What's new
Mastiff Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Welcome back!

    We decided to spruce things up and fix some things under the hood. If you notice any issues, feel free to contact us as we're sure there are a few things here or there that we might have missed in our upgrade.

Thread for ''other'' mastiff types

Bolushi

Well-Known Member
There are a few other ''underground'' types, they should have somewhere to post them. E.g. the O'Halloran Hounds and Bullwolfhounds of Australia, the Alano Espanols of Spain etc. etc.
 

glen

Super Moderator
Staff member
There are a few other ''underground'' types, they should have somewhere to post them. E.g. the O'Halloran Hounds and Bullwolfhounds of Australia, the Alano Espanols of Spain etc. etc.
Going to look into these breeds. I like to learn and see new breeds iv not heard of.
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
The first two are crosses, no? Hunting dogs? Not of personal interest to me and I don't honestly think that we have enough membership interested in them that it would be beneficial to the forum to have separate sub-forums. It would seem that interest in those crosses would also indicate interest in certain types of hunting and there are plenty of places for that already. I know you have your own forum for that kind of thing. My honest opinion is that I'd rather not see our forum move in that direction. Just my opinion.
 

Bolushi

Well-Known Member
The first two are crosses, no? Hunting dogs? Not of personal interest to me and I don't honestly think that we have enough membership interested in them that it would be beneficial to the forum to have separate sub-forums. It would seem that interest in those crosses would also indicate interest in certain types of hunting and there are plenty of places for that already. I know you have your own forum for that kind of thing. My honest opinion is that I'd rather not see our forum move in that direction. Just my opinion.
All of the ''mastiff'' breeds (tibetan mastiffs and lgds aren't mastiffs) are hunting/fighting dogs. The name itself derives from a latin word that meant to make a wild beast tame. Dogos in particular, are only hunting dogs. They are nothing more nothing less. So it is slightly contradictory. Does it need to be recognized with at least 95% of them gutless and oversized? Oh, okay, then add St. Bernards please. (they are mastiffs)
I have no idea why you are paying attention to my examples, they are entirely irrelevant. Could've been the cordoba fighting dog or st. hitler's marooned sandhound or whatever.
 

Bolushi

Well-Known Member
Going to look into these breeds. I like to learn and see new breeds iv not heard of.
They're basically the working equivalent of english mastiffs and great danes/bully kuttas (the great dane marooned in pakistan)
O'Halloran Hounds:
1674821073660.png
1674821085160.jpeg
Bullwolfhounds:
1674821118168.jpeg
1674821189879.png
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
All of the ''mastiff'' breeds (tibetan mastiffs and lgds aren't mastiffs) are hunting/fighting dogs. The name itself derives from a latin word that meant to make a wild beast tame. Dogos in particular, are only hunting dogs. They are nothing more nothing less. So it is slightly contradictory. Does it need to be recognized with at least 95% of them gutless and oversized? Oh, okay, then add St. Bernards please. (they are mastiffs)
I have no idea why you are paying attention to my examples, they are entirely irrelevant. Could've been the cordoba fighting dog or st. hitler's marooned sandhound or whatever.
Not debating the purpose of the breeds. I am paying attention to two of your examples in particular as they appear to be fairly new crosses and I don't think it's logical to have individual sub-forums for the multitude of possible crosses. No matter what name someone gives it, until a particular mix has 30-50 generations (generally speaking) and breeds true they aren't considered a breed. They're considered a cross. This is a whole new discussion in and of itself.
 

Bolushi

Well-Known Member
Not debating the purpose of the breeds. I am paying attention to two of your examples in particular as they appear to be fairly new crosses and I don't think it's logical to have individual sub-forums for the multitude of possible crosses. No matter what name someone gives it, until a particular mix has 30-50 generations (generally speaking) and breeds true they aren't considered a breed. They're considered a cross. This is a whole new discussion in and of itself.
They've been around since the 1970s... none of your dogs listed here are breeds at all. Half are mongrel bulldogs, half are bulldog x sighthound hybrids and the other is a mongrel landrace. They're no more valid than anything else, even ''bullzons'' would be valid and they're not even a ''breed'' for those standards.
I said ''other'', literally an ''other'' thread. Hence why the examples don't matter.
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
They've been around since the 1970s... none of your dogs listed here are breeds at all. Half are mongrel bulldogs, half are bulldog x sighthound hybrids and the other is a mongrel landrace. They're no more valid than anything else, even ''bullzons'' would be valid and they're not even a ''breed'' for those standards.
I said ''other'', literally an ''other'' thread. Hence why the examples don't matteThey are recognized as breeds because over many generations certain traits and qualities have been repeated so that the dogs breed true.
Okay, how about they're not purebreds. It's pretty clear from the images posted above of Halloran Hounds, although impressive dogs, that they do not breed true to type. Any mix can have a snappy name and be considered a breed. Look how long doodles have been around and they're still not a recognized breed - a recognized purebred dog. I have absolutely nothing against any of the dogs you've posted or any mixed breed dog, but they are mixes with a fancy name until they breed true to type and temperament. Take Lurchers as an example. They've been around for ages and they're still not considered a breed (purebred) but a type achieved from crossing a sighthound with some other working dog. Just saying that by definition the Halloran Hound and Bullwolfhound are mixed breeds and not recognized breeds.

From The Institute of Canine Bilogy

Mary Starling

1. From a breeder's perspective:

A breed is a group of dogs from known lineage of similar dogs, with an agreed set of physical and behavioural attributes which (preferably) breed 'true' ie reliably replicate these characteristics in their progeny

2. From a geneticist's perspective:

A breed is a group of dogs with defined characteristics which exist in a closed gene pool. The founders may have been the same landrace breed or a mix of different breeds giving rise to the dog bred today.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


“Breeds are consistent and predictable genetic entities. The status of breeds as genetic resources is a consequence of the fact that breeds, breed true.”

(Sponenberg & Bixby, 2007. Managing Breeds For A Secure Future, Strategies For breeders and Breed Associations.

The American Livestock Breeds Conservatory Pittsboro, North Carolina).


“A breed is a group of animals that is consistent enough in type to be logically grouped together, and that when mated within the group reproduces the same type.”
(Clutton-Brock, Juliet. 1987. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals.London,

Cambridge University Press and Britsih Museum of Natural History).



__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
Any mix can have a snappy name and be considered a breed. - Let me clarify what I meant. Any mix can have a snappy name and be CALLED a breed. That doesn't make it so by definition.
 

Bolushi

Well-Known Member
''A breed is a group of animals that is consistent enough in type to be logically grouped together, and that when mated within the group reproduces the same type.”
Those who understand dogs can fairly easily draw the conclusion that this renders many breeds the exact same. Dogos and Bull Arabs, Great Danes and English Mastiffs, English greyhounds and staghounds, Galgo Patagonicos and Irish Wolfhounds etc. etc.
I can put them all side by side (I can make the image), tell you to decipher each one from the other and you wouldn't be able. So that means they can logically be grouped together. (They can, BTW)
By the way O'Halloran Hounds pass the breed test per your standards, Bullwolfhounds not really because they can come in wildly different shapes and sizes.
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
That page is one person - named O'Halloran, I assume - that appears to breed his dogs for a certain type. That doesn't make it a "breed." It appears other people that breed those dogs have results that don't necessarily look the same. Like the images you posted. From what I see the O'Halloran Hound is whatever the person breeding wants to put together to achieve the result they HOPE to get. Most often Dane x Mastiff of some sort. The classification of breed just doesn't fit here as it's generally used.

Before I come off sounding like a breed snob, I'm not. I love all dogs and had mixed breeds my entire childhood. Some of the best dogs ever. I've also worked rescue for all kinds of dogs, regardless of breed and will undoubtedly have a mix of some sort again. This forum has always welcomed members with mixed breeds to post about them in our forums. We have a returning member that has a Dane cross and she's posting in the Dane forum. As she should. Lots of members have Corso mixes. I just don't think it's logical to add sub-forums for every mix.
 

Bolushi

Well-Known Member
That page is one person - named O'Halloran, I assume - that appears to breed his dogs for a certain type. That doesn't make it a "breed." It appears other people that breed those dogs have results that don't necessarily look the same. Like the images you posted. From what I see the O'Halloran Hound is whatever the person breeding wants to put together to achieve the result they HOPE to get. Most often Dane x Mastiff of some sort. The classification of breed just doesn't fit here as it's generally used.

Before I come off sounding like a breed snob, I'm not. I love all dogs and had mixed breeds my entire childhood. Some of the best dogs ever. I've also worked rescue for all kinds of dogs, regardless of breed and will undoubtedly have a mix of some sort again. This forum has always welcomed members with mixed breeds to post about them in our forums. We have a returning member that has a Dane cross and she's posting in the Dane forum. As she should. Lots of members have Corso mixes. I just don't think it's logical to add sub-forums for every mix.
I don't think it's logical either, hence why I am not here saying ''hey! we should have VARIETY and add nq bullhounds bull arabs bullwolfhounds ohalloran hounds dogals and galgo patagonicos!!!'' I thought I already made that clear.
I am saying a subforum named ''Other Mastiffs'' for those kinds of things.
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's logical either, hence why I am not here saying ''hey! we should have VARIETY and add nq bullhounds bull arabs bullwolfhounds ohalloran hounds dogals and galgo patagonicos!!!'' I thought I already made that clear.
I am saying a subforum named ''Other Mastiffs'' for those kinds of things.
👍
 

peacefulchaos

New Member
Okay, how about they're not purebreds. It's pretty clear from the images posted above of Halloran Hounds, although impressive dogs, that they do not breed true to type. Any mix can have a snappy name and be considered a breed. Look how long doodles have been around and they're still not a recognized breed - a recognized purebred dog. I have absolutely nothing against any of the dogs you've posted or any mixed breed dog, but they are mixes with a fancy name until they breed true to type and temperament. Take Lurchers as an example. They've been around for ages and they're still not considered a breed (purebred) but a type achieved from crossing a sighthound with some other working dog. Just saying that by definition the Halloran Hound and Bullwolfhound are mixed breeds and not recognized breeds.

From The Institute of Canine Bilogy

Mary Starling

1. From a breeder's perspective:

A breed is a group of dogs from known lineage of similar dogs, with an agreed set of physical and behavioural attributes which (preferably) breed 'true' ie reliably replicate these characteristics in their progeny

2. From a geneticist's perspective:

A breed is a group of dogs with defined characteristics which exist in a closed gene pool. The founders may have been the same landrace breed or a mix of different breeds giving rise to the dog bred today.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


“Breeds are consistent and predictable genetic entities. The status of breeds as genetic resources is a consequence of the fact that breeds, breed true.”

(Sponenberg & Bixby, 2007. Managing Breeds For A Secure Future, Strategies For breeders and Breed Associations.

The American Livestock Breeds Conservatory Pittsboro, North Carolina).


“A breed is a group of animals that is consistent enough in type to be logically grouped together, and that when mated within the group reproduces the same type.”
(Clutton-Brock, Juliet. 1987. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals.London,

Cambridge University Press and Britsih Museum of Natural History).



__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With the definition you shared I've always wondered.How are lets say, American bulldogs considered a breed? Johnson and Scotts look completely different. Or then the whole xl bullys,bullys and those extreme ones. That have like 5 inch legs, a basketball size head and huge bodies? How do they all come papered or get a clear on a DNA test