Merle

Rattler is the only example of a true APBT ticked dog you have here, the rest are either Yoda (who is not a blue tick, but is a black tick) and his offspring all of which are off of questionable heritage and billed as BULLIES! not APBT. As far as Zane it is simply a black & tan, the "saddleback" you mention is a coat pattern not a coat color.

 

Queen: Merle is NOT recessive! It is an incomplete dominant & thus is dominant to non-merle. NO DOG - I don't care what you've been told - can "carry" merle unless the dog is what is called a "cryptic" or "phantom" merle & even then the merle allele is not being carried, it is simply not being expressed due to the effects of the dog's base color. The merle pattern needs eulomelanin (dark pigments such as black or brown) to be expressed. But if merle is acting on phaelomelanin (light pigments such as yellow or cream) it will be expressed weakly if at all. Check out this link for more information.
http://www.geocities.com/abkapbts/merleorigin.html

As for the black & tans, they are not Rottweiler mixes. It is a known color in the breed, red & tan & blue & tan are recognized breed colors as well.

GAPits: Thanks for posting the B&T article, it saved me a lot of explaining! But you have to admit, to the uninitiated fancier, they do look like Rott mixes or Dobie mixes. Even EF himself said he had problems with people thinking his first few B&Ts were mixed! And just to add, I'm not a B&T hater. I think B&Ts are beautiful & I'd love to own a B&T Sorrell dog someday. I'm just pointing out that to someone who hasn't seen the color like Queen hasn't, they might indeed might look like a mix.

As for the Screamer dogs, I don't even remotely see how those dogs would be considered bullies. They're game bred off dogs who've been worked. A bully (to me) is a short, squatty dog with a pumpkin head & chopped off legs off ancestors who have done nothing but eat sleep, poop & breed. The Screamer dogs fall into NONE of those categories. The only thing that may even remotely put them in the bully category is that some of them are thicker boned with less than straight legs. But heck, if THAT makes a bully, Shorty Cowboy & some of his offspring were bullies too! lol.

 

The reason they are being categorized as Bullies is that they are bred, advertised and sold as bullies by the majority of the people that own the line. Search ads for them and you will find that they are being toted as such and being bred with the likes of the Gotti and R.E. LOL
It might not be the way Screamer's intended but it sure is what is happening, and since they are from super secret underground heritage it isn't so hard to believe. As far as any of them being working dogs, there are exceptions to all rules and the fact that a dog with any type of bulldog blood (UKC< ADBA< AKC) could possibly turn out to be a working stock dog is not so far fetched as they weren't always seperate breeds and those genetics are in there somewhere.

 

That is terrible!

I used to correspond with Mrs. Screamer on a regular basis & from what I understood back then bullies were NOT their thing. They don't have any bully blood themselves (i.e. RE, Gotti, etc.) & both their ticked & regular colored dogs came off game based bloodlines, save for one of their older dogs, which did have a splash of AST in her. From what I understand they got most of their stuff from Mr.Toney, who was most definitely not into bullies either. I also saw a lot of Lonzo & Dawnrest, again which is not bully stuff.

Too bad really. It's like what's happened to the Watchdog bloodline. The WD line was a game/show line originally, but now it's a "bully" line since so many bully breeders bred it into their breed for the blue color. Now the once great WD line is considered a "bully" bloodline when it never was, nor was it ever intended to be. I guess from what you're saying is what it is happening here to the SK dogs.

But either way, the dogs posted were their foundation stud Yoda & his offspring, all of whom were owned by SK & the latter 2 bred by SK. They weren't owned & or bred by any bully breeder nor do they adhere to bully standards.

And yes, Zane would be registered as a black & tan. That is his color. Saddleback is his pattern. I guess I am used to referring to that color as "saddleback" b/c that's the term I heard used when I owned German Shepherds. If someone said "saddleback" you knew exactly what "color" the person was referring to. But referring to a dog by it's pattern instead of it's color is common. For example, neither brindle or merle are colors, but rather patterns, both of which we use to refer to as a dog's "color" as well.

And yes, you are also correct that the ticks on a blue tick dog are actually black, but the mixture of black hair amongst white will give a bluing effect, hence the term "blue" tick. But very, very few blue tick dogs are actually blue. It's actually a black & white dog with the hairs interspersed to give the "appearance" of blue. I guess I am used to using the more accepted nomeclature of "blue" tick from my time around beagles & coon hounds.

 

you said I was bashing?? I simply asked about it

learn to interprit what you read



Skin issues: http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanstaffordshireterrier.html
http://petmd.com/dog/breeds/c_dg_american_staffordshire_terrier to include skin allergies?

http://www.americanpitbullregistry.com/health%20issues.htm correct if I'm wrong but mange does deal with the skin?
http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanpitbullterrier.html

So is it still not correct to say they have sensitive skin and CAN have issues such as allergies and mange:confused:

 

At the end of the day a person dog is their dog. People here contradict themselves so much. They same people who say that they dont care if the dog was purple with pink polka dots as long as its a good bulldog are bashin another persons dog bc of his/her coat. They dog may or may not be a good working or hunting dog. Non of us know and its not our place to judge. Am i a fan of merle dogs? No, but im not gonna insult someones dog. I love my dogs and i could see myself hurting someone over them SERIOUSLY. Everyone on here has dogs that others wouldnt approve of. ITs all about opinion and preference. And maybe some people just want a house dog. THey dont want a working bulldog. I agree with preserving the original bulldog but at some point people have to accept the fact that everyone isnt gonna feel the same about everything. It was stated the breeding was an accident. I think the original question about breeding merles was appropriate and i actually learned some stuff thru this thread. But people got way out of line. If you insult of the newcomers how are we gonna educate anyone? Come on game-doggers

 

Queen: Allergies & mange both are the result of a defective immune system. A dog with allergies has an over-active immune system. A dog with mange has an under-active immune system. So in either case the dog would be considered to be suffering from an auto-immune disorder & the resulting allergies/mange are symptoms of that immune disorder, but are not disorders themselves. Kind of like a runny nose is a symptom of hay fever allergies, but the runny nose is not the disorder itself. Does this make sense? :confused:

Dream Pits: Wonderful post. I really liked this comment: "If you insult of the newcomers how are we gonna educate anyone?" How true ...

 

Excuse me I believe you need to go interpret what YOU read, Here I will quote it for you :

Your first article -
American Stafforshire Terriers

"Recently recognized as a distinct breed, he descends from the fighting pits of England and America. A variety of breeds were used to develop the "Amstaff" including the Bull Terrier, the Old English White Terrier, the Black and Tan, the Bulldog, the Mastiff, the Pointer, the Dalmatian and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. His name was changed from the Staffordshire Terrier to the American Staffordshire Terrier in 1972.

Your second article is the same thing - American Staffordshire Terrier

Your third article is generalized health issues in the K9, no where does it state that is specific to the APBT and is posted by a registry that primarilly registers Am. Bulls or similar.

As for the last one it is actually about basic info on the APBT and it does state mange as a possible issue, again no where does it state that these dogs (meaning true APBT) have sensitive skin or that it is a breed related issue. Mange can occur in any breed.

 

What about my first article?? lol
I posted something on both am staffs (since that's what my dogs are), and apbts just for argument's sake

third article quite CLEARLY at the top says AM PIT REGISTRY ...not chihuahua, not maltese, not am eskimo, AMERICAN PITBULL REGISTRY lmao

the last link- bottom of the page- health issues- MANGE

My point was, and i worded myself wrong, they can have immune problems which can show through in the skin.

If someone doesn't ask to prove one thing that's not faulty then it's another. How much more technical does info on the APBT need to be? It's basic because I'm not writing a college research paper

 

Say what you want but this is an APBT forum, we welcome all bulldog owners (Am.Staffs, Bullies, etc.) but that does not mean that what they say is right in regards to our breed. Your articles were about another breed except where noted and do not really pertain to the APBT as a whole.
Take a look at that registry and the kennels it promotes, just because the title reads APBT doesn't mean it is so. I mean seriously I can call my dog a poodle but that sure as hell don't make him one, lol............. I stand behind the fact that the majority of that registries dogs are indeed Am. Bull or of similar type.
Again I state that any dog can have mange, but it is not a breed specific issue and not once does it say it is prevalent in this breed (APBT).
I happen to know some Am. Staff breeders and they are very good friends of mine, but they even admit there are more health related issues in their breed than there is in the APBT as well as recognizing that the two breeds are not one in the same.
I would suggest that if you want to discuss the APBT that you really ought to do a bit more research. You are welcome to come here and learn as many of us are glad to answer any questions you may have on topics that pertain to the APBT.

 

so then what is your opinion, if you could direct me to any facts
that apbts could register with the ukc as pits and later were allowed to be registered only as am staffs with the akc
would that mean that what I have read and heard would not point to a crossing between the two? I understand there is a clear line between the two

 

They weren't "allowed" to register with the UKC, they were the UKC - Hope this helps explain things a bit for you



In 1898, Chauncy Bennet formed the United Kennel Club (UKC), a breed registry aimed solely at the registration and acceptance of Pit Bull Terriers. Chauncey’s own dog, “Ring,” was the first dog registered in the UKC. At that time, when Pit fighting was still widely accepted as a national pastime, the UKC provided registration and fighting guidelines for Pit fighting. Bennet sought to create an organization that would represent the breed as performance dogs. Thus, the American Pit Bull Terrier was born as a breed. At that time the UKC was an elite registry for the APBT. For a Pit Bull to be accepted into the UKC as an American Pit Bull Terrier, the dog had to have won three fights. Years later when dog fighting became illegal, the UKC quickly abandoned its past and became an all breed registry that focuses on the working aspects of dog breeds. The UKC is now the second largest purebred dog registry in the United States, complete with strict bylaws that ban anyone who is convicted of dog fighting. Another registry that was started solely for APBT’s, the American Dog breeders Association was born twelve years after the UKC. The ADBA was started by Guy McCord who was a close friend of one of the founding fathers of the modern APBT. The ADBA and the UKC are the only true registries of the American Pit Bull Terrier, and both have withstood the test of time.
Over the next thirty years, the American Pit Bull Terrier became one of the most popular breeds in American history. It was only with this popularity that another registry known as the American Kennel Club bowed to an overwhelming number of requests and accepted the APBT as a breed. They did however change the name of the breed hoping to hide their true origins—unlike the original registries that honored the history of the breed. The AKC decided to register Pit Bulls as Staffordshire Terriers, which was later changed to the American Staffordshire Terrier in 1972. Up until 1936, Pit Bulls and AST’s were physically identical. After 1936, AST’s were no longer bred for the defined working type but for what is TYPICALLY a more “flashier” look with blockier heads, larger chests and a thicker jaw.
Currently, the AST, due to a closed gene pool and a great deal of popular stud syndrome, has developed into a very narrow phenotype, while APBT’s still vary phenotypically from lanky to stocky, from terrier to bully. Although the phenotypic expression varied in the APBT, relative weight, size and proportion remained constant and dogs over 60lbs are rarely seen in the yards of ethical breeders. The Pit Bull has been selectively bred for over 170 years. Because of this selective breeding, they have become marvelous working and companion dogs, used for purposes as varied as those it originally performed. Properly bred, modern, working APBT’s are still bred to be exceptionally sturdy and extremely human friendly, not to mention athletic, courageous, and tenacious. They can be found employed as police/armed services dogs, Therapy dogs, and search and rescuers. APBT’s have been used by the FDA and USDA for sniffing out bombs and drugs; the first certified hearing dog in Alaska was an APBT, and even today they continue to work livestock. They are one of the most versatile breeds on the planet.

I would like to add that the AADR registry is also true to the APBT and has also become a valuable registry in the breed.

 

Another great article GAPits!

 

No, I don´t know where this comes from, I´ve read it in another thread as well, does´nt make it any better.
What everyone should know is that there where no Staffordshire bull terrier before the APBT. The Staff, as we say here, is a much later breed than the APBT. That is a fact and elementary pitbull history.

There where no staffs imported to U.S or anywhere else in the 1800´s because they did´nt existed then. So, the staff is no ancestor to the pitbull. They share the same, or possibly some, ancestors though. Noone really knows, there are no proof for any of the theories or "schools. The ancestor to all bulldogs, or bulldog terrier mixes; There are no proofs as far as I know, just speculations. But that the staff came later than the APBT is beyond doubt.

(Have´nt got time to read the whole thread and I read slow so sorry if someone said it before me.)

 

AMstaffs was bred from APBT's in 1930's. Colbys Primo was set as a standard then.

 

And the Staffs about the same time: 1935. 37 years after the first more official registration of the APBT. So both Amstaff and Staff are young breeds in comparison.

 

All i can say is OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:Thanks for the welcome.

 

You are working on wearing out youre welcome already:rolleyes:

 

Merle is the sign of cross breeding,most notable to catahoula leopard dog.

 

Can you post your proof cali? And not your opinion. Hard facts only please.

(BTW, I am not saying some merles AREN'T mixed. Some may be. But I wouldn't go as far as to say ALL are.)