why continue to breed APBTs and other breeds that can't do their original job anymore?

Pit bulls werent bred to fight other dogs in the first place. 

Many, many breeds bear with them actual history...tied inextricably to their heritage. Kings, Queens, warriors, Generals, civilizations, lifestyles, pasttimes, etc. They represent a living monument to what was once necessary just to "be" in this world.

I've heard folks here express various viewpoints on how sad or horrible or ugly or useless certain breeds are and that saddens me. I hope that's kept to a minimum here, but all one can do is hope .

polarexpress

So, my question to all of YOU is:  Do you have a breed that outlived its original purpose? and/or Do you think any breed should be allowed to die out? 

No.  German Shepherds are a very, very new breed (less than 150 years old) and in many ways are still developing.  In order to complete the breed survey (dog is given a rating), the dogs must have an SG conformation rating or better, BH (obedience & temperament), AD (endurance), OFA hip ratings, and titled in Schutzhund or herding.  Dogs competing in certain classes of the SV shows must have working titles (SchH for obedience, tracking, and protection or HGH for herding).

I can't say whether any breed should die out because German Shepherds are the only breed I know a lot about.  I will not make judgments on breeds I have not owned and know little about.  As for German Shepherds, they are bred and structured to be a very versatile, multipurpose dog.  Therefore, there's really no purpose that is not suitable for them and no reason to let them "die out".

polarexpress

So, my question to all of YOU is:  Do you have a breed that outlived its original purpose? and/or Do you think any breed should be allowed to die out?

If I can be blatantly honest, I truly believe that 99% of all dogs, of all breeds, have outlived their original purpose. Considering the number of dogs in this world, compared to the number of dogs doing as they were originally bred to do, difference is beyound vast. The number of retrievers hunting compared to the number of retrievers as pets.....the number of terriers as farm dogs compared to as family companions....the number of GSD's herding on a regular basis (not just trials here, I mean living on a farm)....that goes for all herding dogs really, having been their "original" purpose.

Because every breed is different, you can't make blanket judgements. Some breeds are still very much true to their heritage, as the numbers are small and their homeplaces are very controlled. But for other breeds, some no longer do anything whatsoever related to their original purpose (are we talking like "original" original, or just early uses?).

The breed I currently share my life with, the Mini Schnauzer, is certainly no longer a farmdog ratter. I don't know anybody, personally, who uses this type of dog for its original purpose anymore. Granted, I still love the breed when it is true to its heritage, and I love a dog with a strong hunting instinct. But that's me. For others it can be a nightmare.

 I certainly don't think any should die out, just because our customs and cultures have changed since their origins. I think instead we should strive to work to see how they fit into our current lives, and adapt in that manner. Whether that means to have them simply become a family companion, if it means allowing them to simulate their origins (as I think origins are important, and shouldn't be ignored altogether), or if it means breeding for versatility to fulfill a new niche. For instance Labradors and Goldens making the ideal service dog. It's definitely not their original purpose, and some of their needs have been changed somewhat, but all in all they have grown to fulfill a new niche working alongside humans. Just as a lot of the scenthounds have developed into wonderful nose dogs - for drugs, contraband, food, bombs, cancer, missing persons, etc.

Breeds will come and breeds will go though. If you look over the long-range passage of time you can see many breeds of dogs that no longer exist. And I'm sure that will continue into the future centuries as well. Some of the breeds we have now will likely "die off", and then new ones will also be formed. And maybe there will even be a regression where some breeders try to re-create an old version of a breed, or a past breed that had been extinct.

Interesting and thoughtful question.

I have both a "no" and a "yes".

The question really comes down to evolution and the fact that humans use breeding as an opportunity to control evolution- when we are finally able to control our own evolution, will we be asking this question about ourselves?  Just a thought.

I see responsible, professional breeding as a kind of "museum."  The development of different breeds can say a lot about our culture and social development:  hunting dogs vs. fighting dogs vs. lap dogs vs. guard dogs... I like it very much that people are maintaining purebreds for us all to see.  For that reason, I say "no".  Breeding purebred show dogs, whether it be UKC or AKC can tell us a lot about human history, and give us a great opportunity to see dogs from around the world as representations about what is or has historically been important to people.

There is another part of me, though, that thinks it's some kind of cruel (for lack of a better word) to continue to breed for commerical consumption dogs who will never realize the "truth" of their genetic predispositions.  Labs are a big one for me- how many people have maladjusted labs who just stay in the house and yard all day getting fat???? A lot.  They are NOT an appropriate "apartment breed", unless the owner is truly commited to the right level of excersise.  Why get a hunting dog if you don't intend to hunt?    If you want a big dog, why not just get a mutt?

I have pit bull type dogs by default:  I am not married to the breed, they just happened to be in the most need at the time of adoption.  I'm sorry, but I am not in favor of the average citizen intentionally going out to a breeder and getting a specific type of dog unless they fully intend to utilize that dog for it's "bred" purpose.  I believe in shelter adoptions.  For that reason, I might argue "yes", most breeds should be allowed to evolve. (I choose EVOLVE and not DIE OUT";).  Mainly, I believe that BYBs should be shut down... and that would certainly make a dent in the evolution of dogs, both purebred and mutt.

Having said that, I recognize the importance of having a diverse gene pool for purebreds.  I just think that we don't NEED many purebreds anymore, and not having that need, I don't see the significance of intentionally breeding them anymore.  I also recognize that eventually, my "yes" position would probably result in the eradication of "mutts".  It's a very complicated question.

Just my $.02.  I'm sure someone here might be able to change my mind with an intelligent, well argued perspective.

badrap

If you want a big dog, why not just get a mutt?

For some..lack of predictability. How do you know selecting a mix pup...that it WILL be big? You don't....UNLESS you know it's parentage...and it's parentage is what? Differnt purebreds...which allows you to expect things...even in a mix breed. Rather a catch-22.

You can get around that by selecting an adult...but then you have to worry about what things in it's prior experience might come up that you have to work around...and if that temperament suits your needs. And quite honestly...people like puppies...they like to raise them and mold them into what's acceptable to their household.

Dogs tend to normalize after a lot of random breeding. In short there would be no BIG DOGS or SMALL DOGS were folks to stop maintaining both sizes to some standard which has size included.

I don't think any mind changing need happen...I can respect views on any fence side esp when so well thought out. But I do think that big picture thinking is what's needed. What if indeed no more purebreds were to be around...and all dogs normalized to a basic 'dog'...how long til it started again with someone who really wanted a "BIGGER" dog...a "LONGER HAIRED' dog...a 'DIFFERENT COLORED' dog, etc?

 I own a working style Australian Shepherd, and no, I don't have cattle, sheep or ducks.  But, some breeds whether they still do the work they were bred for or not, are versatile enough to perform other "work".  Some Aussies don't herd, but that doesn't mean that they aren't equally suited for another job, like agility, tracking, or other activities.  Some of my dog's relatives are service dogs for handicapped owners.  So, no, I don't think that a breed should be allowed to die out simply because it doesn't do its original work.  But, on a lighter note, did anyone see that TV show on what will happen to the world without humans???

The AKK was bred to be a companion dog, so yes, Honor lives up to that purpose.  But I do not think that breeds should be "discontinued" if they no longer can serve their original purpose.  Just as humans adapt, animals adapt.  Way back when, dogs didn't have the opportunity to participate in sports such as agility/rally/obedience/etc.  Dogs can have new "jobs" in today's day and age.  Also, dogs were more of workers versus companions eons ago.  Nowadays, they are much more family companions, so there is not that essential need for a job to be a productive member of the family.  Plus, I just can't imagine not having certain breeds just because they're "work" is done!
 

rwbeagles

What if indeed no more purebreds were to be around...and all dogs normalized to a basic 'dog'...how long til it started again with someone who really wanted a "BIGGER" dog...a "LONGER HAIRED' dog...a 'DIFFERENT COLORED' dog, etc?

Well played, Gina!!  That's en excellent point.  We as humans are so used to messing with stuff to get what we want, my guess is that you're absolutely correct, and that it wouldn't be long at all.

polarexpress

So, my question to all of YOU is:  Do you have a breed that outlived its original purpose? and/or Do you think any breed should be allowed to die out?

     This is my take on the situation ... Obviously, my breed is still used for it's original functuion, and I got into the breed with hunting dogs & will always consider the Beagle a hunting breed. Still hunt and occasionally trial my hounds and breed for dual purpose qualities - I am adamant about keeping in field ability at all costs. To me, it's tremendously more important than the conformation aspect & will always breed for hunt FIRST. That being said, it's an ethical breeder's job to preserve the breed, if we have show only Beagle breeders preserving the unique personality, conformation and overall genetic soundness, it's just as much a service to the breed - only from a different aspect.
     Even though my breed is still a working dog and I'd hope it stays that way so long as the Beagle exists, we'd be missing out on dozens upon dozens of magnificent breeds if we stopped breeding simply because their original job is extinct. Practically the entire non-sporting group would be wiped off - bulldogs, standard poos, schipperke, dalmatians, frenchies. These are all outstanding companion breeds & are unique in their personalities, temperament, and lifestyle appropriateness. I'm for limiting breeding restrictions as little as possible, and if we start turning on each other by saying such & such breed serves no purpose anymore so there involves no necessity for it to be bred ... what's next? How many people raising that question about the APBT own a non sporting dog? Or one of the working/herding breeds that have outlived their usefulness at their original function? Your Lhasa Apso is no longer serving as the watch dog who calls out the Tibetan Mastiff for "backup" so why own a Lhasa? Poodles are no longer water retrieving dogs and I don't like them, they're yappy and bite lots of adults & kids, so who needs them? Rottweilers are no longer drovers - they are used as guard dogs now and are a liability - nix them too. Rough collies aren't used for herding anymore & they bark too much - so let's stop breeding them too ... What about Borzoi or Irish Wolfhounds - we can't exactly stick either breed on a wolf anymore. Or Great Danes & Mastiffs. No longer war dogs, so should we stop breeding probably two of the most noble animals to grace this planet? You get the point, lol.
     The fact of the matter is, many, many dogs that are used primarily or only as working dogs are NOT appropriate as family pets, or at least for the vast majority of pet owners. Komondor, Anatolians, Kelpies, Border Collies ... 
   

polarexpress

Don't flame me yet this question came up in a discussion and I wanted to read what people here have to say.

The original question was:  "If pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs and we don't allow that anymore, then why keep the breed around? Having dogs created to be dog aggressive can be a hazard and a liability, so why continue the breed?"

This is not an awful question. My breed was originally created to maintain the homestead security for the Zimbabwe Farmers. They had to handle hostiles , lions and wild boar all as a matter of fact. The dog was not bred to fight lion or kill lion as is often misrepresented. But to hold them at bay until an hunter could dispatch them. Ducking and dodging in and out they worried the great beasts keeping them cornered or harrassed until they simply could not think. The dog had to be smart enough to respect the crocadile infested rivers and handle the amazing wildlife.  They had to be trusted to keep strangers at a distance without necessarily attacking. It would have been poor form to have bitten a minister or traveling doctor , let alone allow one of the members of the many rebellions to access the home.

They did not come to the US until the early 50's and were not recognized by the AKC until 1956 so we have a very , new breed.  Obviously there is not a huge call for Lion or Wild Boar patrols here. However they have stepped up and become active hunting partners , tracking and running everything from deer to Javelina. They have also been used on puma. Many Border ranches have found them very capable security systems. Happy to be part of the family and still discriminating enough to know acceptable from unacceptable stranger. 

In a nut shell in the 25 years we have had RRs we have yet to have a break-in, a lion attack and not one wild boar has crossed my yard in the deep South of Alabama,  They have monitored my family and even my preemie grandson with such dedication they prevented SIDS incidents better than his heart monitor could.  My darling girl has been my seizure alert dog for over a decade. So are they still being used for the original intent ? I would say yes.... plus they have adapted and become even more versatial .... sorry about typos and miss spellings but my grand daughter messed up my keyboards and they are sticking madly!

Bonita of Bwana

Well, i think some breeds original purpose, even if not performed make them ideal for different purposes. IE, GSD. Very smart, used for herding so in tune, agile, intelligent. Those traits make for a great service or police dog. My dogs are mainly companion dogs...but i don't want to own any of the breeds originally made for companionship. I want a dog that will be protective, intelligent, hardy, and is up to any athletic activity with no limitations. I don't think any breed should be allowed to die out.

PS...what are the breeds bred specifically for companionship? I'm thinking pugs, maltese, shih tzu, etc... 

polarexpress

So, my question to all of YOU is:  Do you have a breed that outlived its original purpose?

 No.  My breed is still doing it's job in it's home country.  And if the laws were changed I could use my dog to perform those same tasks here in the US.

polarexpress

Do you think any breed should be allowed to die out?

 I'm not sure how to answer this.  In remaining with the moderators wishes I won't go into specific traits of particular breeds that I find unappealing.  I will say, however, that many of the breeds we see commonly have been undermined by hobby and backyard and mill breeding.  We have hounds that don't or won't hound, retrievers that can't retrieve, gun shy hunting dogs, and a pack of others that have had temperment and health issues bred into the breeds. 

There are many breeds that have been allowed to die off.  One of the most glaring is the Scottish Deerhound.  The SDH we have today is a recreation of the breed, not the original breed itself.  The Pekingnese was almost killed as a breed by their very protectors.  The Koreans used to have a wonderful lap dog breed that was slaughtered wholesale by invading troops.  These are just 3 breeds off the top of my head. 

 Do I think they should be allowed to die out?  It is my personal opinion that if a dog breed does not have the capacity to breed naturally, without outside assistance, the type of that breed needs to be carefully rethought and careful planning should be taken to make it more capable to do so.

I have no problem with "companion dogs" in and of themselves and with distinct breeds for such.  Not everyone wants a cookie cutter dog.
 

Well I dont fight Aurora and Primo nor do I hunt or bait bear, lol. My family does use Pit Bulls and Catahoulas to hunt boar though......but not my dogs, lol

I think the reason the APBT appealed to me is I admire thier determination and have always had a soft spot for the blood spattered road they have endured through time. It is extremely interesting how they can continue to be loving creautres in a home and warriors out on the field.

I do not promote 90% the APBT breedings. For one they are not being bred to physical standards of the true APBT. They are being victimized, over bred, and being bred with other breeds to make them bigger. The APBT should never weigh more then 65lbs and that is being generous. I think they should lock the lines and breed them as Staffies, not bred for game but for show.