# Inbreeding - The Color Blue



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

So I read somewhere online today that the color blue in apbt's came from inbreeding? And that old dogger's considered this a major flaw thus culling those dogs because it was not desirable to them. So the blue in apbt's became less common. Any thoughts on this? Would you say it could be true?


----------



## BedlamBully (Jun 6, 2008)

LIES ITS ALL LIES!

HAHA I don't know it could be true. Now though the blue color is probably one of the most common 'rare' colors ever.


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

LOL ... No bbb you got it all wrong dear LILAC is the new rare color ... its a true silver ROTFLMAO


----------



## pitbullgirl22 (Jul 27, 2008)

I heard that from some where but MSK said some thing once about the line of dogs she has and that the lady wanted to prove that blue dogs weren't any diff from others and that's what she did. IDK though you might ask her exactly.


----------



## BedlamBully (Jun 6, 2008)

pitbullgirl22 said:


> I heard that from some where but MSK said some thing once about the line of dogs she has and that the lady wanted to prove that blue dogs weren't any diff from others and that's what she did. IDK though you might ask her exactly.


PROVING the dog really has nothing to do with the color. I have two blues that are already proving themselves. This is more about where the color CAME from origionally.


----------



## MADBood (May 31, 2008)

True it's not rare anymore and yes they were probably linebred to consistently produce the color blue...a diluted black. Some old dogmen saw a few blues come and go but they considered them to be a fault and most were culled. Some real proven dogs have been blue or gray in color.


----------



## pitbullgirl22 (Jul 27, 2008)

Sorry!! Was confused!!


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

I find it hard to believe that a blue dog that was tested and proven would be culled just for its coat color,i know its been said alot but were is it writen that this actually happened,or is it just speculation?
I figure that if a blue dog was found to be a gamedog,it would be kept around to make its owner some money,since this is the main reason dog fighting existed,MONEY.
Many dog men hated the rednose dogs,but they were kept around because they consistantly produced..


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

Well how is it possible that a dogs color could prevent them from being game? A color is just a color is it not? I don't understand the logic behind old dogger's culling blue dogs because of color and I seriously doubt that a blue coat could make a dog less game than a red or a black coat I am having a hard time understanding why blue dogs were considered so inferior to any other color dog I have not heard anything worth wild that would make logical sense other than dogger's felt that blue dogs were inferior based on their color. I would love to see something factual about this because it sounds so stupid


----------



## MADBood (May 31, 2008)

yeah...it sounds stupid. I have heard that they were culled because they carried a mutated gene...but is this just speculation? perhaps. We may never know. Being as the dogmen didn't breed like to like blue dogs to narrow down the gene pool and produce many consistent blue dogs like breeders today... you would probably only see a few blue dogs back then.. and i'm sure if they got their hands on a proven blue dog, they would have cared less about the coat color as long as the dog had what it took to be a champ.


----------



## Rock Creek Kennels (Oct 25, 2006)

pitbullgirl22 said:


> Sorry!! Was confused!!


Off topic here, but is Geronimo's tail docked? Hard to tell from that pic.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

I don't understand the genetics of blue, but if it's a recessive trait, there probably was some inbreeding going on to help bring it out. I've always read that the less genetic diversity in a line -- meaning, the tighter you inbreed -- the more recessive traits come out.


----------



## pitbullgirl22 (Jul 27, 2008)

No it's not docked it's mid-wag. Lol! I have always been told the culling of blue dogs was because the blue is a genetic mutation of black and white. Dunno really but my mentor has been around some old and new dog men and this is the way he understands it.


----------



## Rock Creek Kennels (Oct 25, 2006)

pitbullgirl22 said:


> No it's not docked it's mid-wag. Lol!


Thats cool! I was just wondering! Great looking dog btw!


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

Blue dogs were said to be tested and fought,again there is no photos to back this up,but the story of the old lightener dogs and "Colorado imp" are easily accessible on the net,and these blue dogs were proclaimed to be game but also in the case of the colarado imp dog,they were beaten by dogs of other colors and rumored to be used in the initial foundation stock for the am staff by corvino since he did have a hand in the am staffs creation,or so its written,,,,,
Now it is very possible for certain colors to carry certain traits based on the goals of the breeders through proper or improper selection. and i do believe that the majority of blue colored dogs are not game simply because they are bred for looks first and foremost as well as many being basically mutts,and even when bred in purity they still just aren't bred to be game,although it is easy to suspect that some blue dogs will be through backs just as some am staffs are,and possably these dogs could carry the game trait,but it would have to be tested for and if its not we'd never know.
I'm not buying this stuff about blue dogs being culled no matter what drive or temperament they had,it doesn't make sense and these dogs were matched and it has been documented...


----------



## Indica (Sep 23, 2008)

Hey everyone, new here. 

Blue is a dilution of black, caused by the gene for dilution. Not a combination of black and white, or a mutated gene. Back in the day of the gamedog, dogs were not bred for color, therefore the combination to create the blue dog probably occurred only rarely, because so many dominant genes exist within the breed, meaning that the majority of the population would also carry these dominant genes. And within the realm of gamedogs, this gene pool was even further restricted, limiting the appearance of recessive genes being displayed.

Today, the focus is appearance. Gamedogs are far the minority, and dogs are bred for size, color, and body type more than anything. I feel that breeders efforts should be to make a functional, true to heart, yet aesthetically pleasing animals.


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

Indica said:


> Hey everyone, new here.
> 
> Blue is a dilution of black, caused by the gene for dilution. Not a combination of black and white, or a mutated gene. Back in the day of the gamedog, dogs were not bred for color, therefore the combination to create the blue dog probably occurred only rarely, because so many dominant genes exist within the breed, meaning that the majority of the population would also carry these dominant genes. And within the realm of gamedogs, this gene pool was even further restricted, limiting the appearance of recessive genes being displayed.
> 
> Today, the focus is appearance. Gamedogs are far the minority, and dogs are bred for size, color, and body type more than anything. I feel that breeders efforts should be to make a functional, true to heart, yet aesthetically pleasing animals.


I second that :clap: Welcome I see a pretty blue puppy in your avitar


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

I have to disagree on the statement that breeders should include making aesthetically pleasing animals in their program. Many do, but if we're really sticking to the basis of the breed, the beauty should be in the dog's performance. The problem becomes that when you start breeding "pretty" dogs, then that's when you get breeders feeling that X size, X head, and X color are prettier than others, so they focus more heavily on that. 

Now that's not to say that I have ugly dogs. LOL But performance and adhering to the standard are the most important things IMO. If there is room enough left over that a breeder can include their personal preference, then that's great. But appearance shouldn't be in the top 10 things that one looks for. And if it is, it should be number 10. 

JMO.


----------



## Indica (Sep 23, 2008)

I didn't say it should be the main focus; however, dogfighting is illegal. The dog's purpose for existence is gone, spare for pet ownership, athletic sports, and obedience competitions. The dog's purpose has changed. In essence, the breed has already split into two categories, further than just AmStaff and APBT. But the APBT is splitting as well. The small wiry gamedogs that are purpose bred, and the standard common pit bull the majority of us have, with varying amounts of game drive and HUGE variance in appearance. 

My point is, that dogs that are appealing to they eye are less likely to be abused, abandoned, or worse. They have some value to people in that repsect, especially if they are ignorant to the breed. 

I have seen gamedogs in person. They are not very great looking, most unrecognizable as what is imagined to be a "pit bull" they are very terrierish and small, plain and muscular. Most people would not want one as a pet, and the drive is such that it must be carefully monitored and supervised.
They are amazing animals in their true form, but fairly rare and very expensive. But because of the lack of aesthetic appeal, unknowing people can look at a champion, worth twenty grand, and wouldn't offer you five dollars for him. 
Thus, the pit bull of today must be a blend of good looks, adventurous and fearless attitude and undaunting loyalty IMO, simply for the survival of the breed. A balanced, thoughtful approach is necessary. Fighting is no longer accpetable, therefore I don't see a problem with the evolution of the breed, as long as there is a dedicated community that still keeps the old strains alive, for the traits that separate them from all breeds. 

But for me, and most other pit bull owners, the handsome and fun loving pit bull of today, is all we need. (Not bully style. I dislike them immensley when they are marketed as "pit bull", I tolerate them as "american bullys".)

So why not breed for the total package? That is my goal.


----------



## DieselDawg (Jul 23, 2008)

I know what you seem to be saying but breeding just for a "look" is not a good road to travel genetically. You are correct that the majority of people are not equipped to handle a true Game Dog or really even know why they are considered Game for that matter. I will skip the comment that "they are not very good looking in person" since that is subjective.

For the overall health of ANY BREED, breeding for asthetic reasons usually leads to health problem generations down the road. Yes, I am talking about well known breeds that are shown on a regular basis. Using a small population of "show type" pure breds leads to a closed gene pool and a magnification of problematic recessive genes. Natural Selection tends to create a Heterozygous population where no one gene combination is ALWAYS being passed on...Natural Selection vitalizes the breed and stimulates healthy offspring down the road.

True Game APBTs are usually less expensive than Designer Breeds...but breeders of APBTs that breed for performance are picky about who gets thier dogs.


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't breed nor will I ever .. But when I am looking for a dog I will not even lie looks matter to me I don't want an ugly dog sorry JMO... I want the total package but I would not buy a functional ugly dog and I don't like small 30 lb full grown dogs either not my cup of tea ... 45-65 is my personal preference well conditioned ... I also don't like short squats I prefer some legs.


----------



## MADBood (May 31, 2008)

Indica said:


> I have seen gamedogs in person. They are not very great looking, most unrecognizable as what is imagined to be a "pit bull" they are very terrierish and small, plain and muscular. Most people would not want one as a pet, and the drive is such that it must be carefully monitored and supervised.
> They are amazing animals in their true form, but fairly rare and very expensive. But because of the lack of aesthetic appeal, unknowing people can look at a champion, worth twenty grand, and wouldn't offer you five dollars for him.


I will have to disagree you here. What you are saying sounds very ignorant and opinionated. Gamebred dogs are beautiful dogs and many people work hard to preserve these great bloodlines. No, you don't need to fight your dog in order to breed for gameness.

Personally, alot of us wouldn't pay five dollars for an "aesthetically pleasing" dog with no other purpose than to look pretty.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

Indica said:


> My point is, that dogs that are appealing to they eye are less likely to be abused, abandoned, or worse.





> I have seen gamedogs in person. They are not very great looking ...


Wow, really? Those just hit me out of left field, so I don't even know how to reply to that. The thought that we should breed prettier dogs so people will want to own them more and take better care of them just... I'm speechless. Maybe Marty will post some pics of his dogs to take up my slack.



> Fighting is no longer accpetable, therefore I don't see a problem with the evolution of the breed, as long as there is a dedicated community that still keeps the old strains alive, for the traits that separate them from all breeds.


I prefer preservation over evolution. The total package, as you call it, is already there. We don't need to change a thing to have it.


----------



## MADBood (May 31, 2008)

bahamutt99 said:


> I prefer preservation over evolution. The total package, as you call it, is already there. We don't need to change a thing to have it.


I could not have said it better myself :clap::clap:


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

I have seen some well bred gamedogs that were very nice looking and then I have seen some not so nice looking game bred dogs .. But I don't think them being game bred has anything to do with the looks. But old dogger's never bred for looks anyway so it really was not a priority to them they bred for gameness that is the goal for a df. But I have seen some nice looking gamebred dogs


----------



## Indica (Sep 23, 2008)

SadieBlues said:


> I have seen some well bred gamedogs that were very nice looking and then I have seen some not so nice looking game bred dogs .. But I don't think them being game bred has anything to do with the looks. But old dogger's never bred for looks anyway so it really was not a priority to them they bred for gameness that is the goal for a df. But I have seen some nice looking gamebred dogs


Exactly.

Furthermore, in order to label a dog "game" he must be tested. Gamebred dogs come from tested stock. Period. You cannot tell gameness from gow hard a dog bites his toys, our how aggressively he acts towards other dogs. True gamedogs exist in the hands of those who fight them. And they are not cheaper than show dogs. Not in the least.

The fact is, here we have purists who have pit bulls whom adhere to the old type and therefore call them "game". Admit to me that you tested these dogs and I will believe you. If not, you cannot label them "game".

I do not prefer old type pit bulls at all. I respect their history, but they are not for me or most people. They are gamedogs.

Why would you want one? So you can tell other people that their pits aren't real pits? "Oh that's not a reeeeal pit buuull" or fight them.

I don't know. I'm not calling anyone's dogs ugly, or anything. The fact that I said BALANCE means nothing. Automatically it goes into a extremely blown out of proportion when people take offense and start picking apart everything I say to fit into context what they will. This happens always in forums. I thought this one was different and more progressive and thoughtful.

Not so. So I'll gladly leave and appologize to those I have offended.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

This forum is populated by human people, just like any other. If you're going to leave just because people disagreed with you, you'll always be leaving. 

The fact is, though, that APBTs are not for most people. If gamebred dogs are not for most people, that's par for the course. Once you start breeding an animal that is so watered down that there are no real requirements for owning them, it's not a Pit Bull anymore. This is a challenging breed, and I like it that way. It makes the rewards that much sweeter. I would never change the dogs to make them easier. That's not preservation or evolution, but laziness.


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

Indica said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Furthermore, in order to label a dog "game" he must be tested. Gamebred dogs come from tested stock. Period. You cannot tell gameness from gow hard a dog bites his toys, our how aggressively he acts towards other dogs. True gamedogs exist in the hands of those who fight them. And they are not cheaper than show dogs. Not in the least.
> 
> ...


No you better not leave !!!!!!!!! It's ok people have their opinion's here just learn to brush of the bs and don't worry about it. I was not offended by anything you said. It's all good!! I hope you stay you sound like you have something to contribute we all disagree at some point on here some people take it to the limits but oh well you just learn to ignore it but there are also alot of good people here who have a wealth of knowladge just a matter of picking through the bs :welcome::welcome::welcome::welcome:


----------



## MADBood (May 31, 2008)

We all have opinions and we might disagree at times. No offense taken here. Just sounded like you put looks before purpose. I put purpose before looks but then again I just need some great pullers here and that's just me. I like some show dogs too, they are beautiful but the true bulldog would be lost if people just said gamebred dogs are only good for fighting and nothing else. I don't believe a dog has to be dead game to be called gamebred. Proven game is one thing. But this is just my take on it. stick around.


----------



## Indica (Sep 23, 2008)

Yeah, you guys are right. I did set myself up for that one, and it didn't come out exactly how I meant. :\ 

I absolutely do not condone breeding for appearance alone, even if it got twisted that way.


----------

