today. So when you see someone with a fine amstaff try to recall what I have said and think! That may have been a good line of dog at one time! I think I'll change the breed of my dogs to AMSTAFFS today, just to pissoff people in the show world...

 

LOL
Thats not a bad idea......

 

Sure, I will. Granted, dogs have been domesticated for hundreds of years. What if they were let loose? Could they survive as a breed? Most would not due to their overdrive to fight. This "overdrive" supersedes the drive to breed and socialize with anything but a human. A good example of what I mean by "survive in the wild" is the Dingo of Australia. They were once domesticated dogs, turned wild (Ferril), and now exists free of human intervention (on the most part). They were able to suceed as a breed in the wild. That is what I mean. Currently, our "gamest" samples need to be strapped to an aparatus in order to breed. This aparatus holds the female by the neck and in front of the hind legs.

Is this a way to run a breeding? Only for those that care for a one track mind breed.

 

There is an alternative to the outlawed testing of old........I practice it with my dog every chance we get (usually 2 times a month until more members join). It is dog wrestling. The only two things that remain untested with this sport are mouth and pain endurance. Those two things are what made the old sport banned (some would add economics as another reason). My dog has gone for a bit over an hour in a match. There are two ways to loose a match (If fairly matched). Belly up three times or curing (giving up) either by tiredness or intimidation.

 

If I was breeding wild dogs, then yes .. i would want those qualities
but since I am not breeding "wild" dogs and breeding dogs to serve humans, those traits can stay out..

I think your comparing apples to oranges... APBT is a man made breed.. plain and simple. It was not created for the wild.. it was created for humans. I know nothing about the Dingo or how it came about.. or the breeding involved with it ..

 

These are dogs, not wild animals we are breeding. Those are not basic "traits" of these dogs, nor have they been.

Wow. You put ability, over the one trait that seperates our breed from every other breed out there??? Are you sure, without sounding like an a$$hole, that you understand this breed of dogs??? Gameness, is what seperates our breed, and makes it so great, you can get a high ability German Shepard, but would he be game?? Don't count on it, ooo but he'll probably reproduce in the wild like you want.
BB