Bandogs vs (insert breed Here)

The Broad Mouthed Dog

I’m frequently asked what is the difference between our dogs, and other more established, or registerable “Kennel Club” Breeds. My answer is simple, but requires a thorough understanding of how these “types” came to be in the first place.

“Pure breeds of dogs are a relatively new phenomena within the dog world - with the late 19th century mostly seeing various breed types becoming stabilized into discernible races from their mixed origin. The pursuit of pure breeding became accepted practice once exhibiting dogs attracted public support. In earlier times, dogs were rarely kept for entirely ornamental purposes, it was their functional usefulness to man that made them highly valued and widely traded. To trace breed types and their evolution, we need to both identify function and follow the movement of tribes through recorded history. Even 2000 years ago, in many parts of the world, the success of the hunting dogs was, for their human owners, the difference between eating or starving. Powerful heavy hounds were invaluable in time when, before the invention of firearms, man needed to catch and kill big game. What is unbroken is their role. Primitive hunters relied on such dogs all over the inhabited world - where these broad mouth dogs arguably had no single ancestor - but rather a type to be treasured. (Hancock)

As a broad mouthed breed, each mastiff breed type belongs to a brave and distinguished group of dogs, praised for their instinct to seize and hold quarry, and valued by man for ages. Man was a hunter before he was a farmer and powerful hunting dogs were the difference between living and dying before the invention of firearms. It was at the kill, when big game such as bison or boar when a dog of determination, reckless courage, and immense neck and jaw strength was necessary. This invaluable instinct can quickly be isolated from others in big powerful dogs such as the arguably just as talented flock guardian types (shepherd’s mastiffs) with the instinct to identify with livestock and protect them from predators. These are not broad mouthed mastiff breeds with the instinct to seize and hold; as they would make highly unsatisfactory flock guardians if they were - but rather they have the wherewithal to intimidate rather than pursue at the expense of leaving the flock vulnerable to attack; with the heart to physically engage and see off a threat only when necessary. ” (Hancock)

“99% of the time in which man and dog have coexisted, man has developed dog for function; purity of breeding was never the major criterion as it is now. Every breed that evolved from the broad-mouthed or mastiff-type dogs developed for a prescribed purpose and from this purpose comes breed type and the breed design or standard. Each mastiff breed must have a Breed Standard that reflects and respects their time honored role. When a breed loses its historic role, then the future of that breed is threatened - arguably becoming less healthy, virile and versatile as a consequence. Breeders of the mastiff breeds must produce dogs capable of carrying out their historic roles, even if they are not required to do so. The breed history gave us the breed; the breed history must be our guide in perpetuating the breed. What alternative path can we follow?” (Hancock)

Established Breed types

“The Bandog philosophy of breeding has existed just about as long as domestic dogs themselves. Mankind developed fleet, nimble hunting dogs that fulfill the purposes of the hunter-gatherers, through to the large breeds that guard settlements and livestock. The progression toward breeding these heavier dogs to the smaller, more athletic dogs producing a medium type has been a natural process that has independently occurred across several geographic regions. The resultant dogs proving to be more flexible across a greater variety of tasks.” - Dan Bladerson and Stelios Sdrolias

When it comes to what a Bandog is, in my opinion - look towards the “pure bred or rare breeds”. The term “Bandog” has become more of a catch all phrase, encompassing more of the Mastiff blend/types of dogs than most people typically consider." (Aaron Davis) They are all essentially bandog types with a “purebred label” put to them. The natural evolution of the bandogs of old which could be considered is the Victorian iteration referred to to as the “Game keeper’s Night Dog” - a progenitor of the Bull Mastiff. A modern day 60:40 blend of bulldog x mastiff, the British “Gamekeepers” had a well documented approach and application of these Bandogs, requiring a patrol companion and “dispatch dog”, employed to located and fight armed “poachers” during the 18th century.

Thorneywood’s Terror, bred and owned by W. Burton of Nottingham drew great fame and notoriety to Terror’s name by traveling throughout England and hosting gamekeeper trials with open challenges: those who wished to challenge Terror were given a long head start and terror was released from his steel-cage to pursue and subdue the challenger. Despite weighing in at only 90lbs (small by modern standards for mastiff types), Terror was extremely athletic, moving so fast that he was often no more than a “blur of brindle” to the poor souls who wished to challenge him.

“It should fear no an or group of men, no matter how sinister their intention…Once engaged with its tormentor it should grip like a vice and fight like a lion and never relinquish its hold of its own accord, even if it comes to serious mischief and takes its death. In my charge he should be obedient and faithful. In my home or in his kennel he should be quiet and good tempered. There is no better or hardier dog than a good nightdog” - W. Burton

Outside of the UK, serviceable Bandog Types could be considered to include the Dogo Argentino, Presa/Dogo Canario, Cane Corso/Cane de Presa, South African Boerboel, Ca de Bou, Alano Espanol amongst others. They were all nothing more than utilitarian types bred for specific duties. The only criteria behind a breeding was based on their ability to complete a job. To think this practical breeding philosophy never incorporated outside breeds, different land races or types which reflected the needs of farmers, hunters, game keepers, poachers, and slave catchers is not only willfully ignorant of breed origins, but of geopolitical history.

The discernable eye can just look towards the distinct variation and phenotypical differences within many of these established breeds and recognize both lighter and heavier types, varying coat length and textures, tail length and shape, presence of rear dewclaws, and head type amongst others within these highly celebrated “Pedigreed” dogs. The lack of consistency (for now) is a reflection of their strong utilitarian heritage - not the highly profitable and politicized show ring.

When we revere the pressures which made the dogs - we recognize bandog types aren’t as uncommon as they appear.

John Swinford DVM - and the “American Bandog”

No Bandog enthusiast can overlook the development of the “American Bandog” beginning in the late 1960s, without referencing pioneer John Bayard Swinford - a cult figure with an almost mythic status among performance mastiff enthusiasts. A Long Island Veterinarian, Swinford was consumed with a singular obsession - recreating the working mastiff of old. His goal was to create a “dog fearing nothing”, by utilizing the best working caliber specimens which processed the temperament and ability to be termed “Bandogge”.

Eventually working closely with fellow bandog enthusiast Martin J. Lieberman, the duo began crossing the American Pit Bull Terrier, with an English Mastiff. By crossing this study English Mastiff bitch Octavia, to a game proven box American Pit Bull Terrier - Bobtail Buddy (a 1xw or 2xw dog), Swinford believed he could improve upon the Mastiff’s latent and dulled drives, enhancing athletic ability, endurance and will to work. His theory on whether this made a premiere working dog was tested when his Bantu was matched with a Rottweiler brought in from Puerto Rico with a resume that included many a dead dog in the islands and a penchant for unrestrained violence.

Bantu was on of the best known Swinford dogs, although two Bantus existed. The first died in a car accident; (Bantu 2 came off of Jack Kelly’s APBT Bobtail Buddy & Swinford’s English Mastiff Octavia). Bantu 2 rose to critical acclaim after an article published in Sporting Dog Journal, July-August 1972, and was subsequently mentioned in Carl Semenic’s first book “The World of Fighting Dogs”. Publications widely described the Swinford breeding program by celebrating a match where Bantu cur’d the Rottweiler in a matter of minutes, humbling his opponent to the point where the Rottweiler could no longer face Bantu, instead actively cowering while Bantu was still scratching to get back into the fray like a gamedog.

Notable APBT personality, Jack Kelly had this to say about Swinford and Bantu in an article published in the old Sporting Dog Journal:

“…he (Swinford) did roll them and several of them were tough hard fighters. The dog on the cover (Bantu) with him (Swinford) is one of the first that John bred. He weighted 127lbs. and would fight like any pit dog…”

During the 70’s Swinford’s breeding efforts began to pick up steam, the duo found it difficult sourcing suitable English Mastiffs, were subsequently introduced to an Italian immigrant Luigi Forina of Brooklyn New York. Forina had excellent examples of the working mastino - or as referred in the US at the time, the Italian Bull Dog. They admired the original look, instinctual distrust, and great devotion, while adding much needed diversity into Swinford’s bloodline. They were not without flaws however - sexual dimorphism in head size, weak teeth, and less than ideal muzzle length inhibited their endurance and bite. Forina’s Mastino stud was bred to Bantu 2’s littermate sisters - who Lieberman describes as “a 240lb behemoth but not a fat dog” who produced a number of dogs which exemplified the type and standard that Swinford was after:

Extremely athletic and supremely confident. Exceptionally stable while being vividly formidable. Dark in color and standing at 25 inches at the whither with weights that never exceeded the 100lb mark. Strong drives with great natural guardian instincts. Loving and docile with family and the animals of their master’s home but aloof and ferocious with anything they deemed a threat. All in all, the hallmark representation of a well-rounded estate guardian that could double as a protection dog when called upon. The effect showed immediately, for the first generation was far superior to the parents. Their aim was simple - improve movement, nerves and increase gameness.

After Swinford’s untimely death at the age of 37 in October of 1971, Lieberman continued the breeding program well into the 70’s to the tune of 6 successive generations with the help of the Grimms family, associates of John Swinford who didn’t quite obtain the same notoriety. It is rumored that they were never truly happy with the Swinford dogs; and combined the American Bulldog within the existing Swinford Program (Zwettler, 2019). Lieberman eventually chose to discontinue with the breeding of the Swinford Bandog - disgusted with the type of characters the dogs were attracting. Describing the clients approaching him for dogs as “the cockroaches coming out of every nook and cranny…and most were not noble in purpose”. Lieberman allowed the Swinford bred dogs to slowly phase out as the 70’s wore on. However, Swinford’s legacy and impact can still be felt today with the renewed interest in performance mastiff hybrids among working dog enthusiasts around the world.

Whether you you choose to call them “bandogs” or “bandogges”, the fact remains that the term, even throughout history, was a title earned more so than a reference to a specific breed of dog.

Bandogs/bandogges were mastiff type dogs but not every mastiff type dog was a bandog.

Selection Pressure

So back to our original question. What’s the difference between our “Bandogs” and “insert breed here” - it’s simple.

Selection pressure and versatility.

One of the oldest standards which governed the “Bandog” was the chaining of the dog during the day, and the releasing of the dog at night protect the estate. It required a dog who was fearless, and would risk its life to protect both property and family. This historic context naturally entails close quarters combat, sentry/property protection, and catch work; all while being gentle, loving, biddable and predictable with family. This not only required a dog of the appropriate temperament, but one with the innate desire to do work for/with, and serve its handler. It is the affinity for receiving direction, it is the desire to “work” and complete the job which you ask of the dog - that is celebrated within the breed type. They must be versatile enough to complete whatever is asked of them.

Modernization has influenced societal needs, and as such, values have changed. “Rare and exotic” types who at one time were capable working breeds, attain new found mainstream attention, and are bred more so along aesthetics rather than traditional performance measures, and for good reason.

• Everyone doesn’t have a need for a highly confrontational dog

• Everyone doesn’t have a need for a dog with a strong distrust of strangers

• Everyone doesn’t have a need for a highly prey driven dog with low stimulus thresholds

• Everyone doesn’t have a need for a dog with immense pain tolerance

• Everyone doesn’t have a need for high civil aggression in their dog

These very traits, which celebrated a dogs ability to guard, fight, protect, and safeguard the livelihoods of the families past - can be considered a liability for families/individuals of the present. These very traits which made them highly capable working animals - with the ingrained desire for a job - have slowly begun to be phased out. As a result, breed versatility must inevitably be questioned. As pedigrees are built - direct ancestors proven in working arenas are pushed further down the family tree. As modern society’s needs have changed; inevitably so have the dogs.

What’s lost is the propensity for work, and the versatility which is required. This is where the “working bandog” shines. Its modern day selection pressure is different - paying homage to the traditional performance measures which perpetuate highly capable dogs with an affinity towards completing a job. This is not me saying that all working purebred breeders do not adequately test and work their stock. This is me saying that popularity as a whole has changed the selection pressure placed on most breed types to perpetuate a look over an ability (Show without Go)

When you stop placing emphasis on a “breed” and more on ability - you’ll begin to recognize they were all (in theory) once deserving of the term “Bandog”. You cannot compare a Pedigree to Performance. The only “comparison” that can justify a pedigreed dog is through competition. A pedigreed dog without the ability to perform the tasks it was once responsible for - is an insult to the breed itself.

The working bandog has never been about perpetuating a look. It has always been about perpetuating strength in ability. No one routinely questions the dog’s aesthetic - they question the performance standard which governed the dog’s breeding; and ultimately - to some people, that’s all that matters. When asked by non working dog enthusiasts why I breed, my response is simple. “While some people attribute value to how a car looks, others care more about what lies under the hood.”

we breed better. savantk9