Terrier or not

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

After seeing bitches of 14" and still with the proportions to be capable of ratting, like the dog of the 1700's are we becoming futher away from the truth by producing dogs over the standard heights and weights. Of course they are not true terriers but they should have a strong terrier influence.

After all, dog fighting was not the only job of the original Bull and Terrier. Smaller fighters are generally far superior in quality to there larger countrparts in style and pace, but just missed the imposing size humans seem to crave.

The Blues on the whole are massively over the standard proportions, APBT's breed to be of larger weights are not the same dogs that travelled there from Ireland.

Can these dogs claim to be true Bull and Terrier's and Staffordshire bull terriers .

Is this a problem to our dogs, and does it confuse our dogs true historical past and therefore there future type.

[dog]

I see your point but we're treading on thin ice saying that a dog is not a Stafford because it's too big. By that logic you'd need to have a height limit where a Stafford stops being a Stafford or a Terrier as you put it. There are alot of other Terriers that are bigger than the average Stafford.

Blues are generally bigger and some are very big but I've seen smaller ones and there are plenty of bigger Staffords that aren't blue.

I don't know about this, it's natural for people to want to put things into categories and give them names but I don't think it's helpful. I prefer a dog to be recognised by type rather than breed, that makes more sense to me. They may be different but they're still of the same type and I'd be happy for Sonny to be judged in the same ring as miniature Bull Terriers because it's conformation that should be judged and not type.

I've got no time for standards either, they're O.K as a guide but you can interpret them as you like (just look at people have mis-read the EBT standard regarding strong underjaw). A picture paints a thousand words, you can describe a dog all you like but to see it is a far better way of judging it's worth.

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

Standards are important to retain type as you say, A dog of 22" is not the same 'type' as a 14" dog. I understand the form folows function phrase but without the correct construction your dog can paddle upstream all day long. Here Standards help, but they should be questioned.
The lose of terrier qualities in my opinion is detrimental and larger dogs tend to lose this quality.
They may have better times at athletic days but this does not hold them true the original type. 'Type' is a phrase you use so do you feel this terrier type is lost in the UK and does the quest for larger types endanger the return of the true terrier 'type' which is far closer to the standard than that of the large 'type'.

[dog]

I think with the number of Staffords around there is room for all types. My preference will always be for the smaller type but that doesn't mean I don't like the bigger ones. The DDA is the only concern for me when it comes to the increase in size of Staffords. I don't object to them being called Staffords or being shown in the same ring. I don't think that size or rather height has a great impact on how 'terriery' a dog is, I've seen some small Staffords that seem to show very little trace of Terrier and bigger ones that show very little 'bullyness'. For me it's the dog in front of me that's the most important thing, I'd hate to see the best Stafford in the show ring not be placed because of the tape measure.

[frank]

The 12 to 14 kg dogs you see in the early American books where not the small dogs most people think they where. Most of these dogs where light in weight, but higher than most Staffords are today of this weight.

Today we also see 12 to 14 kg Pitbulls, but they are still 17 to 18 inch in height.

So the 14 inch dogs you have seen would have been probably much lighter in weight in the old days. Maybe even less then 9 kg!

Have seen a nice small example of such a dog a few years ago with the owner of I think Dexter? A bitch of about 9 to 10 kg if I am not mistaken, but at least 16 inch high. In all ways she was a Stafford to see, not a rat as some will think. Only thing was that she was badly undershot, a bit too much for my liking, but nevertheless a nice animal.

[frank]

Another thing difference in size does not change type.

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

But Frank im positive it does for instance a 26lb dog may also make a good ratter aswell as a pit dog, not so the 70lb dog although he may have a better chance with boar or bull, there we have a distinct diffrence in type. Type is not breed.

[frank]

Jan 2, 2010 21:40:33 GMT @hiphoplyricalrobot said:

But Frank im positive it does for instance a 26lb dog may also make a good ratter aswell as a pit dog, not so the 70lb dog although he may have a better chance with boar or bull, there we have a distinct diffrence in type. Type is not breed.

I know, but within a breed we can have different types.
And a dog can have the same type or he is 14 or 16 inch. Just like a miniature Porche 911, still the same type....unless I made it ;D

I have to agree with you that a 26 inch dog is a better ratter than a 70 lbs dog, but still, we are not looking for ratters, and we are not looking for Bulldogs or Boardogs, but in the first place our breed was a fightingdog.

Maybe I missed your point, and go bigtime off track, if so let me know as I have a very bad flue at the moment ;D ;D ;D

[frank]

Another point, are we sure the Bull and Terriers where 50/50 products always? Or where the Bull and Terriers, like mainly the Yanks like to think, still the pure Bulldogs?

[bullmatt]

Jan 2, 2010 21:51:02 GMT frank said:

Another point, are we sure the Bull and Terriers where 50/50 products always? Or where the Bull and Terriers, like mainly the Yanks like to think, still the pure Bulldogs?

good question,we will never be able to answer 100%

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

No Frank your not off track mate, im concerned that we do not have this type in the numbers required to retain this 'type' in the uk. The more terrier type as opposed to the catch weight type. This type was very capable and impressive with an extremly high work rate, retaining more often than not the terrier characteristics. more so than the heavier dogs.

I realise that first and foremost the dogs were pit dogs and i know id rather watch the pace and skill of a light weight boxer than a heavy weight any day of the week. Its just something i hope we dont loose.

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

Yep ive read Mr Strattons views on that, cant prove anything but i believe this breed to be enginered, whether 50/50 or not. I would probably say they would of lent more so to the terrier side myself

[anton]

but a staffordshire bull terrier is a specific sub species of the bull and terrier crosses.
Some might have done well in rat pits, it doesnt mean all of them have to be.
If you want a modern bull & terrier rat pit dog I would get a patterdale.
I see all the types still exist, from big to small. We just label them differently.

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

Im not saying they all need to be Anton my friend, would just be nice to see more

[bullmatt]

i am pretty sure the bulldogs and terriers of old were more than capable creatures individually,some american bulldogs of today are more than capable animals with awesome drive,if you was to look at some of the show bred bulldogs of today it would be easy to say the terrier added most to the cross,

[frank]

Jan 2, 2010 22:03:08 GMT @hiphoplyricalrobot said:

Yep ive read Mr Strattons views on that, cant prove anything but i believe this breed to be enginered, whether 50/50 or not. I would probably say they would of lent more so to the terrier side myself

This is a very interesting point, as I get more doubtfull about what is the truth the more I learn about dogs in generall.

If I only look at our small pack of Dogo's, in my mind with the bitches Martijn and I have 2 bulldog types and two terrier types. This also expresses itself in character. The lean ladys are more fiery and less patient than there heavier familie members. The heavier ladies are more relaxed, not that easy to stress, but when fired up eventually they are more scary then the terrier types.

If we only look back at people, isn;t it true that the small lean men we know are more firey than the heavier built men? Yes this also have to do with the fat percentage I know, but still I see a difference in temperment.

Something to think about. As said, the more I think about it the more I get puzzled.

[anton]

Jan 1, 2010 23:03:43 GMT @hiphoplyricalrobot said:

Can these dogs claim to be true Bull and Terrier's and Staffordshire bull terriers .

Is this a problem to our dogs, and does it confuse our dogs true historical past and therefore there future type.

But you are saying the big dogs are a problem here...
THe angle wasnt the lack of small dogs but the abundance of big ones.

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

Anton you may see them were you are, but i dont see them here. Also i have a Patterdale thanks mate, cracking drive!

[frank]

Jan 2, 2010 22:11:02 GMT bullmatt said:

i am pretty sure the bulldogs and terriers of old were more than capable creatures individually,some american bulldogs of today are more than capable animals with awesome drive,if you was to look at some of the show bred bulldogs of today it would be easy to say the terrier added most to the cross,

Yes, and if we take for example mr. Strattons point of view, maybe some of the small tough terrier breeds are in fact just very small Bulldogs to make it even more confusing ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[anton]

Jan 2, 2010 22:12:24 GMT frank said:

If we only look back at people, isn;t it true that the small lean men we know are more firey than the heavier built men? Yes this also have to do with the fat percentage I know, but still I see a difference in temperment.

Not sure i agree it is a physic = psychology link that works in people, just look at martijn. Not very heavy built but cool as a frog.
For myself, I guess I'm more easily put in tilt and lean built but there ya go, only 50 % true in our sample pool of 2

[bullmatt]

Jan 2, 2010 22:06:05 GMT anton said:

but a staffordshire bull terrier is a specific sub species of the bull and terrier crosses.
Some might have done well in rat pits, it doesnt mean all of them have to be.
If you want a modern bull & terrier rat pit dog I would get a patterdale.
I see all the types still exist, from big to small. We just label them differently.

they should call it the patterdale bullterrier in my opinion.

[frank]

Jan 2, 2010 22:15:11 GMT anton said:

Jan 2, 2010 22:12:24 GMT frank said:

If we only look back at people, isn;t it true that the small lean men we know are more firey than the heavier built men? Yes this also have to do with the fat percentage I know, but still I see a difference in temperment.

Not sure i agree it is a physic = psychology link that works in people, just look at martijn. Not very heavy built but cool as a frog.
For myself, I guess I'm more easily put in tilt and lean built but there ya go, only 50 % true in our sample pool of 2

Character plays also a big part, but still often I see those generalisations.

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

But the trend to produce big dogs because of impressive stature is damaging the amount of smaller dogs being bred within the uk. I am not stating there as problem, im 'asking' can we claim these dogs to be terriers when the reach these proportions, as even small bull and terriers struggle to retain this title?

I am also asking if the over production of big dogs reduces a true historical representation of type? not stating!, although i do personally feel this to be true.

[anton]

Ok so whats your definition of terrier?

[frank]

Jan 2, 2010 22:20:46 GMT @hiphoplyricalrobot said:

But the trend to produce big dogs because of impressive stature is damaging the amount of smaller dogs being bred within the uk. I am not stating there as problem, im 'asking' can we claim these dogs claim to be terriers when the reach these proportions, as even small bull and terriers struggle to retain this title?

I am also asking if the over production of big dogs reduces a true historical representation of type? not stating!, although i do personally feel this to be true.

The problem you have is that the Pitbull AND the Amstaff are not allowed. Here the ones who like to have a max or bigger thyan max staff take a Amstaff or in the future as allowed again a big Pitbull.

So lloking from that perspective you are more than right. A lot of Staffs I have seen in the UK trough the years where to big for my liking. We have a better average here in Holland then you have I guess.

My preference goes to a bitch between 16 and 17 inch and a dog of 17 to 18 inch.

And that 16 inch bitch may be 14 kg ripped. Had Babs once just above 14,3 to 14,5, but she could have been a bit lighter built in my opinion.

[bullmatt]

would you call sonny a bullterrier then neil?

[anton]

Jan 2, 2010 22:13:30 GMT @hiphoplyricalrobot said:

Anton you may see them were you are, but i dont see them here. Also i have a Patterdale thanks mate, cracking drive!

I love the pats too. Would have one if i wasnt a one dog man.

[hiphoplyricalrobot]

Terra means earth anton as im sure you know and these dogs were of size and quality to go to ground, they were also brilliant at vermin control, something a dog 45lb i doubt would be. You know this im sure

[anton]

Btw here's what i think is a very intersting photo. Circa 1900




Caption is "british sporting man with dog".

I think this is one of the more early types of bull & terrier crossings where the types were not as much defined. I think its a shame this type doesnt exist today.

[anton]

Jan 2, 2010 22:36:13 GMT @hiphoplyricalrobot said:

Terra means earth anton as im sure you know and these dogs were of size and quality to go to ground, they were also brilliant at vermin control, something a dog 45lb i doubt would be. You know this im sure

Yes but from what your where saying my gist was it also meant a certain size limit. But then i look at some other modern terriers and they are 19" (wheatens for example)

[edit[
Well for example Rommel's father Sigge, who must have weighed somewhere between 40-45 pounds unconditioned. (I dont know for sure but Rommel is around 18.5 KG unconditioned) and he was a brilliant vermin controller. I didnt do any trials with ROmmel on my rats cause they were too old for it to be fair ;-)