HGG Community Forums

What I can tell you is that she probably does not have a 97% wolf. Those are almost always some kind of shepherd spitz cross. Catahoulas are an old American breed, and pits are not an actual breed in the sense that they have an official studbook or defined breed standard.

Catahoulas, or catahoula leopard dogs, are the result of crosses between Native American dogs (most probably ancient breeds brought to the Americas already domesticated) and hound type dogs brought by Europeans. They are not a bully breed - they herd, track, and hunt. A well bred catahoula will not resemble a pit, nor will the temperament be similar. That said, it has become popular to cross the two and call them "American Catahoulas" or "Catahoula Bulldogs," and many of the dogs labeled Catahoula in shelters have some pit blood (As a general rule, crossbred dogs and dogs found in shelters are not "well bred").

Pits are "bully type" dog, not a breed. Bull terriers, mastiffs, and similar breeds are also "bully types." Pits were bred to fight. There's no arguing that, it's what a dog who exemplifies that type is inclined toward. Catahoulas can be protective, but should not have the same type of temperament (think of how dog breeds are organized at shows - herding group, toy group, hounds, etc). Catahoulas are a hound.

Despite this, there are many many dogs who do not exemplify that type - just like plenty of pet shepherds don't herd, and plenty of pet retrievers that are terrible at retrieving. Plenty of pits make great pets. The issue with not having a breed standard is that there is no way to calibrate the quality of a dog - be that temperament or physical health.

Dog colors are not tied to breed any more than horse colors are. The same gene that causes merle in Catahoulas causes merle in Australian Shepherds. Given that there is no AKC (or similar) studbook for pits, it's very unlikely that your friend knows the complete history of her dogs. Whatever pattern she's wondering about could have been hiding for any number of generations, much like overo patterns in several breeds of horse that go unnoticed until a particularly loud foal is born.

It's none of my business, but breeding dogs without exhaustive knowledge of the bloodline or a medical history is a dangerous game. Centuries have been dedicated to establishing recognized breeds with traits that breed true, so that each animal (hopefully) exemplifies the appearance and behaviors that they were bred for. My local shelter has at least 2/3 pits or pit crosses at any given time, so please make sure that carefully consider each variable if you decide to breed your dog.

Sorry. Vet jumping in here. People who brag about their "purebred pits" are the same people who brag about their "purebred spoodles" and people who love their "blue nose pits" are the same people who go out of their way to get rare colors in other breeds, like harlequin Great Danes or merled dachshunds or buy "teacup Pomeranians".

Certain people seem to assume the word "purebred" or "blue nose" or whatever is similar to attaching a luxury brand name to their pet. These are absolutely legitimate in breeds with stud books and well respected breeding facilities--it would be like me being able to say I have an American Pharoah thoroughbred in a few years. I imagine most of the players on here would instantly recognize that name as the name of the American triple crown winner, now retired to stud and with his first crop of foals expected in the spring. Having one of his sons or daughters would instantly denote a few things to people around me, at least one of them being I am probably fabulously wealthy because those babies are likely to be super expensive even if it turns out in 5 or 10 years that they can't run for 50 feet to save their lives....

A final note for all prospective pet parents out there is that when you pick rare colors or unusual sizes for your pet, especially when the breeder is pushing these as desirable (and probably charging you more for it!), you should assume that these animals have been specifically bred for this one characteristic, with no regard to the general health and temperament that is also being bred into the pup/kit/foal/calf/etc. They often are coming from puppy farm type facilities and are often sick by the time you bring them to see me for their first puppy check....sometimes with congenital conditions that cost thousands of dollars to treat, if they can be treated at all.

Everyone wants to believe their pet is special, but for those who are looking for a pet-as-status-symbol more than a companion....well, they always seem willing to be led into the belief that their pet is better "because the breeder said so" and because it was expensive.

Blue and red (to my knowledge, I know more about horse colors than dogs so this may be a bit simplified) are dilutions of black and brown/liver. Nose color is related to coat color, so a dilute dog will have a lighter colored nose. Blue dogs have blue noses and red dogs have red noses. If the nose color doesn't match then the dog's color isn't due to the dilution gene, meaning their puppies may not be that color.

The dilution gene is recessive in dogs, just like pearl is in the game - they need two copies to exhibit the trait. If you've ever seen a white German Shepherd or liver Doberman with "normal" colored parents, it's because both the sire and dam were silent carriers of a recessive gene for those colors.

My guess is that a "purebred blue/red nosed pit" is an animal that breeds true when crossed with one of the same color, i.e. another dog that is recessive for both traits. So (pretend the letter for black is B/b and dilute is D/d) hypothetically a "true" blue pit - or any breed for that matter - is BB dd and a red pit is bb dd. If a blue dog threw a crop out, then I guess it wouldn't qualify as a true breeding blue/red pit. The dog's nose is a simple way to identify the dilution gene and therefore whether or not their color will breed true.

Personally, I think it's silly. An animal should not be selected for or against because of color alone. The concept of these "purebred pits" seems to be based on an ignorance of or misunderstanding of coat color genetics. There is not a pit bull stud book and it is not a recognized breed. Focusing on color ignores conformation, temperment, and working ability, all of which are more pertinent criteria when selecting animals to include or exclude from a breeding program. The American Qarter Horse Association figured that out a few years ago and updated some archaic rules surrounding white spotted and cream horses, allowing a MUCH greater diversity that was both in line with a modern understanding of genetics and (consequently) more fair to breeders.


@cheers - I really appreciate your post and perspective on the topic. These are things that need to be discussed, and your opinions are backed with substantial experience and knowledge that lend credibility.

I know a ton of people who think that American Staffordshire Terriers are pitbulls. They aren't, but people think they are. That may be what she is trying to do.

All Staffies are pit bulls, but all pit bulls are not Staffies. That is my point. People who want to 'impress' you with their 'knowledge' and 'expertise' will try and tell you that their dog is registered, and convince you that "my pit bull is closer to a real Staffie than yours!". Pit bull has become a generic term that does not mean what you mean, Moon.

Confluence you just did a 180 on your statement. If all staffies are pitbulls then by definition and out of your own words, they ARE pitbulls.

Ripshin: Same with the LGD communities. No one cares if your pyrenees is pure bred or has a championship. If the dam or sire don't live with the herd/flock then no one cares. Working dogs come from working lines and farmers have no time for the AKC nonsense.

First you said "I know a lot of people who think staffies are pitbulls they arent but people think they are" and then you said "all staffies are pitbulls" so whatever your point is went totally over my head.

I do know what a pitbull is. A 'type' of dog. That a few different breeds and the crosses of those breeds fall under.

To summarize the below: pit bulls are a loose type that encompasses several breeds as well as many mixed dogs of unknown heritage.

My impression (influenced greatly by where I live and the dogs I see on the regular) is that there are general "types" of dogs, that may loosely coincide with breed classifications. Huskies, malamutes, and other northern breeds fall under "Spitz" and good representations of each breed will share certain traits in common, such as a thick double coat, independent temperament, and tendency to chase something that runs away from it and then forget how to get home. Herding dogs have been selectively bred to exhibit a prey drive that has been redirected moulded into a useful herding capability. Herding dogs come from all different continents and cultures that work very diverse types of livestock. A working sled dog or working cattle dog doesn't need to be AKC certified to do their job. Ideally (read: not always in practice) a papered individual would be garunteed to exhibit those traits. Obviously that's not always the case, but that kind of continuity is something we can dream about and certainly something to consider if you aspire to become a breeder. One thing I really like about the Catahoula studbook is that registered dogs have to be able to herd and track. They're keeping the breed true to its purpose and I respect that.

Bully breeds would include staffies, mastiffs, bull terriers, and the like. The issue I have with breeding pits is that I very rarely see a dog that shows any resemblance to one of those breed types. They don't have a "job" they're bred for (unless you include the unsavory practice of dog fighting). Although I'm sure that staffies, mastiffs, and bull terriers can be wonderful I sincerely doubt that they comprise the bulk of pits, especially those that end up in shelters. I would hazard to guess that the typical pit bull is several generations out from any purpose bred or imported dog from a known lineage. Without something to measure their usefulness against, there are serious inconsistencies in traits between dogs. These range from body size to facial structure, soundness, and temperament. The whole idea of a breed standard - registered animals or not - is consistency within that bloodline. I just don't see that. What I have seen is a loose type that has a reputation for being often unpredictable. No wonder!

Yeah, it's me. I never get things to come out the way I mean them to. :/ That, and it was 7:30 in the morning. Just ignore me!

The piebald was due to a genetic mutation. You are able to find pure AKC rottweilers with a genetic mutation which causes the melanin pigment in their genes to be underdeveloped -- thus causing the animal to appear white or light grey. As for pitbulls, catahoula was never bred into them. They all descended from the old world fighting dog, which is now extinct, without many other breeds bred into them -- a few they used were the breed previously mentioned, the bull terrier, the english bulldog (one of the foundation breeds), and possibly the bullmastiff. Pitbulls were originally bred for bull-baiting (hence the name "pit-bull" because they were being pitted against a bull) and this trait has long since been bred out of them. In today's time, the pit-bull (all breeds included) are ideally used as guard and companion dogs.

As for the breeder who became offended when she heard about the possible different colors, she was obviously already doubting your lines along with not having strong knowledge about genetic mutations within dogs or other animals. Brindle in horses, for instance, is not recognized by the studbook as a favorable color. Instead, it's considered to be like a chimera Labrador or panda shepherd -- unwanted by shows and undesirable by breeders -- because all are due to a genetic mutation which caused the genes to become confused on which color the animal should primarily be.