Pitbull and other so called "bully breeds"

[edlund1]

Define "experienced".

I mean people who have owned dogs before and know what they are getting them self into. Getting a rottweiler or a pitbull is not a good choice if you have never owned a dog before and got zero experience.

 

[elegy]

See, to me a history of owning dogs may or may not be a good indicator of someone who will be a decent pit bull owner. I know too many people who own dogs who should never EVER own pit bulls, even if they do fine with the breed they've chosen.

My first dog was a 10 pound, 15 year old (when I got her) Miniature Poodle. Do you think she prepared me for pit bull ownership?

The reason I succeeded with Luce (and then Mushroom when I adopted him a year later) was because I was responsible, willing to learn, and willing to work with her. I understood the needs of the breed going in and was willing to listen to the advice of others who had the experience that I lacked. This, I feel, is what makes a good pit bull owner. Not previous dog ownership.

 

[AdrianneIsabel]

I mean people who have owned dogs before and know what they are getting them self into. Getting a rottweiler or a pitbull is not a good choice if you have never owned a dog before and got zero experience.

Where does one draw the line as "good beginner" breed?

I have had apbt literally all my life. I was raised with the breed and have done rescue for as long as I can remember and taking favor on the breed. That said, with everything I have seen (which has not always been pretty), I still believe this is one of the best singular family dog breeds in existence.

-They're extremely tolerant, when bred well (which is becoming more and more scarce), they are incredibly resilient and honestly the best breed of dog for inexperienced or heavy handed trainers because these dogs just keep trying no matter how badly you break them down, they have a phenomenal off switch but can play for hours when requested, they can adjust their strength per play mate with ease (unlike many breeds who shamelessly plow through a weaker playmate), and they truly love children (again, when bred well).

This breed is actually not a difficult breed to own. It wasn't at least, until people started to believe every dog in existence should be best buddies with it's neighbor. This breed is not the breed if you want puppy play dates with strangers at the park. This breed is a wonderful dog for the family, great for children, great for hiking, great for farm work, great for most everything. They do maintain dog aggression most of the time and they can have some of the worst separation anxiety I have ever seen. These two flaws come from history and breeding. These two flaws are perfectly handle-able when raised responsibly with love and respect. They're not insanely active chewers, ime, they're not hyper demon puppies, they're not sensitive to change, they're not distrusting of strangers, they're rarely alarm barkers, they're commonly just plain ol' dogs and while many people breeding them today are trying their daymnest to ruin this trait it still remains in well bred dogs.

Would I say a puppy rescue pit bull is the best first time dog for a family? Eh, with research and reasonable expectations, yes. Would I say a well bred puppy (or an adult rescue pit bull) is the best first time dog for a family? You bet your butt I would.

 

[Pops2]

Personally. I think it is FAR more important to socialise your kids to dogs then your dog to kids.

agree 100%

 

[thehoundgirl]

And the defintion of a pit bull is actually any of several breeds of dog in the molosser breed group.

Well the term "pit bull" does not classify in the molosser breed group, not sure where you go that from... The American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, etc. are not in the molosser group, period.

 

[Renee750il]

See, to me a history of owning dogs may or may not be a good indicator of someone who will be a decent pit bull owner. I know too many people who own dogs who should never EVER own pit bulls, even if they do fine with the breed they've chosen.

My first dog was a 10 pound, 15 year old (when I got her) Miniature Poodle. Do you think she prepared me for pit bull ownership?

The reason I succeeded with Luce (and then Mushroom when I adopted him a year later) was because I was responsible, willing to learn, and willing to work with her. I understood the needs of the breed going in and was willing to listen to the advice of others who had the experience that I lacked. This, I feel, is what makes a good pit bull owner. Not previous dog ownership.

:hail: Oh, and don't forget common sense

 

[Pops2]

Well the term "pit bull" does not classify in the molosser breed group, not sure where you go that from... The American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, etc. are not in the molosser group, period.

just because they have the word terrier in the name does not make them an actual terrier. the AmStaff is morphologically almost pure bulldog like the butcher's bulldog used to create the bull & terriers. likewise quite a large percentage of the UKC APBT is more bulldog than terrier. even a shockingly significant minority of ADBA APBTs have butcher's type bulldog phenotype. even a fair amount of staffy bulls have very small bulldog bodies & heads. the main (pretty much the only) phenotypical difference between these types and the old butcher's bulldogs is size and even there the bulldog size is becoming the norm instead of the exception. in fact, they have more claim to the molosser group than the frenchies, bostons & english bulldogs that all got their heads from the pug.

 

[thehoundgirl]

Well APBTs are a medium breed, so are Amstaffs, and SBTs so there is no way they have mastiff in them. The dogs that you are thinking of that are huge and have massive heads are American Bullies.. they are not true APBTs they are American Bullies and I do not mean American Bulldogs, so perhaps that is maybe where you and PitbullLove are coming from.

 

[Renee750il]

Nineteenth-century army veterinarian and entomologist Jean Pierre Mégnin theorized there were four basic canine races, based on his observation of their different skull structures: Lupoides (Spitz), Braccoides (scenthounds), Graioides (sighthounds), and Molossoides (mountain dogs, mastiff breeds and even Pugs).[6] Although study of the canine genome is causing the revision of phenotype-based taxonomies such as Mégnin's, the four categories are still used in some traditional contexts.

That's where the classification of the bully breeds as molossers comes from. Molosser is a much larger category than just the Mastiff breeds.

I don't depend on this site for everything, but they do have a good table of the three categories: Content / content / Molossers and Rare Breeds - Molosser Dogs

 

[AdrianneIsabel]

Don't you think we're trying to use out dated categories to label our dogs?

 

[Renee750il]

Probably, and I'm not sure why they need to be categorized any farther than breed, possibly type (hunting, herding, etc.), although even that gets sketchy since there are breeds that cross several types.

But . . . humans seem to have a deep seated belief that categorizing things -- and each other -- gives them a measure of control.

 

[Pops2]

molosser family includes all mastiff (LGDs fall here) & bulldog types. total size has nothing to do w/ being a molosser breed, it is about ancestry & morphology/phenotype. the boston terrier & the french bulldog are the two smallest molossers and both are smaller than the average pit bulldog. and very few of the Am staffs, UKC show APBT and the very bully ADBA APBTs even come close to getting that small. only the staffy bull gets as small as bostons & frenchies. also ancestry from outside the group doesn't exclude membership if the majority of morphology is still molosser in nature (for example filas & bullmastiff include hound ancestry, while dogo argentinos have a touch of sighthound).
so because size doesn't matter and non bull or mastiff doesn't matter lets look at what does, morphology.

standard american bulldogs the closest thing and a direct descendant of the old british butcher's bulldog
sort of a head & body study uncropped
Gallery - Category: Standard American Bulldogs - Picture: Random
Gallery - Category: Standard American Bulldogs - Picture: Random
head & body cropped
Gallery - Category: Standard American Bulldogs - Picture: Sandy

AmStaff, compare closely the first photo and the cropped AB above
American Kennel Club - American Staffordshire Terrier Photos

staffy bull, compare the heads of the top left & top right to the uncropped AB above
Illustrated Standard

UKC APBT uncropped
PETERSON PERFORMANCE PITS -- AKC/ UKC Registered American Pitbull Terriers & American Staffordshire Terriers
American Pit Bull Terrier

cropped
American Pit Bull Terrier

just a bunch of photos you can look through and compare
Bulldog Breeds - Bull Dog - English Bulldog, American Bulldog, Pit Bull Terrier, Pitbull and more
APBT network Galleries note the historical Gr Ch matchdogs and the variety of head & body types. from snipey heads and whipcord bodies (angus) to super bulldoggy & blocky (Tex) it's all there.

just for poops & giggles compare alano, presa, dogo, & cane head types to the various AmStaff, APBT and Staffy bull heads. a blind man could see the family relationships.

 

[Pops2]

That's where the classification of the bully breeds as molossers comes from. Molosser is a much larger category than just the Mastiff breeds.

I don't depend on this site for everything, but they do have a good table of the three categories: Content / content / Molossers and Rare Breeds - Molosser Dogs

in all fairness, the types have been crossed, morphology bred out and then recrossed so much over so many centuries that there is no way science will be able to map out the full true history & relationships within my lifetime.

 

[Pops2]

Probably, and I'm not sure why they need to be categorized any farther than breed, possibly type (hunting, herding, etc.), although even that gets sketchy since there are breeds that cross several types.

But . . . humans seem to have a deep seated belief that categorizing things -- and each other -- gives them a measure of control.

you're confusing function & type (which is a form classification). there is no such thing as a hunting form or type because all forms hunt hunting molossers, hunting sighthounds, hunting scenthounds, hunting nordic/pariah/generalist, & hunting terrier types. all dogs fall into one of these groups through ancestry & morphology. and several individual breeds fall into more than one function class but only fall into one form class even though they display type characteristics of another type.

 

[Renee750il]

You're right, Pops, "function" would have been a far better choice of words.

 

[Psyfalcon]

I agree that they certainly aren't terriers. Strictly speaking, the Airedale isn't either. Those are now competing in flushing events in the AKC.

The site Renee linked may be fine for Molassers, but they seem to have their chicken and eggs backward.

3rd Group: This is the so-called Molossov Coctail category. These breeds are either directly linked to the 1st and 2nd Molosser Group, but bred away from common type, such as the bearded shepherds, or they are considered to be non-Molossers, but have the Molosser blood running through their veins. Again, this is not related to the ages and countries of their origin.

In this group they list the Malamute, Husky, Samoyed, Afghan, and Saluki. I have never once heard that mastiffs were bred into those dogs, and they certainly haven't descended from them, with the Saluki often winning the prize for oldest breed.

 

[Kat09Tails]

I agree that they certainly aren't terriers. Strictly speaking, the Airedale isn't either. Those are now competing in flushing events in the AKC.

I've heard of an airedale being referred to as a funky looking otterhound before. Then I remembered from where.

- Terrierman's Daily Dose -

 

[PitBullLove]

Well what my reply would have been is already stated a few times here, so I won't bother.

APBTs and SBTs are far more "bulldog" than "terrier". And AmStaffs are the 'pit bull' that AKC ruined, that have no purpose in history whatsoever. And actually, APBTs do belong to the molosser group. And no, I am not in any way thinking of or talking about American Bullies.

 

[kady05]

And AmStaffs are the 'pit bull' that AKC ruined, that have no purpose in history whatsoever.

Um, thanks? My dog is a ruined breed with no history. Mmk.

 

[edlund1]

A few days ago here in sweden, there was a big disscusion about rotweilers and if we should forbid them or not. And the reason behind the discussion was this, a woman was out in the forest walking with her 2 full grown rottweilers, offleash. And then another woman was also walking in the same forest with her little bichon frise. And the 2 rottweilers noticed the little dog, and started running towards it, and the woman had no control on her dogs, and they ignored her completely. And the rottweilers ran oer and they ripped the little dog to pieces.

And because of that it is a big discussion about if we should allow that breed or not.

Personally i think it was the owners fault, if you dont have control of your dog you should not allow it to be off leash in public.