A Question about "Game"

This is where to talk about Pit Bulls!

Postby mnp13 » April 12th, 2006, 1:48 pm

On that note, Ruby and Connor actually herded some errant heifers last summer and Connor had no fear facing down a few of the cows. He didn't grip them, but he probably would have. :rolleyes2:

I know that someone else here has had one of his dogs work a bull (on the request of the local authorities)
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby mydawgs » April 12th, 2006, 1:49 pm

mnp13 wrote:
mydawgs wrote:I may be wrong but from what I read, bull baiting actually had a functional purpose as well.....the meat from the bull was eatin after the dogs were set on them to make the meat more tender....just something I read


That was the excuse used anyway, but by all accounts, meat infused with adrelaline is pertty bad tasting.
The source for bull baiting was the dogs who kept farmers and butchers safe from aggressive bulls. Then the contests developed from that.



LOL..........
mydawgs
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 41
Location: Southern NJ

Postby mnp13 » April 12th, 2006, 1:50 pm

That's why meat from a downed cow is considered unfit for human consumption - because even if a cow is downed because of an injury the meat is pretty much ruined because of the body's reaction to pain.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby mydawgs » April 12th, 2006, 2:02 pm

mnp13 wrote:That's why meat from a downed cow is considered unfit for human consumption - because even if a cow is downed because of an injury the meat is pretty much ruined because of the body's reaction to pain.


Wow, that is pretty interesting...I love it when I learn something new :P
mydawgs
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 41
Location: Southern NJ

Postby mydawgs » April 12th, 2006, 2:03 pm

mnp13 wrote:On that note, Ruby and Connor actually herded some errant heifers last summer and Connor had no fear facing down a few of the cows. He didn't grip them, but he probably would have. :rolleyes2:

I know that someone else here has had one of his dogs work a bull (on the request of the local authorities)


I believe I know that person as well.......hee hee
mydawgs
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 41
Location: Southern NJ

Postby mnp13 » April 12th, 2006, 2:04 pm

mydawgs wrote:
mnp13 wrote:That's why meat from a downed cow is considered unfit for human consumption - because even if a cow is downed because of an injury the meat is pretty much ruined because of the body's reaction to pain.


Wow, that is pretty interesting...I love it when I learn something new :P


I was part of an organic farm group for a few years. I learned all sorts of interesting stuff. Downed cows can't even be processed with the regualr cows. The farmers can have the meat if they want, but they don't usually take it. I have about 100 pounds of it for the dogs.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby dogcrazyjen » April 12th, 2006, 2:10 pm

That is why you cannot eat meat from a hit deer-the meat is horrible. Again, the dogs do not seem to care, though.

I always thought gameness was the willingness to engage in tough activities-fighting, PP work, weightpull, sledwork, hunting, that the dog would jump in without hesitation and continue without fail. I can see that being a plus for pitbulls. However, if gameness can only be defined as fighting attitude, no thank you.
dogcrazyjen
Devoutly Bully
 
Posts: 922
Location: FingerLakes NY

Postby mydawgs » April 12th, 2006, 2:35 pm

dogcrazyjen wrote:That is why you cannot eat meat from a hit deer-the meat is horrible. Again, the dogs do not seem to care, though.

I always thought gameness was the willingness to engage in tough activities-fighting, PP work, weightpull, sledwork, hunting, that the dog would jump in without hesitation and continue without fail. I can see that being a plus for pitbulls. However, if gameness can only be defined as fighting attitude, no thank you.


Game is not a willingness TO ENGAGE, game is a determination to FOLLOW THROUGH. Please don't confuse "gameness" with fighting, fighting was just a means to measure a dogs "gameness".......

Chris Fraize has an amazing dog called Rumble, the most beautiful red pit bull I have seen in a while.........everytime I see him with that dog I see a determination to please Chris, with attention to the slightest detail....the dog is DETERMINED and from what I see FOLLOWS through. Is this a test comparable to a pit fight.....NO, but it is a test all the same and a pit fight was just a TEST ------------------ I wish folks would stop confusing "game" with dog fighting, one is a characteristic of our breed of dog and the other is an activity.................
mydawgs
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 41
Location: Southern NJ

Postby mnp13 » April 12th, 2006, 4:24 pm

mydawgs wrote:I wish folks would stop confusing "game" with dog fighting, one is a characteristic of our breed of dog and the other is an activity.................


:goodStuff:
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby Mind_doc » April 12th, 2006, 5:25 pm

I am glad I posted this question. This has been a learnig experience and
I am staring to get it straight in my mind.
{Still thinking out load}
It seems that the game trait is not an ALL or NOTHING quality like the
"dog-men" would believe. ~~~~~~>Breed the dogs with game, kill the dogs without.
It seems to me that gameness is on a continuum and dogs can be
low, medium, high, or off the chart on that trait. I like Carla's explanation of "balance" with too little or not enough game being less optimal for survival. Maybe that explains why its so difficult to get an
(extreme) game dog; because too much reflects "off-ballance" and would
naturally be less common, even if it was selectivly sought out by breeders.
User avatar
Mind_doc
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 71
Location: North Carolina

Postby mnp13 » April 12th, 2006, 5:35 pm

I don't think there are 'levels' of gameness. The dog is, or it isn't.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby Carla » April 12th, 2006, 6:42 pm

Mind_doc wrote: I like Carla's explanation of "balance" with too little or not enough game being less optimal for survival. Maybe that explains why its so difficult to get an
(extreme) game dog; because too much reflects "off-ballance" and would
naturally be less common, even if it was selectivly sought out by breeders.


Actually, it's the other way around. Too MUCH gameness would be less optimal for survival in the wild; therefore I don't think this trait, genetically speaking, was ever "abundant".

Remember, when I am talking about drives being "in balance", I am talking about wild canids. They all have just enough of each drive that is optimal for survival. The gameness "drive", in my mind anyway, does not seem to have much value for survival, because it often involves injury or death IF there is TOO MUCH gameness.

In domestic dogs, they all also have these drives, but in dogs, they are not balanced for SURVIVAL. They are exaggerated, reduced, eliminated - all for MAN's purposes and MAN determines whether the dog survives, not the environment (wild).

Through selective breeding, you can isolate any drive and exaggerate it; and this is what has been done with gameness. I believe gameness is hard to get and maintain because it is biologically and evolutionarily a drive that was not needed to any great degree to SURVIVE in the wild. Chasing, stalking, tracking are all very necessary to survival, therefore THOSE characteristics are easier to select for, exaggerate and maintain in a type of dog. Genetically-speaking, I don't think there is a lot there to begin with when it comes to whatever gameness is. Man CAN select for it, and concentrate what IS there,but what is there genetically in the first place is not a whole lot. It's not really a matter of balance, because man really doesn't do any balancing for survival when he breeds; man balances things for HIS purposes and HE determines survival, which is not the same as surviving in the wild (or on the streets, or around garbage dumps, etc).

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby Mind_doc » April 12th, 2006, 8:21 pm

So I WAS on to something when I questioned if "gameness" was a genetic fault?
User avatar
Mind_doc
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 71
Location: North Carolina

Postby Carla » April 12th, 2006, 9:18 pm

Mind_doc wrote:So I WAS on to something when I questioned if "gameness" was a genetic fault?


Well, I suppose too much gameness would be considered a "fault" in the wild, in that it would not better the animal's chances of survival.

It would not be a fault in the APBT, because man developed it for a certain PURPOSE that HE controls.

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby dogcrazyjen » April 13th, 2006, 9:37 am

I have heard gameness in other places being described as fighting instinct. There is not a dictionary term for gameness in the dog world. I personally LIKE your definition better, but it is not the only one, and nothing really makes one more correct over the other.

Usually gameness is describing a dog which never gives up, even to the death.

I have heard people describe gameness as willingness to engage, in fact I have talked to terrier people who have shown in conformation where the judge asked them to face two dogs off to determine gameness levels. So apparently there are many definitions, including the ability to engage, the inability to stop, and many in between.

This 'fight to the death' gameness trait is an artificial human invention which has nothing to do with natural evolution. In the wild, these fights rarely if ever happen, because most issues are solved without the use of force, or minimal use of force. Humans took away these dog's ability to do this by artificially controlling breeding and environment. The pit dogs are there to fight, and that is it.

Gameness as a trait was invented because of fighting. Why would anyone NOT think of fighting when talking about gameness?

The Iditerod dogs were not called game, although they were dedicated to their task in the face of great obsticles and possible death. They fit the definition of game, but it is not a trait given them.

Chris' dogs are very inpressive, but they are not in any danger or real pain, and they know this. So you cannot really assume they are game by the old 'fight to the death' definition, but you could assume they are game by the above 'terrier willingness to engage' definition.

Muddy waters, man, mudy waters.
dogcrazyjen
Devoutly Bully
 
Posts: 922
Location: FingerLakes NY

Postby mydawgs » April 13th, 2006, 11:43 am

Jen

You could not be any more wrong, and it is this misperception that is separating our community. Read this:

What exactly is "gameness"?
[The following is an exchange that occured on bulldog-l between
Scott Bradwell and Wilf LeBlanc. The passages offset with ">"'s
are questions posed by Wilf.]

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/dogs-faq/breeds/apbt/part2/


I have heard gameness in other places being described as fighting instinct.



There is not a dictionary term for gameness in the dog world. I personally LIKE your definition better, but it is not the only one, and nothing really makes one more correct over the other.

Usually gameness is describing a dog which never gives up, even to the death.



ABSOLUTELY WRONG........game in a dog describes that animals determination at his GAME, a blood hound could be very GAME at seeking its target even through dangerous conditions. I personally believe a Pit Bull has game and may never give up at it's chosen task....why we are so determined to associate game with a pit fight is a choice to put a negative connotation on game then we can point the finger at the "would be " dog fighters, it should not be that way.


This 'fight to the death' gameness trait is an artificial human invention which has nothing to do with natural evolution. In the wild, these fights rarely if ever happen, because most issues are solved without the use of force, or minimal use of force. Humans took away these dog's ability to do this by artificially controlling breeding and environment. The pit dogs are there to fight, and that is it.

Gameness as a trait was invented because of fighting. Why would anyone NOT think of fighting when talking about gameness?


Please send proof of this allagation...dog fighters invented the term game....laughable, game is a term that has been associated with sporting dogs for centuries, again a twist of history created to build barriers...why, I don't approve of dog fighting either, but there are plenty of practices in the dog arena I don't like....why tear down our ability to come together when we need to come together, and use a WORD to do it.

The Iditerod dogs were not called game, although they were dedicated to their task in the face of great obsticles and possible death. They fit the definition of game, but it is not a trait given them.

I hope once you read the attached link and then perhaps you can see another perspective.

Chris' dogs are very inpressive, but they are not in any danger or real pain, and they know this. So you cannot really assume they are game by the old 'fight to the death' definition, but you could assume they are game by the above 'terrier willingness to engage' definition.

You have no idea of what Chris' dogs know or don't know, you are also humanizing them and assigning what you think to his dog, I would agree that Rumble sees Chris as his pack leader, and a pack looks to their leader for direction and protection, this based on the best THEORYS out there.

Muddy waters, man, mudy waters.


Only if we choose to perpetuate the muddy waters, why in this time of crises we would choose to do so is beyond me..............
mydawgs
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 41
Location: Southern NJ

Postby mnp13 » April 13th, 2006, 12:13 pm

:goodStuff:
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby mydawgs » April 13th, 2006, 12:22 pm

Let me add one more tid bit and then I will shut up, but dogcrazyjen PM Chris Fraize and ask him to enlighten you on how he was fortunate enough to obtain Rumble, if he chooses to disclose I will tell you....That is the kind of understanding, open minded thought that will ensure our dogs a future, again Chris Fraize leads by example.
mydawgs
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 41
Location: Southern NJ

Postby dogcrazyjen » April 13th, 2006, 2:43 pm

I really do not care much about gameness. To me is it a word fraught with misunderstanding. You have a side of it. As I said, I prefer your version. However, there are many dog people who feel otherwise. Just because yours feels better to me does not mean it is the only one.

Chris may have gotten his dog anywhere. I have no doubt as to the impressiveness of his story, everything about him is impressive. I am saying that according to the commonly held, by many bull and terrier people, definition of game-ie the willingness to continue [fighting] dispite overpowering odds and discomfort to the dog, there is no way he can prove it without hurting his dog. I do not see Chris doing that. Perhaps the dog comes with a story of being in that situation. Then he can know that his dog is that definition of game. If Chris is pack leader, which I am sure he is, then his dogs trust him to keep them safe from harm. One look at his videos tells me Chris' dogs are not afraid of the decoys. His own words tell me he would not work a fear biter, and looking at his dogs tell me he takes phenominal care of them.

The link you provided is a persons opinion on the subject, and even if it is a very well respected and expirienced person, it is still one person. Again, I like his definition, but it is not the only one.

I can see traits of gameness in a positive definition in many breeds used for their original purpose. However, what I meant by how can you not think of fighting, I mean 'game' as a term is infused in common culture with fighting. No matter how much we wish it were not so, it is, even if the reason is based on falsehoods. Semantics, we can pick whatever definition suits us. I wish gameness as a trait did not for many people equal fighting, but it does.

Again, I am not going to get in a pissing contest. I personally feel if the word game fell out of use completely we would be better off. I do not use it, I do not look for it. I do not think you are wrong in your version of game, and I am sure your history is correct. I am arguing that public perception of game equals fighting, and by using the term you are equating our dogs with the ability to fight to the death.

If that is not a concern, then carry on.
dogcrazyjen
Devoutly Bully
 
Posts: 922
Location: FingerLakes NY

Postby mydawgs » April 13th, 2006, 4:37 pm

I am arguing that public perception of game equals fighting, and by using the term you are equating our dogs with the ability to fight to the death.

I am relatively new to pit bulls, 5 years, game never meant fighting to me, probably because I have the most non-aggressive, loving and stable game bred pit. Maybe this means it takes a lot to "flip his switch", but I have never seen another dog do that to him.

My only point is it is our obligation as knowledgable, responsible pit owners to remove this negative view of game in a pit bull as it certainly is not associated with a fighting dog. Chris, with his knowledge, skill and understanding has successfully bridged the gap between this negative view of game and the true nature of the pit bull for many people, he has shown that a pit bull can do anything and that activity, be it PP, pulling or what ever is just a thing that a pit bull can accomplish by using the nature of the game characteristic...the determination to follow through no matter the surroundings. This is the message the general public needs to understand and then our dogs would be no different than any other breed that can be trained to task. To perpetuate this word in a negative light is destructive to the pit bull breeds, let all pit bull admirers come together and show the world our dogs are just that..dogs, and they can be trained to do or be anything any other breed of dog is capable of, then BSL would certainly be a non-issue.
mydawgs
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 41
Location: Southern NJ

PreviousNext

Return to Pit Bull Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]

cron