I don’t know what it is, but in pit bulls and their derivatives, inbreeding is celebrated.
An American bully is an offshoot of the pit bull, which has been specifically bred to be less aggressive and to have a body that makes them resemble Tasmanian devils. However, there are other breeders of “exotic” bullies that every bit as effed up in conformation as an English bulldog or a show basset hound.
It’s a breed in formation, and because they are breeding for such different phenotype from the general pit bull and bull and terrier type, there is quite a bit of inbreeding going on.
The UKC has recently recognized the American bully as a breed, and the UKC breed standard expressly forbids the “exotic” phenotype– which certainly is a positive.
However, within the subculture, there are many dogs that remain outside the registry, and in many cases, they are very tightly bred to maintain a certain look.
Inbreeding in the established dog fancy has often been celebrated, but within the established breeds, there are many people openly questioning the virtues of such tight breeding. The effects of so much consanguinity have created populations that have genetic loads that are often too difficult manage.
It’s a road to hell that so many dog people want to follow. It’s much easier to sculpt canine flesh using DNA when you’re dealing with breeding populations that are very finite and genetically depauperate.
But as we’ve seen with virtually every closed registry purebred dog, one does not get to select for appearance alone. Not all genes are expressed in the phenotype, and selection away or toward one trait can have very bad consequences for health and temperament.
Even the most educated geneticist or molecular biologist is still ignorant of many aspects how traits are inherited. They will readily admit this to you.
However, from what I’ve seen among “dog people” is there is a tendency to act as if they know things about the genetic composition of a dog that even the most highly-educated scientist would say couldn’t be known.
And this is precisely the danger with “dog people.”
So much damage is being done in the name of impressing other people.
So many dogs have gone down this path.
And it looks like the America bully is going to race down it– just as the Eurasier and the Cesky terrier have done before.
Breeding a nice “pit bull” that looks like a Tasmanian devil is a far nobler enterprise than breeding dogs for fighting, but it’s not going to be of much use if the dogs wind up with the genetic load problems that all the “fancy” breeds have.
Now would be the time for American bully fanciers to take a hard look at population genetics. It would mean that it would be harder to established distinct type immediately, but it would have very good long-term consequences for the health and vitality of the population.
The time to act is before the gene pool gets all sequestered off, and if the sequestration can be stopped entirely, it would be a great benefit to the dogs.
Hear, hear!
If you’re talking about the Razorsedge pit bulls, looks to me like they’re trying to get an English bulldog out of a pit. I see not resemblance to the Tassie devil, which has a very pointed face and a peculiar profile . . . but no show of muscle or flab . . . nothing massive about a devil.
e.g.. http://www.hqbullies.com/males/
Great names too . . . Seldge Hammer, Epidemic Virus. Wonderful attitude.
these dogs are 2-3 generation mutts, English bulldog/mastiff/APBT crosses. Not a breed, whatever the discredited UKC says.
Don’t be a female dog.
A mutt or mongrel is a dog from unverified background:
http://desertwindhounds.com/2013/09/11/is-a-labradoodle-a-mutt-only-if-youre-an-asshole/
A cross-bred dog is not a mutt.
Don’t be an asshole.
Guess United Kennel Club is so discredited, the FCI (the largest pure-bred dog registry) should be considered as dubious because certain breeds (ie. Plott Hounds) are accepted into registry even though the UKC doesn’t have same reciprocity deal as the American or Canadian Kennel Clubs.
A registry is a registry, period. Their job is to keep track of dogs’ pedigrees. It really doesn’t matter what registry is used as long fraud is not committed.
The events are entirely up to the members of the club and the standards are entirely up to the breed club. Whatever beef you have lies with the members, not the organization.
And they are bred EXCLUSIVELY for appearance .. the bigger, heavier, more misshapen the better. They have no “work”. They are not bred to do anything physical. You scorn “pit bulls” (whatever that is) but I can tell you that every real APBT fancier is disgusted with these mutants
Me scorn pit bulls?
You really know me! LOL.
Or have me confused with someone else!
Personally I’m disgusted at the whole ‘pitbull type’ concept, mainly for the way so many iresponsible owners seem to delight in exploiting the dangerous potential of these animals, presumably to make up for their own personal inadequacies. Bull breeds are often inherently dangerous as was exemplified yet again by the death of a four year old girl in Britain a few days ago. She was attacked by the family ‘pet’ which from the photograph seemsed to have been a large bull mastiff which the family reportedly and unwisely “rescued”. The girl’s mother stabbed the dog to death, but too late.
Bullmastiffs aren’t pitbulls. Not even close and I don’t think anyone would consider that breed “inherently dangerous”.
Pitbulls are banned in the UK.
I blame primary and secondary schools for the poor understandings of genetics.
They teach you how to get homologous traits and recessive diseases, but they don’t really tell you the dangers of inbreeding over too many generations.
Agree with you entirely on this, retrieverman, and how sad that picture is.
I also agree with retrieverman—I am at present on a dog judge fb list and you cannot imagine how ignorant about genetics most of them are……they are blaming breed clubs and registries which limit inbreeding as they think it will ruin “type”—in their opinion, all breeds were created through inbreeding and that’s the only way to go. I am fighting a losing battle there!
I used to check out a lot of random breeder websites of a few different breeds.
Pit bulls was the original breed I found out about how closely inbred their bloodlines where,and how proud they where of having the “tightest bred dogs”. Plenty of brother to sister,father to daughter,son to mother pairings. These dogs where not even KC dogs,they just bred them that way for appearance,convenience or to trying to to as much off some old time fighting dog as possible.
Inbreeding has some strong roots in pretty much any dog you find now days.
Colour breeding for dilutes really irks me. The bull breed and mastiff fraternity seem to be particularly guilty of this though it happened in shar-pei a decade or two ago. Blue particularly was considered a rare colour and people clamoured for blue pups with wallets wide open. Now every other pet bred shar-pei is blue, chocolate or a shade of apricot, including my rescue bearcoat who is some allele mystery bag of apricot with a dusting of silver. She’s very pretty, but she was a rescue and her colour had no bearing on my choice. Her coat length did though because I’m as fickle a every other dog owner, but that’s an accident rather than a design thing in breeding shar-pei.
It seems to be considered prized to have a red nose or blue nose dog in the pitbull derivative world. The dogs featured being no exception. To some people it may seem relatively innocuous compared to breeding for extreme type or for the pit, but taking into account the restriction of an already restricted gene pool that seems to go on to “set” the colour, it’s every bit as dangerous to the health and wellbeing of the dogs affected. Maybe more so as it’s the insidious creep of genetic disease you can’t see until the dogs start getting really sick.