Guest Anonymous Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Im not sure what specifically Hmmm was addressing but as for myself i mean the really obvious stuff. like for a while the military use the pit bull as thier symbol. the little rascals and Petey a dog that worked with children in many MANy television shows and movies. the fact that the mere sight of a APBT sends kids running inside and parents run to scoop up thier child and flee. the fact that when i take my dogs anywhere people instantly assume things about me and my intentions. This was not the case in the past and this shouldnt be the case now. is the APBT the official mascot of criminals and drug-dealers? NO. Its sad and horrible the way people have turned on the dogs, forgot about the past and lable them so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aroura Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Well seeing as I don't have the statistics of how many APBT attacks were made by game bred dogs and how many were made by others, I'm not going to jump to any conclusions BUT if what you are saying is true, that game bred dogs are less likely to attack a human, why do you think that is? Seriously, think about it... people who breed for gameness must breed for a dog that wont bite humans, yet all these other "oops" dogs who are not bred for gameness don't follow any particular breeding plan so OF COURSE they are more likely to bite!!! If you simply bred for temprement, with out the gameness I'm sure you would see a lot less attacks than from those "oops" bred dogs. If rolling/fighting/matching - what ever you want to call it, is used for testing for gameness, there is no two ways about it, IT IS WRONG :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 [quote]...most states in the U.S....[/quote] Most states. Wasnt until later it was illegal in all state. Also, the people passing the laws were matching their dogs so noone was enforcing the law. I know several police offices, including a couple sheriffs, who match their dogs to this day. Vets, lawyers, doctors... not that it makes it right but everyone is so involved in thinking lowlife druggies or gangsters are the ones matching their dogs. They arent the ones matching, they are the people throwing two dogs together with no regard for gameness, conditioning, or any other factors. [quote]ROTT'N'PIT Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:56 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Im not sure what specifically Hmmm was addressing but as for myself i mean the really obvious stuff. like for a while the military use the pit bull as thier symbol. the little rascals and Petey a dog that worked with children in many MANy television shows and movies. the fact that the mere sight of a APBT sends kids running inside and parents run to scoop up thier child and flee. the fact that when i take my dogs anywhere people instantly assume things about me and my intentions. This was not the case in the past and this shouldnt be the case now. is the APBT the official mascot of criminals and drug-dealers? NO. Its sad and horrible the way people have turned on the dogs, forgot about the past and lable them so. [/quote] Yep. And I am not 100% sure about this but have read several stories saying Petey was from gamebred lines. To have that killer amoungst those kids...what were they thinking :roll: ?(sarcastic!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 OKay, a little off topic here, sorry guys! I've just been reading along and takin in all the info, but wasn't Petey (in the newer movie at least, I haven't seen the old shows) not an APBT? Wasn't he an... arg... I always forget the name of that breed! :x Same as what Chance was on Homeward Bound, just wondering, cuz I'm pretty sure in the newer movie of the Little Rascles (sp?) that Petey wasn't an APBT... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Here you go... A little info on Petey... [url]http://www.intimidatorkennels.com/fampits/petey.html[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolk9s Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 For me, it simply boils down to believing that it is not necessary to roll/match/fight dogs in order to BREED for sound temperament. There is no logic in this, there is a better way but for those who enjoy the 'sport' of dogfighting, hanging on to an outdated illogical argument is all they can do. Poor, unstable breeding practices lead to poor, unstable dogs. Sound, stable, well thought out breeding programs lead to sound, stable dogs. Period. Using the 'gameness' theory is just an excuse to fight dogs. I sure as hell don't expect to change anyones mind, I sure as hell am not about to change mine on this subject either. There IS a better way, there ARE more humane ways, some people simply refuse to explore those options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Hazel good eye! your right most recently the part of petey as well as Chance were potraited by American Bulldogs. [/u] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 I really dont understand how someone could say gameness is not an important trait of the APBT!? Carolk9s do you have any experience around APBTs? What about APBTs that arent bred for gameness and those that are? I completely respect your opinion about matching dogs. I dont expect everyone to understand the need for it. Unfortunately there is no "game meter". If there were I would use it. There is no other way to test a dog for gameness and gameness is a very important trait for the APBT. And, regardless what most think, gameness does have to do with temperment. I agree that a sound, stable, well thought out breeding program leads to sound, stable dogs. And with APBTs the most sound, stable dogs are those that are game. I will think about a breeding for years before it will even happen just so I can find what I think will make the best breeding. I have a 10 month old bitch sitting by me right now that I constantly think about what male I want to breed her with when she passes two years of age. All my breedings are well thought out. Probably better/more than alot of other breeders. Most breeders of gamebred APBTs do this. We are breeding for the best possible dogs we can. Isnt that what breeding is supposed to be about? If anyone came to my yard and walked around my dogs then to a yard where the pits are not bred for gameness they would see a huge difference. Other options have been explored. Look at the Am Staffs. They are not bred for gameness and they are not as stable as gamebred APBTs. Weight pull doesnt prove anything but that you have a strong dog who can pull alot of weight. Boar hunting is as close as it gets and more dogs are lost to boars than they are to matching (it still wont show the level of gameness). Like I have said several times, I dont expect you to change your mind about matching dogs. I havent attempted to change your mind. You asked questions, I answered them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Carolk9s, When you match your dogs, and they are in the heat of battle, you have to be right there with them, inches away from both dogs mouths. The dogs have to be separated at various points in a match. They are in a frenzy to get back to that other dog when you separate them. If your dog bites you or the other handler, you lose. People would bet lots of money on these dogs, and a dog that bit never made it to the pit. It was just too risky. Also, after the match you have to attend to your dog medically. Now everyone knows that most hurt dogs will bite you out of fear and pain. However, if a pit dog was critically injured, and would bite out of fear or pain, it died, thus culling itself from the breeding program. No other breed is put in these situations and expected not to bite. So gameness, like hmmm said, is hard to explain, but I hope this helps show how it relates to temperment. I have absolutely no problem with people who responsibly breed for temperment without matching. But do you think those dogs' temperments are checked as thouroughly as a match dog. I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolk9s Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 I do appreciate getting answers and clarification. I guess there is nothing left to do but call a truce. After all, I am painfully aware that 'humans' do FAR FAR worse to dogs than fight them. So no I do not consider fighting dogs as bad as downright abuse. I just feel there must be a better way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Carol if you think about gameness you will see that there really isnt. no other form of exertion will push the dog to its limits and then urge it to continue. Through pain, blood-loss, domplete domination, and exhaustion. Admittedly those other tasks do take a great amount of strength and determination, but only for a short while. So they do help to establish a highly driven, or determined dog but in no way a game dog. I have a game-bred APBT but I will never know is she is game, i have no intentions on matching her. But i will admit she is a lot different than Drey was at the same age, if that is because of her breeding or just thier personalities I dont know. She is much more confident and sure of herself. She is also Dog-aggressive already (training began imediately) at only 5 months. thier appearance is very differnt she is very rangy and tall while drey is your typical "Bully"-style short and wide. She is much more vocal, i can count the number of times Drey barked as a puppy on one hand. She sees another dog she barks, she hears another dog she barks, she sees the wind blowing... you get the idea. They are very different but I woulnt say that she is better than Drey, just different. I would say with proper training even non-gamebred dogs are just as good as game-bred ones they just cant fight as well. Now if i had a yard of 30-40 dogs I wouldnt have the time to really train and then i would probably see a bigger difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Been trying to stay out of this (RnP have had our go rounds already, still love you though :lol: ) Anyway, my question is: From what I am reading there are some conflicting opinions on whether gameness effects temperment. If you assume it does, you are basically accepting and dealing with the increased dog aggression for the benefit of lesser or no human aggression. I am understanding that right? Carol I have to agree with you. I would like someone to post an article that maybe explains gameness and its necessity in the breed. Is it possible to breed well tempermented pits, good family dogs etc, that just maybe aren't the MOST game? How does gameness effect the dog other than in the ring? Is gameness a trait that is only used in the pit? If so, then if you dont agree with matching/fighting/rolling, there is no reason for a pit to be game. I think that is where I am at now. Since I dont agree with fighting I see no necessity for "gameness". Did any of that make sense?? I hope so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 You always make sense, and have such great questions. Ill try to answer them the best i can in order: The assumption about aggression is correct, at least for me. When i set out i looked at every breed of dog i come in contact with, all sizes and shapes, temperments and colors. the dog that finally got me was the APBT mostly for its love of people and its fondness of children. I think the gameness falls in line basically becuase that is the way the dogs have been bre for so long. the dog that america fell in love with was a game-bred fighter. its actions outside the pit were in direct line with the breeding for inside it. The reasons these dogs were so great was because of the HIGH expectations that were required to be bred. not just the pretty dogs or the dogs that were big or the dogs that were a nice color. all of that fell by the wayside for temperment and gameness. they go hand in hand. a dog that is game but has a bad temperment is going to bite a person. a dog with agreat temperment and not game ability will quit the fight, thus neither was bred. only dogs that displayed both were allowed to reproduce. From what i can tell the isnt a direct use for gameness outside of the pit, for me its not soo much the gameness im looking for its that the dogs are more likely even tempered as well as highly capable. I was on the line of thinking that if the only place to test gameness is in the pit, then only place it can be used is in the pit. But hey, i could be wrong on that note. As i said for me its not so much the game quality, as lots of dogs that are gamebred are tested and do not prove game. but its the breeding metods that are used for game-dogs. it drastically decreases the chance of you getting dogs of bad temperment and people biters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanvean Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Frankly, I think it's a load of crap. I've worked with dozens of rescue pits, and none of them that I knew of were fought and/or rolled. (We don't live in an area with much fighting, and none of them had any kind of scarring.) They were all fine dogs. If I can get a good dog regardless of whether or not I fight it, I'll go with NOT fighting it every time. It just isn't worth the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 RnP - Great response. Thanks so much. So from that I would be willing to accept that rolling/matching would be acceptable for breeding stock. Hopefully that would mean it was being conducted or managed by experienced individuals. I would hope though, that no one would allow a dog die as part of this. I would hope if a dog did not prove game, they would simply be altered and sent to a good quality pet home. However, I think just rolling/matching for entertainment is sick and demented. Those people need their heads examined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogPaddle Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 I have a great deal of respect for everyone for continuing this debate, I think its good to have things explained, and I'm sure you all realize I, as do those on the other side of the debate, feel strongly about this topic. As excellent stability can and is obtained through breeding for temperment gameness is not required for stability. Game dogs may be stable around people but there are other ways. And BTW gameness or a drive to fight with other dogs is a problem in our society, the majority of dog owners will not want a "game" dog around their dogs, a majority of dog owners would be fit to kill you and your "game" dog if the dogs instincts got away from it and you and their dog was harmed because dogs have value too and are loved members of peoples famalies. [quote]no other form of exertion will push the dog to its limits and then urge it to continue. Through pain, blood-loss, domplete domination, and exhaustion[/quote] I would never put a loved family companion (human or otherwise) through this just to prove they could, when ostensibly they would never need to do it as there is NO NEED for dog fighting - it is a human vice, some find it ENTERTAINING to see devoted animals rip the living s*** out of each other. I think we need to address that the desire to continue to provide this sort of [i]entertainment[/i] and have a shot, albeit a long shot, at the money involved contribute heavily to the continuation of breeding for gameness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Marys mama- your very welcome DP- great post one thing though, gameness is not dog-aggression. there have been many proven game dogs that showed no marked hatred for dogs, but in the pit setting where highly skilled. so when you say gameness is a problem in our society i would disagree. everything else though -dead on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 RNP beat me to it... Just wanted to say that gameness has nothing to do with the drive to fight or dog aggression. I had a 4xw ch male that could run around the other dogs as well as a ch bitch that would do the same. I would let the bitch run around with me while I was FEEDING and she wouldnt mess with the other dogs. Now, both these dogs, the minute they got in the pit they meant nothing but business. [quote]the majority of dog owners will not want a "game" dog around their dogs, a majority of dog owners would be fit to kill you and your "game" dog if the dogs instincts got away from it and you and their dog was harmed because dogs have value too and are loved members of peoples famalies. [/quote] APBTs are not for everyone... The majority of people know they cannot allow their "game" dog to be around other dogs unsupervised and sometimes even supervised. What you said here just shows how responsible APBT owners need to be. THIS, and not matching dogs (or gameness), is why the breed is where it is at now. We have people getting this breed because they are "tough" dogs before they understand the responsibilities that comes with them. A game dog is very valuable to his owner, and not just by means of money. That game dog on the yard is looked at like he is the most beautiful thing in the world, which he is, and only irresponsible APBT owners would sacrafice that dog. If I could keep the irresponsible people from owning my breed I would but all I can do is make sure they never get ahold of one of my pups. Gameness is obviously not understood by several of you here. Especially if you think APBTs shouldnt be bred for it. Again, we already have those...they are called American Staffordshire Terriers. One more time... matching is not about the money. You will be lucky if the money you win pays for the dogs conditioning and food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtnek Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I am against dog fighting in any form, fighting, rolling, matching, it doesnt matter. It's not fair to the dog. however: The majority of people know they cannot allow their "game" dog to be around other dogs unsupervised and sometimes even supervised. What you said here just shows how responsible APBT owners need to be. THIS, and not matching dogs (or gameness), is why the breed is where it is at now. We have people getting this breed because they are "tough" dogs before they understand the responsibilities that comes with them. [quote] I believe that the Pit Bull ended up in the state he is today because people know they are aggressive, and they cant differentiate between dog aggression and people aggression. I own a "tough" dog, that makes me "tough"...As I've said before, I watched the GSD, The Dobie, the Rottie, all go through this stage. When they lose their popularity (probably as soon as anothr "tough dog" comes along) then the number of bitings will slack off. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 [quote]Gameness is obviously not understood by several of you here. Especially if you think APBTs shouldnt be bred for it.[/quote] Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we don't understand. I think gameness has been very well defined here and I think many people (even those opposed to fighting) have met game dogs and understand the trait very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 My vice in life is that I am doomed/ blessed to always see the other side of the argument(which is why I cant pursue a lawyer career :wink: ) But I see where Hmmmm is coming from that Gameness and breeding for it is why the breed is what it is. Its like taking a pointer and then breeding for dogs that dont point. or taking a retriever and breeding for dogs that dont retrieve... To the dogmen it just doesnt make sense, you change the dog you change the breed. I definately see the other side of the argument as that is the side I relate more to: If fighting is the only place where gameness is relevant, who needs it? after all fighting is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, CRUEL, and WRONG. I am not a dog-fighter but have been on many message boards with fighters and non-fighters some of you may remeber pitdogs.org. I read some of those posts and posed question in an attempt to see the reasoning. It is quite a moving argument and they are actually very loving of the dogs as a breed. Not just the indivuals they own. they have the betterment of the dogs in mind, which on the surface seems contradictory when they are sending the in the pit. But at the same time they are not doing it to maim and kill each other, there are actually very few fatalities in a dogman fight, the fights are often stopped as soon as there is a clear victor. the dogs are fed better, and healthier than most dogs i have ever seen, of any breed. its a double edged sword. to stop all fighting would change the breed forever and the true dogmen want to preserve the breed for the phenominal canine that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aroura Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I guess the reason I'm so against this whole game testing thing is because to test that a dog is game you need to fight it, if there were any other way to test that a dog was game, and it was guarenteed that they would never be fought, I would say GO FOR IT!!! I can see Hmmms side of the arguement, but still strongly disagree in fighting as a means to test weather a dog is suitable to breed. There are other ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 [quote name='Hmmmm']Here you go... A little info on Petey... [url]http://www.intimidatorkennels.com/fampits/petey.html[/url][/quote] Thanks for the link Hmmmm! AWE! Petey was soooo cute!! :D [quote name='RNP']Hazel good eye! your right most recently the part of petey as well as Chance were potraited by American Bulldogs.[/quote] Thanks RNP! And THATS what their called American Bulldog! I ALWAYS forget for some odd reason... Okay, I wasn't guna pipe up in this convo (other then the Petey thing, sorry about that lol) but I've been following along, and see both sides of the discussion, and aggree on both sides... if that's possible... well to the best I can anyway. I'm more on the "Dog fighting is bad" side, and I do wish there was a better way to test for Game... Anyway, the question I have is this... how do you get a dog to fight in the first place to test it? Wouldn't it have to be somewhat dog aggressive then? I know with my puppers (Coal, not the one I use to have... not Hazel) if I put him in front of another dog he'd rather go play then fight (although he's a lab too.) but I'm thinkin, wouldn't a dog have to have some what aggression towards dogs in him to get him to fight like that? I just wana know if you can have a dog that's not dog aggressive, but is still game, how does this work??? :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Hazel, I'm not sure exactly how aggressive they have to be to be chucked in a pit and fight long and strong enough to be considered "game" but I know with Tessa for example (part Pit), if Lily attacks her, or another dog attacks her she will fight back until I break them up. Aside from that she is not really all that interested in other dogs, all she wants is her ball, though she will play with other dogs if there are no balls, sticks, or logs in sight! So she is not dog aggressive, but I guess you could in a round about type of way, consider that she is "game". I'm starting to see the other side of the arguement more now, though I still disagree on the basis that alot of "game" dogs go to people who will fight them. If it was only the one fight to test for gameness and it was guarenteed they would never be fought again then I still wouldn't like the idea, but I would be alot more accepting of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Yeah, but how would you get the first dog to attack the other then, if the one's not all that aggressive, but will "fight back". How would you get the first one to start then? It doesn't make sense to me that a non aggressive dog would just suddenly fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.