Razor Edge Bloodline

Nice dogs chickee, what breeding was that puppy from that you buy from Diego? well I believer a breeder can sell they dogs ,for what they want for thats your dogs. I some time sell my puppies for $1000 , for its my dogs I can do what I want . I work with buyers alot . :!: :!:

 

In eight weeks, I've spent over $800.00 so that Piper can be healthy and safe. We've had one trip to the Emergency Animal Clinic the second week we had her (she jumped out of my 10 year old's arms and sprained her front leg), she's had to have numerous wornings, 2 of her three sets of shots, a bladder infection that tool two trips to clear up, she is eating 2 cups of food each day and of course tons of stuffed animals and chew toys! I don't want to scare you, I just want you to be prepared for this committment. All of this, before any serious health issues (like Chickee's emergency) or major losses of our property (due to chewing)! Having a new pup is like having a 2 year old around ... a lot of work, but worth every minute of it.

Chickee - I am really sorry about your loss. :cry:

 

Absolutely! The english bulldog look is very correct these days.

Did I just see an oxymoron? "Beautiful heads" and the breed's ability to perfom it's original purpose don't exactly go hand in hand.

 

Obviously, you do not understand the correct meaning of an "oxymoron." A beautiful head does not comproimise the ability to be agile. I guess you have never seen a hot construction worker in your lifetime......

 

Your comments only alude to the fact that you couldn't even begin to understand what my words meant. Judging by your dogs, a "beautiful head" would be blocky and most of all, large. That is in contridiction to the form that has worked for over a century in gamedogs, a head proportionate to the body, and not so heavy as to become a wear on the dog while wrestling. Furthermore, the simple act of selecting for large, "beautiful heads" is in contradiction to the essence of the APBT breed's physical appearance, which is that form will follow function, and since none of these dogs actually DO anything, you can't say that it's true in their case. To put it in the simplest terms, if big, blocky, chiseled heads were something that made a good fighting dog, pit bulls would have had huge heads all along.

The construction worker analogy is flawed because construction workers are not breeding themselves to other superior construction workers in order to create the best construction workers possible. And if they were, good looks probably would not figure into selection of ONLY the best working construction workers (though certain construction workers might have both good looks AND construction skills).

Just because something LOOKS like it could do the job it was intended for does not mean it can, and the only to find out is to actually put them to work at it and see how they fare. In this case, since the APBTs original purpose in now illegal, and most do not prove their breeding stock, the best means of determining what makes the ideal APBT is by looking at dogs that COULD do the job they were intended for, and they don't look remotely like the majority of RE dogs today (including your own).

 

I'm not going to argue about breed ,for I'm not about that; I love all Pit Bulls. I use to breed gamedogs ,and they weight 35 to 40 lb,but now I 'm in to the bully looking pitbull .If you want to fight and argue about the breed I want no part of that. You have a good day goob.

 

Thank you. And yes, you are right and this is a free world. But, what you think I said, isn't what I was saying.

The pup was out of Razor's Edge Sir Crush A Lot x Tamayos Mystical Blue 3yrs ago. I still have his UKC papers, so unless he has hung papers, Albert hasn't done anything with him, which proves to me the dog was really bad breeding material.

 

Thank you Piper's Mom. It came on suddenly, (the bloat) and it was TERRIBLE. The most painful thing I've ever seen for a dog. And it happens very fast. She was in so much pain, she went into shock, then went into seizures, screaming and yelping, shaking. She did that just before we got her in the car, and once more on the way to the vet. She died seconds after the 2nd one. A couple days before that, she was a healthy, happy 5 year old. Makes me sick.

 

Chickee we are cool ,and I love to talk to about the breed and not argue .
Come see what we bully pitbull breeders are all about
http://groups.com/TheEliteEdge2004/chat.msnw

 

I'm not trying to argue with anyone - especially since I do happen to like the looks of most of the RE dogs; however, I must agree with Goob on the fact that the 100lb+ dogs with massive heads would not have a chance at 'preforming' against a game bred 40lb dog. If you want to breed them that way, that is certainly your right. I choose not to, as I'm trying to preserve the APBT as it was originally bred. Different people will buy/breed different dogs. I don't see a problem with that (as long as they are not breeding bad health/temperment/etc), but be honest in your dogs' function(s). RE dogs are made more for weight pulling that wrestling with another animal for any length of time, IMHO

 

i still dont believe they are the "BMW" of the breed and i have a "ford focus" but thats my opinion...i think they are nice lookin dogs tho, jus not traditional

 

Just wondering...
I thought that the original purpose of this breed was for aggression or fighting?
I mean, obviously your dogs are not fighting dogs but I was just wondering about the original purpose thing.
I do love their look though and if they weren't so expensive, I would definitely get one if I didn't already have a dog.

 

Spencerpits you are right about 100lb dogs,but my dogs weight 65 to 85lb
,and if I put my dogs on diet like I use to feed my gamedog they would weight less. When I use to breed gamedogs I feed them two time a day ,and with my bully dogs they food is alway in they kennnels, and also bully breed have big bone. You can take 35lb height 16inch female gamedog and breed her to a 70lb Americn Staffordshire Terriers male with height 20inch ,and you feed they puppies like we bully dogs most time they will grow up to be bully dogs.

 

Angie The Pit Bulls original purpose was for bull baiting later it was considered a blood sport and was banned then along came dog fighting. But never was their original purpose to be aggressive. Maybe in the pit, but dog aggression and human aggression as IM sure as you already know are two totally different things. Gameness IMO is not something that can be bred into a dog. They either have it or they don't. Here's an interesting article that touches on the subject. ~I by no means condone dog fighting I just find the APBT history fascinating as well as other people's views on the subject.~

http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqfaq.html#faq

 

I didn't mean human aggression. I meant dog aggression (for fighting). But I do know they are different.

Thanks for your information GinaH... but I am still a little confused.
Why would anyone breed for the 'original purpose' if it is banned?

 

The Pit Bulls original purpose wasn't being aggressive. It was for bull baiting and hog hunting, then later bred for gameness.

RE dogs cost that much simply because they can be sold for that, the unknowing public is well "dumb" enough to pay that. I don't think all RE dogs have bad temperament, but some one mentioned the people breeding them and keeping them as junk yard dogs(in a past thread) and how they are shipped to the kids out that way for that purpose. This doesn't represent the true RE line, its been changed and distorted, but I don't think that good breeders would sell to these kids for this purpose, but I guess if they have the $$?? I don't think its a bad line at all, I've seen some very good examples. But I've seen bad examples of the breed as well, because more and more people have the line and as it gets popular nothing is kept true, the more dogs peddled the more peddling grows because more people have them. Love and care isn't a reason to sell a dog for more, I've seen $2000 pups that came from parents who weren't good examples and didn't receive any great care. Some of these pups ended up with mange or birth defects but people will pay what they want for a dog. It really makes the whole "You get what you pay for" saying go down the drain.

Here is a site on conformation, http://www.apbtconformation.com/ a good one at that, some of the RE might look nice (to their owners and fanciers) but they don't have correct conformation. Just because some one has a personal prefference to that look and likes their pretty dog doesn't mean it has correct conformation. Most of these people I've seen have never shown a dog. You can go to Gaff kennels and get a beautiful dog with good conformation.

Who would ever cross a game dog with an AST? Thats like going backwards both ways.

 

True_pits you know that the Amstaff were once the same breed as the APBT in the 1929 ,and in 1936 the American Kennel Club accep the PITBULL as the Stafforshire Terrier . The name was later revised to the American stafordshire Terrier, effective January 1, 1972. Breed show Amstaff in AKC ring as Amstaff, and the same dogs are showing in UKC ring as American Pit Bull Terrier, so they are the same breed .

 

Well said. I people want to breed or own big english bully looking dogs, fine. I don't agree that they reflect the true APBT breed though, and I KNOW they can't perform any of the breed's original functions, so I absolutely disagree with people saying they can.

Agreed. The RE dogs are more like the huge SUV, the working APBT being the performance sports car.

The reason for breeding true to the breed's original purpose would be to preserve the breed as it was. The APBT, along with being a superathlete of the canine world, also got many temperament traits from being bred as a fighting dog. Among those being gameness (the inherent will to never quit a task, even when battered and exhausted), an extremely high level of bite inhibition towards humans (as a result of the rules and nuances of matching, dogs changing hands, dogs needing to be handled during matches, etc), and a high level of confidence.

Now, since gametesting a dog is considered the only way to test for some traits (gameness being the main one), when you take that away and start breeding dogs that just look like they can still do the task, you will likely lose some, if not all of the qualities that are selected for through gametesting of dogs. Look at AmStaffs, not only do 95% of them look completely different from the gamedogs of old, it would be a rare find to come across a truly game AmStaff. The trait has been lost in that breed, because it was not bred for.

That is why some breeders still breed only proven gamebred stock. They feel it is the only way to keep the breed true to it's original nature, which is what they considered to be the ultimate form of the breed.

As to why people might breed dogs that could still physically perform the breed's original task, and have similar drives, etc to those of the old gamebred dogs, but not actually gametest, they're trying to maintain the breed's integrity as much as possible without actually having to test their dogs (whether because they don't believe in it, or they just don't feel like taking the risk of being caught). They may use other means of working their dogs, like weight pull, various protection sport competitions (APBTs in these competitions are usually trained in prey drive, not defense like GSDs and other guardy breeds), or hog hunting (another controversial sport).

There was a study done years ago on foxes bred for fur, they were breeding only the tame foxes, those which could be handled easily, and as a result, started getting foxes with different physical traits as well. Some of the foxes were developing different coats than their wild counterparts, different colors, etc. They found that when they tried to change one important trait of the foxes (their wild instincts), they also inadvertantly changed other traits as well. I'll see if I can find the study to post, it was pretty interesting.

There was recently a long thread on another board about dogs from Gaff lines, seems there have been quite a few serious health issues cropping up there as well. They are beautiful, and most have good conformation, but as far as I know, don't health test all their breeding stock, and it's beginning to show. That'd be the first thing I'd look for in a kennel at this point, would be heart, hip, and elbow certs. ASTs are in the top 10 for elbow dysplasia on OFA's site (not enough APBTs tested at this point), and over 1/5 of all APBTs tested are dysplastic. AmStaffs are also #1 ranked on the OFA site for heart conditions. And those are only dogs that have been tested and submitted, how many more haven't because breeders don't care to test and see what's hiding in their lines? Of course, these stats are perfect, but they do indicate that there's a problem in the bully breeds, and breeders need to get a handle on it before it gets bigger.

Depends on who you ask. A gamebred APBT and one of the overdone AST that are winning big today could certainly not be considered the same breed. Then again, neither should a gamebred APBT and one of the big overdone ADBA or UKC dogs be considered the same breed. There are basically 4 subsets of the two breeds, gamebred APBTs, show APBTs, AmStaffs, and monster pit bulls. Some are more similar than others, but it's personal opinion as to whether they're all the same breed or not.

 

Yeah I know that and I also realize that they are not the same breed in other ways. Thats why the AKC split and closed the reg, they became their own breed and seperated from the APBT, now UKC dogs that a totally different thing because AmStaff blood has been brought back into a lot of the stock. You can skip the history lesson of whats already known, my question still stands.

Why would anyone cross a game dog with an AST, its a legitimate question. Off topic but I wrote it on the spur of the moment. I wasn't talking about UKC show dogs, I said game dog. Breeding a game dog to a Staff is like breeding to a different breed, which takes away gameness. Thats what I meant by going "backwards", people breeding game dogs are breeding to "preserve" the breed and to keep gameness within the breed banned or not they still do it. I assume you know this since you used to breed them. But crossing to a staff would yield lower results of game dogs, you can still get a game dog out of it, its just less likely because staffs haven't been bred for gameness, they haven't been tested and haven't been culled. So the question was very legitimate. In the same since AST are bred for their looks, game dogs don't have this look and they don't conform to the AKC standard and the offspring couldn't be AKC reg. So its a step back for both breeding programs, but the UKC well you could show the offsrping in that because the standards are so close, but I never mentioned breeding UKC/AKC dogs which is very common. I mentioned game dog being crossed to an AST.

 

Game-bred APBT + Show-bred AST = one ugly cur!

Sorry - for whatever odd reason, I just couldn't resist.