Agree Or Dissagree?

Excuse me, i believe there is a difference between a dog that kills pups because it wants to kill PUPS and one that kills pups because it has no clue they are "little thingies" of its own kind. Many kennel dogs never really get to understand what they are looking at. They only know prey drive (among other things).

A human aggressive dog (IMHO) is a dog that has complete instruction and direction that such HA tendencies are unwanted AND still actively seeks to bite a humans (similar to prey).

 

We have a few bitches who will surely snag up any pups within reach, almost all our males would do the same. These same bitches, have no problem with their own pups however. I do not know if I would tolerate one who kills her own pups out of aggression, before the age of weaning. Do animals in the wild, not kill "rival" packs offspring, so as to solitify their own breeding future?

 

Yes, I can see a bitch killing pups off other bitches (due to genetic link to that wild canine ancestor). Bitches that kill their pups (were awake to see pups come out of her) however, lean more toward abomination than breed improvement. These bitches have something wrong in their nature that cannot be compensated by any level of ability; they should not be bred. Instead, if gifted, breed to sibblings or recreate breeding if possible.

Of course, first time mothers may be an exception to the rule.

 

X2 I totally agree.

 

thats what i have been trying to say.there is a diffrence between a accidental killing where a pup got loose and got killed,and a dog who seeks out pups just to kill them.you will be hard pressed to find a dogman that will tolerate a dog that will seek out pups and kill them nd the same goes for bitches who will kill their own litters.kind of puts a damper on your breedeing program.it really does surprise me that rockstar advocates owning and keeping a human aggressive dog and a dog that will kill pups and tries to say any serious dogman would do so.from what i gather he is one of the more knowing on this site and he should know better.bottom line in my yard a dog that likes to kill pups and bite humans gets the bullet plain and simple anyone who would own a dog that does these things is a very irresponsable owner in my opinion.

 

I smell a reply....

 

I absolutely do NOT advocate owning a human aggressive dog!!! I just feel it's dangerous to base the idea of a breed's temperament on inaccuracies. There are far too many people who believe the nonsense that manbiters were strictly culled throughout the history of the APBT, resulting in some "super dog" that will never bite for any reason, unless it happens to be "mentally unstable," when in fact a bulldog will bite for the same reasons as any other breed of dog. Mom and Pop are always so shocked when little Timmy gets bit while yanking on the family dog's tail. The dog gets euthanized for "having something wrong with its head," and another "pit bull attack" makes the headlines.

In regard to pup-killers: I would find it quite irresponsible, TO SAY THE LEAST, to let a pup run around with gamedogs out of some ridiculous notion that gamedogs don't kill pups; that such a trait is only exhibited by unstable curs.

Fucking insane.

 

Great reply!

 

Wow there is nothing like a clash of the knowing to be given the opportunity to learn yet more good stuff. In the research I have done game dogs that bit people were not necessarily culled, not sure why but it clearly states there were many exceptions to this "line" drawn in the sand. So this is a myth...even back in the day.

I think it is a great point from Rockstar that no matter how game a dog is, it is still just a dog, and I think I understood from what he was saying that some times a dog just acts like the animal it is...love the example of Timmy pulling on the family dogs tail....everyone knows that there are some dogs regardless of breed that will just roll over and take this, and there are other dogs (with sharper temperments) that will not.

I think Old Timer is referring to a dog that aggressively pursues puppies, like a cat pursues mice...meaning puppies are a distinct entity that the dog recognizes as some thing to kill...if this is what he means, yes this dog is a little wackey. But a game dog that kills a pup, or even a dog your not sure is game, but you are sure is DA....well I just can't see it. My Am Staff is DA, I'm sure she would attack another dog regardless of the dogs age, now she seems to be much more playfull with small animals. She will bat them around and push them with her nose....she does this with my ferrets....but she is extremely DA and I would never trust her around another dog, pup or not, and IMO putting her down would be punishing her for being what she is.

 

man biters were strictly culled by breeders,how on earth do you think we now have a dog with THE most stable temperment amongst dogs not by breeding crazies to crazies but BEST TO BEST and why do you think there is so many problems with HA dogs today they breed for what was culled back in my day.you said you know of dogmen that have kept dogs that would take your leg off as soon as look at you you never said it was wrong and they way you stated it was like it was acceptable or you would tolerate it when in fact it is not acceptable and should never be tolerated.so if you don't want strait forward anwsers then make sure what you put down leaves no open questions.but when it comes to recent history manbiters were strictly culled for the simple and wise fact that they were a liabilty to own the entire point of owning game dogs and breeding litters were to match them and get the best dogs you could and if you had a dog that would go into the other handler or the ref you wouldn't get to far in the game.and i really don't like the fact that you are lumping a dog biting out of defense or pain to a dog that attacks just for fun.there is a big diffrence when a dog bites you because your pulling on it's tail or poking it in the eye and a dog who just bites you for walking by AND YOU KNOW IT so don't go trying to lump all that mess ogether.the reason so many pitbull attacks in the headlines is because people are breeding man fighters and the reason why you didn't hear of it many years ago was one they were not popular,2 they were not breeding man biters.no body ever said the bulldog was a super dog that would never bite,but in all my years i have never had one dog that has bit a person,and the reason why if they showed the slightest sign they got culled regardless of how game they were PERIOD.i have had children,nieces,nephews,grandchildren,friends children all play with my dogs including pulling on the ears and tails and stuff that little children do and never had a single incident.i stand by my remark that you tolerate a manbiter because thats how you come across to me and if you don't tolerate it you are damn leiniete about it wich as a responsable owner you shouldn't be either,if you really cared about the betterment of the breed and trying to get them back on track you wouldn't tolerate it on any degeree.now onto the pup killers i agree it is very irresponsable to let them run loose but it is just as bad to own a dog that seeks them out and kills them.like i said there is a diffence in a accidental kennel fight that results in a pup getting killed,and a crazie that just seeks them out and kills them.and i never said gamedogs didn't kill pups i said your good gamedogs do not kill pups,game dogs with a good head on their shoulders don't bother pups because they have bigger fish to fry.

 

yes this is what i mean.

 

Show me evidence of one instance where a well-known dogman culled a manbiter that was a winning pitdog or producer, or even showed potential in either area. There is no evidence to suggest such dogs were regularly culled, however, there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary:

Gr. Ch. Gambler's Virgil - while in a rage, tried to bite the Gambler, and actually tore the shirt off of Gambler's back as he tried to get away from him. Gambler thought very seriously about putting the dog down, but instead decided to roll him. Evidently he liked what he saw and by the tender age of just over 18 months, Virgil became a 1X winner.

Adams' Gr. Ch. Zebo ROM - attacked Mr. Adams' son and nearly took his son's ear off. After the request of Mr. Adams' wife, Zebo was sold again, this time to Mr. Johnson who fought him twice more.

Loposay's Buster ROM - The late Barney Fife and his brother, Matt, went traveling through North Carolina to visit Mrs. Loposay and then go to the Fork Farm, to see Mr. Grady Cummings. Upon arrival to Mrs. Loposay's, they were able to see the great producer Buster, who made an attempt to bite both of them.

Stepp's Gr. Ch. Angus - his only downfall was he was a man-biter, such as many of the best-to-be were ie; Gr Ch Art (ROM), Gr Ch Zebo (ROM), Dbl Gr Ch Tornado, Ch Honeybunch (ROM), and Ch Yellow John (ROM) just to name a few...

Indian Bolio ROM - would scream with rage until he was released into the other dog. Occasionally, he would bite you if not released quick enough.

...and Bullyson

...and Chinaman

...and so on.


Earl Tudor's wife was bitten so many times by Earl's dogs that her legs were covered in scars. When the issue was raised regarding the temperament of the Tudor dogs, Earl replied, "If you're dumb enough to get bit by one of my dogs, that's your fault!"

An uncle of mine was farmed some brood dogs by David Tant. One day my uncle went to take one of these dogs outside the house when it "chewed him from wrist to elbow." Tant refused to do anything about it. My uncle wanted to return the dog, but Tant told him that if he returned that one, he would have to return the others as well. Since the dogs carried a high value in both the pit and brood pen, they stayed where they were. The idea of culling was, in Tant's words, "out of the question."
Upon visiting Tant's yard, one would find that many of his dogs would either try to hide from you, or try to eat you.

Here is a match report from the 70's; note the 4th:


...just one of many where similar incidents occurred.

Need I continue?


And just because I post the truth, doesn't mean I condone it, no more than any history text book condones war, or slavery, or genocide.

 

I can't speak for any one but me. I will shoot any dog that so much as growls at me, some kid or anything that is not a threat. I will also put down a dog that preys on puppies. I am not tollerant of that crap, my grandfathers were not either. They had gotten dogs like that before and I remember the solution very well. If it was one of my dogs it was my responsibility to do the task. And it was indeed done. Any thing less is unacceptable. I don't give a shit what that dog does as far as work goes.

 

by meerly "breeding for looks", i agree, something gets lost, as far as a dog's temperment goes, so, yes, i agree on this.
and personally, if a dog posesses "some true gamegame dog blood" in it, my feeling is, that wouldn't necessarliy dictate nor decide, whether or not it would "turn" on its owner or not. IMO, too many other factors to consider, as well, as, this, alone, would not necessarily dictate if a dog is going to bite or not. every dog is different, just as every situation is, with each posessing its/their own set of circumstances. so, i couldn't/wouldn't generalize here, or, make an assumption regarding this. one might feel posessing "gameness" or having "game blood" in their dog will rid or alleviate thier dog of any "man biting qualities", but to assume so, i personally would not do. again, every dog, and every situation is different, and should be evaluated and dealt with accordinally.
it seems the opinions regarding this particular thread are wide and varied, and i respect everyone's POV regarding this thread, and also, the level of decency, that's been maintained throughout it. interesting thread and discussion.

 

Ok, I'm only asking because I'm one of the less educated ones here but weren't the 70's where the APBT started to go down hill as far as man biters or was it earlier?

 

The number of "man-biters" rose as the number of these dogs increased, and fell into the hands of those who intentionally bred them to be this way. There have always been rare cases of man-biters in this breed, and any other breed. The only diffrence is, unless the dog is an "ace" why waste your time with one who will bite you, when you have 30 others who wont? The same holds true today, as it did in the 20's. The diffrence is unstable mutts, backyard bred mongrels, tortured dogs, and idiotic owners can buy a "pit" out of any classifieds section across the country-and many of them do.

Rockstar is correct, no matter how painful it is to admit it, not all breeders culled human-aggression-specifically those running in the most competitive lane of the sport. However, I've found nearly all dogmen, will SAY they would cull an ace, provided they are not in the upper echelon on the sport. Many of these men, stick by their words, and will cull HA dogs. Many of them, would change their tune if push came to shove. Personally, it is not in our best intrests to keep these poor specimins of the breed around, and they are culled here.

Most specimins of this breed which will bite, do so not because of breeding, but because of how they were raised. There are two opposite ends of the spectrum, both of which screw up potentially good dogs. The first, is treating a dog like shit, unsocialized and rewarding aggressive behavior to try and bring that to the forefront out of fear. The second, is elevating the dog to a status higher then people, allowing it to think it has the right to threaten people, a perfect example of this is obvious in another ongoing thread. If left alone, and I mean ALONE most of these dogs would be fine. If put on a chain and forgotten about, not teased, not abused, 99% of these animals would still not bite a person unless threatened. We have dogs I imagine a trespassing stranger could beat to within an inch of their lives, and then hook them up to a lead, and they would walk up and jump into the passenger seat of the thieves vehicle with their tails wagging.

You must also remember, a man-biter is almost taboo in this breed. It's something most examples don't exhibit, and it completely out of the "norm". To have a great dog, just means you have a great dog. If you have a great dog, with a quirky personality and some exagerated stories, people will remember it unfortunately. In the hands of some of those people, a dog to remember out of their yard, is more important then the breeds overall reputation.

 

great stuff well worded...

 

you are still very much surprising me.you say you very knowing in the breed yet it is unclear as to why you think it is the norm that these men owned manfighters.it is just common sense that if your in a box with a dog you CAN NOT HAVE A MANFIGHTER it is just stupid.there has been incidents but they are not the norm.what is the point of owning a dog that is going to do what it did to maloney,i was present at the match and seen first hand what happened and there was some very angry people there when it did happen.taking a manfighter to the pit is like cleaning a pistol with a round in the chamber your looking for trouble and if you do it often enough your going to find it.now i give you a quote from a well respected site about these dogs.

''Belive it or not,APBT's are actually very loving dogs.they have to be because if they are in a scrap the owner should be able to calm them down quickly and easily.also during the dog fights of the middle ages,the people were in the ring with the dogs and if a dog got injured,it was imideately removed and multiple people treated it's injuries like a top of the line trauma center.therefor the APBT could NOT be human aggressive in any way since it was handled by so many people.if it showed any aggression towards humans,it was culled imideatley.so it could never enter a breeding program.''

now you want evidence of a respected dogman who culled manfighters well your talking to him boy.and i don't give a shit how game the dog was if it was a manfighter it was culled and never got the chance to prove the producing value because the dog is worthless.if you don't think i am high and mighty enough then maybe you think the folks who made the breed would be and the rock solid temperment that the PROPERLY bred animals have prove that.like i said that was achived by breeding best to best not worst to worst.and again you can thumb through any book about the breed and read the same you don't have to even take my word for it.but i have said my peace all i care to speak on this topic,you now know my views and know i won't be budged on something i know is right.so i am done with it.but in case you didn't get it,IF A DOG SHOWS ANY SIGN OF WANTING TO FIGHT A HUMAN ON MY YARD IT GETS THE BULLET.SOME SAY THAT IS IRRESPONSABLE AND I LIKE TO KILL DOGS,BUT I CALL IT BEING A RESPONSABLE KEEPER OF THESE FINE ANIMALS.

 

OldTimer what you do and what you have said is quite worthy of admiration and appreciation from those of us who look to "the keepers of the breed" to keep the APBT true to form so some day we will be able to show our kids and grandkids this truely amazing animal, the way it was meant to be shown. From what I can gather you folks that are in the know are violently agreeing......culling manfighters was a common practice but not practiced by all. Some of the folks that continued to work manfighters were notorius.

In the end they were just dogs that were either good representations of the breed or not, some had exceptional talent.

I for one have found this thread amazing and thank you, Rockstar, 14 and Atilla for sharing your insight and knowledge......very cool!!!!!!!

 

has been a nice debate.and i do want everyone to know i have nothing against rockstar even though at times it might sound that way.in fact it is to the contrary i think he has immense knowledge when it comes to these animals and thats what counts he knows what he is doing with the dogs and you can tell that but manfighters are a very touchy subject for me and i am very firm on where i stand on it.but like i said i have spoken my peace on that subject and everyone knows where i stand.