Interesting Article on currs

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All accounts are fictional, and the author is unknown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever seen a dog that would whip the hell out of anything that was put in front of him, but when handled wouldn't scratch? Or, a dog that would perform with remarkable ability until his opponent was left prone and defenceless, then he would let up and walk away? One of the best dogs I ever saw was Tudor's "Spike". He was an out and out destroyer, but once he had his opponent down and stretched out, he would stop his assault and lick his adversary...If the other dog moved at all "Spike" went back to his murderous ways and if he was handled he would not, in the least, hesitate to scratch. Of course, since the other dog had also been handled, "Spike" was aware that the other dog had moved, even if only by his handler. Howard Heinzl mentioned to me, on more than one occasion, that he considered "Spike" less than a game dog because of this trait. If he was a cur, then I'd certainly like a yard full of curs just like him.

Most animal specialists, who have studied animal behaviour, all seem to agree that animals will fight one another in the wild for either sex or food. However, when one or the other adopts a submissive posture, the other will see that he is the winner and stops fighting or else allows his opponent to beat a hasty retreat, without any further aggressive behaviour. In studies done with wolves, a dogs closest relative in the wild state, this certainly seems to be the case. If the 'Alpha' male is challenged, he'll find the pretender to the death, if necessary. If either becomes convinced that he isn't going to win the battle, all that he has to do is stop fighting, adopt a submissive posture and the whole thing is over and done with. The protagonists are back to being good buddies before the dust even settles.

We must remember, that the rules and regulations that govern a contest between two dogs have been fashioned by human beings, after a pre-Marquis of Queensbury boxing match. A man who was knocked down was taken to his corner, given a certain time to regain his senses, and then walk to the centre of the ring, to the scratch line, and assume a posture that would tell one and all that he was ready to resume the battle. Much like a turn and scratch in our sport. But, that is what we humans have used as criteria to judge a dog's gameness. There may be some recessive gene in our modern day bulldogs that still harbors that particular trait. After all, it is a common trait, of our dog's closest relative, living in a wild state. I've often wondered if a residue of that gene could be hidden in the genetic makeup of some of our modern day dogs.

Some years ago, Tommy Gill and Indian Eddie, two New England fanciers, had bred some dogs by Petronelli's "Fox", a littermate to some great dogs, including Gr.Ch."Boomerang", Art's "Missy" and Brown's Ch."Nell". They sent me down a bunch of this breeding since I had recently moved South, and now had plenty of room to keep more dogs than you were able to keep in the North. Of course, not every dog they sent me was an 'ace'. But some, like Ch."Mork", Ch."Lochen", Timmy's "Hogger", "Maple" and "Darby" were certainly a cut above a good dog. A few others seemed to be just as good that we never got around to matching and of course, there were some that were flat out rank curs. One of those that never did get matched was a 51lb dog, that Timmy called "Little Fox". The dog was a veritable powerhouse. The first time I rolled him, he ran over to the other dog and wanted to romp around and play with him. The other dog didn't want any of that nonsense and tore into "Little Fox" with a vengeance. "Little Fox" was shocked, you could see in his face that his feelings were hurt and a lot more of him was getting hurt as well.

It took "Little Fox" two or three minutes to realise that the other dog didn't want to make friends with him and for the next ten or twelve minutes "Little Fox" took the other dog apart. He had him down and was killing his inert and defenceless opponent. Then it suddenly appeared that "Little Fox" got a message, from some long repressed gene, that told him that his opponent was in submissive position, not able to defend himself. "Little Fox" backed off, crouched down on his front legs, whilst sticking his wagging tail in the air in a dog's posture of playing. We picked up the dogs to see if "Little Fox" would scratch. He ran straight over to the other dog and resumed his attempts to play with the dog. "Little Fox" would fight that dog and two others that we rolled him with, just as long as those dogs would fight back, but, at the slightest indication that the other dog was through fighting, "Little Fox" would try to make friends with them. I often thought that acting in this manner was a throwback to how animals act in the wild.

I sent "Little Fox" back to Timmy and I think that he did breed him once, before he got out of the dogs. I never found out how the pups turned out, if there were any pups. I knew one thing; I wasn't going to match him. But I always thought that if this dog was responding to some long displaced gene, he might well be worth breeding. On the other hand, there may be nothing more to the gene theory other than making an excuse for a dog that had everything to win, but didn't have the fire in his blood to scratch back to the action. It seems that many reputable breeders will not hesitate to breed to a well bred, cold bitch, but avoid like the plague a dog that won't scratch, Many times they opt to breed to a well known dog that has never even been rolled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what are your thoughts on that? If you were around before 1976, would you have made an excuse for one of your dogs?

 

There are pleanty of better dogs to use for breeding. I remember before 1976. Under both Grandpa's on their yards and in travel. It has gone down hill for every dog owner sence that time. If you work your dogs or not liberals have screwed us all time and time agian. Just because they got their stinking asses kicked in school they want to piss on everyone else in the world. I am feeling bloody so I will stop now.

 

Since I'm not into matching, I can safely say that I prefer that kind of temperament. I've had dogs run up to mine, and it could've been a bloodbath, but she knew there was no threat there, so she didn't step up. An AmStaff ran up to intiate play with her over the weekend, and even as I anticipated having to grab my dog, I was relieved when she knew that there was no threat. (I've also seen her geared up to go when faced with a threatening APBT bitch.) It is one thing to fight when pressed or challenged, and another to fight beyond all sensibility, or to fight when its not needed.

I was walking my girl today, checking out some houses for rent down the street from us, and I noticed at one point she kept looking over her shoulder. I assumed she was eyeballing some dogs that were barking and flipping out behind a fence, so I told her to "leave it" and kept walking. Finally, I turned to see what had her so bothered, and she was being trailed by a little mutt with his nose glued to her posterior. When we turned around, he wanted to play. I told her to "leave it" and "wait," and shooed the little mutt off. This is just one of the many instances where I'm glad that she has a more mild level of dog-aggression. I find it much more beneficial to have her tag along with me to places than to have to leave her at home because we might run into another dog.

I guess I just don't see where it would be that important to have a dog that would continue to fight a helpless opponent, or one who has no interest in the fight. A win is a win; is it that much better if you have to take the winner off the loser with a breaking stick? I'm sure there were plenty of dogs who would go to the bitter end, so I can't see the inclusion of a dog like those mentioned as being detrimental to a breeding program, provided they have their good traits. Just the opinion of someone with no interest in the sport. Take it or discard it as you see fit.

 

Baha- I fully beleive in training a dog to obey its master. Good job. The elements of the past from a historical view is what I based my oppinion on. Yay or nay it is the past. Even then there were those that bred for other reasons. Such as catch dogs and hunting stock as we still do. Spike may have been good for that. Who knows.

 

good replies, guys.

Reading that article makes me wonder how many dogs had excuses made for them in the past, though. I'm sure there was as much bullsh*t and arguing over whats best for the dogs and how the raise, train them, etc back before 1976. Some of the stuff I read about dogmen and dogs who are no longer with us makes me wonder the intention of those writing the article(s). I guess if you didn't see it or had someone there firsthand, it's hard to take people at their word.

I apprecaite other's opinions, whatever they may be, as long as it's shared in a civil manner. Once you stop asking questions, you stop learning and growing.

Keep your thoughts coming!

 

Stories did differ some times from one commentator to another. In truth ten people can watch something and have ten different versions of what they saw each. I suppose you would have to compair and contrast the stories. Even if some one was there they still may have another view about the event and the happenings therein. You'll have that. However you have to take was written and form your own mind set as to what really happened. Some commentators views of things were more accurate than others. It was best if the commentator had no personal connection to the dogs there. Friends will be friends. Foe's , foe's. No matter what it is what most have to go by. Even among dogmen of that era. It is good to know and understand the history part but don't get too hung on any one view as the differed just as always. It was probably accurate as they saw it with some drama added for the benifit of the reader. Those old letters that 33MTA3 have been posting are a good read. As they were letters from some one to another. I sure am enjoying them anyway.

 

i've been reading them, too. can't get enough of any bits of bistory

 

Me either. I find those letters and such fasinating. A step back in time, and it is like hearing my grandpa's talking again.

 

With all due respect, if you want a dog w/ a cur's temprament, why own a pit bull at all? Having a pit bull who has no dog drive is like having a beagle w/ no rabbit drive or a foxhound w/ no fox drive. Senseless IMO.

Now just b/c a dog has dog drive does NOT mean they can't be taken out in public. I once had a female who was fight crazy, but she also knew the commands leave it, look at me, etc. & she went almost everywhere w/ us, to include on vacation & never once made a scene.

As for dogs of the past who have had excuses made for them, I know of two right off the top of my head, those being Crenshaw's Rascal & Finley's Bo. It was said Rascal quit b/c he ran hot. I don't know the story behind Bo, but there had to be some excuse, as they not only continued to campaign him after his embarrassing quit to Vindicator, but they bred the tar out of him too.

But this seems to be a popular theme. In today's day in age many a cur is culled on the spot, rightfully or not. But you see dogs of old who are losers, yet were taken home to be given another chance or were bred. I was told this was done becuase at that time you just could go out & get a well bred bulldog just anywhere, like you can now. So they were more inclined to hold onto a quitter & try him again later, or breed him to see if he threw better than himself.

Sometimes I wonder if the dogmen of old knew better than we do. The quitter Bo produced 7 champions & 1 grand champion. Quitter Rascal produced 9 champions & one grand champion. I believe Boudreaux's Scrub was a quitter too (not for sure on that) & he sired a dog that would change the game forever, 2xw Boudreaux's Eli.

If those three dogs were in the hands of dogmen of today, all 3 would have likely been culled.

Just something to think about!

 

On the right day at the right time They will all stop.Thats why you have to be a better dog man. Id bet that the Great dogs! that people allways sell on the net 50% of them are 30 min currs and 45% are 1hr currs and the 5% that will stay 99% of them will curr in under 2hrs so thats why when someone gives you a dog from dogs they culled and raised for years You need to guard it like gold. They are the ones that will be the truth very few are DG thats why it is so moving when you get one that is game to the bone that is what make a grown man get chills. Yis J

 

I don't consider it a cur's temperament. She doesn't have NO dog drive, that's for sure. Nor do I believe for one second that she wouldn't fight. She just isn't interested in taking on a dog that isn't a threat. I don't see that as undesireable. It makes sense to me. I will fight if I have to, but I don't go around threatening weaklings. And FWIW, had she been raised in a different environment, there is a distinct possibility that she would have been hot. There have been times when she's tried to pick a fight, but was told in no uncertain terms that that crap wasn't going to fly with me.

With all due respect, I don't think a dog has to be fight-crazy to be considered a true Pit Bull.

 

Perhaps I read your post the wrong way. I took it as you wanted a bulldog who only wanted to run around & play w/ other dogs like the dog featured in the story.

Also, I must ask - if you do not want her to fight, why have a bulldog at all? People get a pit bull then don't want it to fight or get upset when it fights. I just don't understand that.

BTW, please excuse my ignorance here but what is FWIW? :confused: :confused: :confused:

 

FWIW is For What Its Worth.

I think its a little bit silly to think that if someone wants a bulldog, they should want them to fight. Its like saying if you want this breed, you absolutely have to support felony acts. I do other things with my dogs, and I'd hope most would consider mine a worthy home for the breed.

Loki does obedience and agility. Not sure if you're familiar, but both of those involve off-lead activities where other dogs are going to be present, either in the ring or waiting outside on the other side of those flimsy plastic fences. If I allowed her to pick fights with dogs she ran across, it would work against any kind of training I wanted to do with her. I expect that if given the chance and the reason, she would fight. And I do not expect her to run and play and make nice with strange dogs. But if we walk by another dog at a show, and she thinks she's going to try something cute, hell no I don't let her get away with it. She's there on my terms, and she's going to behave the way I expect of her.

IMO, I don't find it cruel or senseless to deprive a bulldog of fighting. Any more than I find it cruel or senseless to deprive a dog with normal sex drive of breeding. She gets her fulfillment from working with me, doing activities with me, being my companion. If she wants to fight other dogs, well that's just too bad. I want steak every night for dinner, but it aint happenin'.

 

Sorry for the double post, but I didn't read that the dogs in the story only wanted to play. They talked about the first dog fighting another dog until it was down and beaten, and fighting it more if it dared move. And the other dog started out wanting to play, and fought when necessary. IMO, that's a different animal than a dog who runs and plays with every dog at the dog park and lets others walk all over him.

Honestly, my favorite stories of dogs from the APBT books are those that would be generally peaceful until put in a pit situation. I don't think it should be required of a game dog to regard all other dogs as their opponent, including the opposite sex, females in heat (in the case of males), puppies, etc. I like a thinker.

Edit: It just reminds me of a quote I think I've probably heard on here: "Was he game enough to win?" Or something like that. Does the dog have to kill his prone opponent to be considered game? Or is it enough that he held out until the dog could no longer fight?

 

Ive got one that would kill puppies I JUST Hate that but he also will bite a bitch in heat he jsut drives me crazy I love the dog but he is just out and out nuts

 

I guess I just think it is foolish to deprive a dog the purpose of it's creation. For example, I wouldn't go out & buy a Lab & then ask it not to retrieve or get a bird dog & want it not to flush birds.

If I didn't want a dog aggressive dog, then I wouldn't buy a dog aggressive breed. Why buy a dog aggressive breed & then try to change it to fit my whims? What is the point in that? Again, maybe I am just too old fashioned ...

Now, am I saying that we should engage in illegal activites? No, I am not. But if matching dogs were legal, I would compete w/ them in that arena if they showed an inclination to do so, b/c that is what they were bred for. But since it is illegal, I do not.

But on the other hand I also do not expect them to play w/ other dogs or take any guff from other dogs either, b/c DA is part of the breed's make-up.

I'm just confused I guess. Your girl sounds like a properly driven yet well trained respresentative of the breed, but it just surprised me to hear a pit bull owner say they didn't want their pit bull to act like ... well ... a pit bull. To me a dog like Little Fox - a dog who has no dog drive, wants to play w/ other dogs & only fights out of self preservation - is not really a pit bull in the truest sense of the word.

As for a dog like Spike - a dog who doesn't go after a down dog - to me is not a cur, he's not not wasting any more time on what he may think is a dead animal.

And thanks for educating me on FWIW!

 

Not an issue of gameness, or curring out, but a dog lacking finish. Many dogs lack "finish", its not rare, but its also not seen in abundance with many good boxdogs.

 

Are you saying you wouldn't breed a dog that would go all out, non-stop country style? Some dogs are just too dumb to scratch. Once broken up they seem to be lost not knowing what to do. We created cajun rules, not the dogs. I'll be more than happy to breed to a dog that had everything but the smarts to scratch.

 

Very interesting. The writer is a thinker, that can never be bad. I think its maybe better to bred a dog like spike then to roll a bunch of good and very good dogs to death while testing the gameness. The story reminds me on the fight my dogs once had. Both dogs were more or less destroyed and my wife told me we had to give one away. I said that I never would give one of my Bulldogs away, no matter what....then I said in 10 min I go for a walk with my dogs. My wife looked at me, laughed and said: For a walk? Look at them they are not able to walk! I said they are able to fight so they are able to walk! After a coffee I put Jimbo on leash and called for spike....it took a little while then he came....slowly he walked up on me. None of the 2 dogs had his tail between his legs and it was election in the air...I watched the scene ready to jump in...and then Spike did something that made me think till today, his throat looked like somebody had fired a shotgun into it and it was clear Jimbo (at 20 pound underweight) was responsible for this. To make a long story short Spike walked up to Jimbo and began to lick his wounds. That sounds to much Walt-Disney to me but thats what happened.

 

The catching point here is, if I let my dog engage in the purpose of her creation, I'm a felon. She gets taken from me and killed, I get charged. I guess I'm a bit confused by what you're saying when you say you don't think people should match dogs, but you think the dogs shouldn't be deprived of their natural impulses.

Wut we have hear is a failyur to comyooonicate. Let's just say I expect my dog to behave like a well-behaved dog first and foremost. I always consider how my dog's behavior reflects on the breed. (And I'm sure the owner of the butt-sniffing mutt would've appreciated that, had they been there. Loki was undeniably within her right to shake the life out of that little dog, but she's knows she's not allowed.) If it helps clear up any confusion, the situations I'm talking about are controlled, not a free-for-all. Her behavior may well be different in the absence of my guidance.

I don't think a Pit Bull is represented solely by their desire to kill other dogs, but by many different traits. Their heart, grit, determination, desire to please their owner, athleticism, tenacity, etc etc etc. Acting out has nothing to do with it, IMO. What some would consider "acting good," I consider acting like an idiot. Dog aggression is in the breed, and that doesn't bother me one bit. But I see no reason to let my dog behave as she pleases because of it. I doubt she's unhappy because I wont let her scrap. What she's missing in that department is made up for in the privleges she does get to enjoy because she brings herself to obey my rules.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.