Breed History

A History of the American Rabbit Breed

By Nikki Manley, Pacific Director, BARNSC Club Historian

As beautiful as they are mysterious, the beginnings of the American rabbit are a confusing mix of rumor and assumption, with very few proven facts.

The Breed begins.

We do know that the American rabbit was developed and introduced by Lewis H. Salisbury of Pasadena, California. The breed was first shown in 1917 in Los Angeles. It was presented later that year to the National Breeders and Fanciers Association of America for acceptance, and its first breed Standard was published in March of 1918, presumably after several years of breeding. Salisbury was on the NBFAA Standards Committee for the variety, along with John Fehr and Charles Gibson.

There has been a lot of speculation as to what combination of breeds Salisbury used to create his American, which only initially came in the Slate Blue that the breed is best known for. There were a number of Blue breeds in existence at that time – the Blue Imperial, Vienna Blue, the English Beveren, the French Beveren, the blue variety of the Flemish Giant and the Blue Brabancon. Salisbury was very secretive with his exact mix, although he is known to have had a collaborator from the upper Midwest from whom he acquired stock.

There is good reason to speculate that the Vienna Blue was part of his breeding program. In his book “Breeding and Care of Rabbits for Exhibition and Market”, Fifth Edition, 1918, Charles S. Gibson specifically notes under the American Blue Rabbit standard, “(Formerly Called German Blue Vienna)”.  Apparently, Salisbury’s German Blue Vienna had been renamed to the American Rabbit due to the anti-German sentiment of the time.

But was the American really a newly created breed, or an import “refined” to American Standards? The 1918 book “Rabbit Culture and Standard” by W.F. Roth, MD and Charles T. Corman makes this claim on page 51:

The American is specifically mentioned in the section on Imports and is not recognized as an American-bred rabbit at all. In fact, it sits right above the Japanese (now known as the Harlequin), which is a breed of French origin. Were the authors confused based on the name change, or is there something here? The book was republished in subsequent years. If this was an error, why was there no attempt at correcting it?

If Salisbury created the breed, then where did the original name come from? Based on the widely accepted story that he created it; we can’t be sure of that any more than we can be sure of the supposed genetic concoction that Salisbury used to create the breed. Most likely, within the name is a hint of at least one of the breeds he used. Specifically, the conclusion I’ve come to is that Salisbury used an imported German line of the Blue Vienna. But is that all the breed really was, with some crosses to develop the characteristics he was after?  None of these breeds expressly meet the breed criteria of the day.

Richey’s Rabbit & Cavy Book, written by Isabel Richey in 1921 and published in Los Angeles, California, says this:

Is this still more speculation from rabbit aficionados who felt like they “knew” the Salisbury recipe? Without proof we can really only speculate.

The early years, and rise of American Popularity

Following its acceptance by the NBFAA, the American exploded in popularity. At the time, the American was the only rabbit breed to be termed a “mandolin shape”. This unique type coupled with the stunning, deep slate fur made it a standout. Lewis Salisbury spent 1918-1919 winning every contest and cup in which he entered his Americans. Several of his animals went undefeated, but none so much as his prize-winning buck “Pasadena Major”.

The early Standard which is laid out in Charles Gibson’s “Breeding and Care of Rabbits for Exhibition and Market”, Fifth Edition, 1918, lists both bucks and does as ten pounds at maturity, with ears five inches in length.   The Blue coat color, which was hailed as the darkest and most uniform across the Standard, was described as ideally “Free of any stray-colored hairs, with dense, soft, fine, silky texture.”

Salisbury was not on the 1919-1920 Standards Committee, but Charles Gibson and John Fehr were. Some interesting items to note from the 1920 National Breeders and Fancier’s Association Standard, was the size of the American. At a time when animals did not have an overall minimum weight per se, the Standard set an ideal for Bucks at nine pounds, with a DQ for under six pounds or over ten. The Does list an ideal at ten but a DQ under seven pounds or over eleven. The ear length also made a subtle change – rewriting the previous ideal of five inches to a small window of five to five and a quarter inches long.

The American was widely distributed across the country by the early-1920s. Based on classified ads that appeared in Rabbit Craft in August 1920 and October 1922, breeders were actively selling American Blues in California (listed as the “Salisbury” or “Pasadena” strain), Washington, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. At that time, Fairlawn Rabbitry in Lamont, IA were selling American Blues for $10 per pair, the equivalent of approximately $200 today. While that doesn’t sound like much considering the selling price of most Americans today, that was substantial for the times.

By this time the Commercial breeders had caught notice, and by 1923 the American was one of the top breeds used in California for both meat and fur production. This was due, in part, to their good growth rates. The Commercial growers expected a growth rate that achieved four pounds by eight weeks of age, which was easily done by the American rabbit with the grain heavy feeding programs of the day. Further emphasis was placed not only on the structure and mass of the American, but also the fur. 

Overall, the breed was being hailed as one the most “representative triple purpose breeds” in the US – food, fur and exhibition.

While the Blue was popular, Commercial growers began to turn their attention to some of the White varieties available in other breeds. The advantage of the white pelts was the ability to be dyed – a boon for the fur industry.

At that time, it’s not believed that the Red-Eyed White was a part of the American breed. Salisbury never advertised as having Whites, and if they had ever appeared in his lines, it was never mentioned. We aren’t sure who created the White variety of the American exactly, but the long running theory was that a White Flemish was crossed in to achieve it, sometime in around 1923. By 1925 the White Variety of the American was accepted into the Standard, and the American continued to grow in popularity.

It should be noted that advertisements of the time treated the American White as an entirely separate breed, specifically listing them under headings of “American Blue” or “American White”. I’m not exactly sure why that was when the other breeders were not being listed that way, but it’s an interesting thing to ponder. I also have found no indication that our founder, Lewis Salisbury, was involved in the breed after the arrival of the Whites. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means we haven’t come across it yet.

While we know of no breed club specifically for the American during these early days, around 1928 the American is listed as a part of the National Self-Colored Rabbit Club. We have no other information on this club at this time, and more research will need to be done.

1928 is notable for another reason, however. 1928 is the only year that the Black American appeared in the Standard of Perfection. If it was an American at all. Division amongst the Fanciers and the Fur breeders had led to a division amongst the original Association. As told to our recent group of researchers by ARBA Executive Director Eric Stewart, the old club and the new club didn’t agree on whether the Black variety should be included. The old club wanted it, but the new club did not. After 1928 it does not appear again.

Why would there be opposition to the Black, after already having the White approved just a few years previously?

This has been hotly debated between several of us serving as part of the Historical Committee for this Guidebook. It is my interpretation of the material that the Black American was not exactly an American at all – but a catch-all listing that also included the Sitka (now extinct) and the Black Beveren. In short, a group of animals based on a similar phenotype, but not truly a part of any particular breed. I’m including the passages in question from the 1928 Standard of perfection below, and you can draw your own conclusions.

The Depression, The Great War and a Slowdown of the Fur Trade

The Stock Market crash in 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression changed the landscape of the country as a whole. While the fur trade became far less important, rabbits for meat became a saving grace for the American family. If one could acquire a pair of rabbits, they could continue to feed their families with a very quick turn around compared to other meat animals. I won’t go into much detail on the effects of the Depression and World War II on our breed, as Cortney Lannan does a wonderful job with the information in her article “The Rise and Fall of the American Rabbit – How History Has Shaped Our Breed”, which can be found here.

As late as 1949 the Americans (both varieties) were still listed amongst the top five or six most popular breeds in the country. Unfortunately, a national shift towards the industrial production of Beef and Pork, coupled with a declining fur trade, would see the breed numbers diminish over the next decade. At the 1954 ARBA Convention only six Americans were shown – 1 White and 5 Blues. Convention numbers would be between ten and sixteen animals shown for the next six years.

The newly formed Federation tried to get the breed going, as we see in an issue of the “Americana” newsletter which was sent to members in 1959. The breed continued to falter, however, and at the Convention of 1961, no animals were entered. The breed was officially in trouble. No animals would be shown at conventions in 1963, 1965, 1966, 1969 or 1970. Only one Blue is known to have been shown at the 1964 Convention in Springfield, IL. Five were shown in 1967 and only two in 1968.

Charter member Mary Knox is quoted in the 1975 edition of the ABWRC Guidebook that in 1971 there were only 12 members, and no Whites present in the member herds. A worrying start for the new club and the breed as a whole.

It’s interesting to mention here that according to breeder and Judge Claude Bennett, the National Shows held by ABWRC in 1973, 1974 and 1975 were all held in Indiana with each boasting over 100 animals per show and attendees for thirteen states. 1973 had 193, 1974 had 149, and 1975 had 178. (See page 162 of the 2026-2030 BARNSC Guidebook for Claude’s article, “An American Breeder Speaks”.)

Why then were the Convention numbers not improving?

One possible reason for this was location. The 1971 Convention was held in Albuquerque, NM. 1972 was in Tacoma, WA. 1974 was Ventura, CA. Claude points out that several of the breeders were in the Indiana, Illinois and Pennsylvania areas. Perhaps these venues were too far away?

However, that seems to be debunked by the 1973 Convention being held in Detroit, Michigan with none shown. Surely that wasn’t too far for the breeders who travelled to the Spring National? The 1975 Convention in Milwaukee, WI only had 12 animals entered as well, and just five entries in York, PA the following year in 1976. If the numbers shared by Claude Bennett were accurate, why weren’t the animals appearing at Conventions?

In 1974 Claude Bennett claimed that he appeared on the TV show “What’s My Line” with an American Blue doe named “Mary’s Gumdrop”, and that the Does appearance “sold many a Blue after the Show.” Unfortunately, many of the episodes from 1974 have been lost, and this claim cannot be substantiated. We also don’t see any great surge in the breed numbers which would indicate a boost in popularity.

We do see some difference in the Convention numbers from the late 1970s all the way into the 1990s and early 2000s, although there were still a number of Conventions with no entries whatsoever. The breed was hanging on, but just barely. We have no record of any National shows held by ABWRC though we do know from former members that they were held. More research will be needed to see if we can find this missing information.

Was the ABWRC active during this time? We know the charter existed but we don’t know exactly what was going on within the breed club itself. When Al Meier, Chairman of the ARBA Standard Committee released his 1979 report, the American breed is noted as one in which the Committee made changes to its Standard due to the club not responding to the request for submitting revisions.

The changes made by the ARBA Standard Committee are as follows:

Change points to:       

Color	15, down from 20
Ears	4, down from 5
Eyes	1, down from 3
Tail	0, down from 2
Condition	10, up from 0

This was the year that all breeds had to establish points for “condition”, so that isn’t a huge surprise. However, without the breed club telling the Committee where it wanted the points taken from, the Committee chose themselves. We see a pretty drastic reduction in the color points that year, from 20 to 15. All in all, these points as set by ARBA for our breed that year have not changed.

In the mid-1990s the ARBA instituted the rule that at least 25 animals of a variety had to be shown at Convention during the five-year period which coincided with the ARBA Standard window. A club report that appeared in Domestic Rabbits in 1999 points at how close we came to losing the White variety. As stated by Club Secretary Charles Osborn: “Dick Gehr assures us that we have shown enough whites to maintain the variety in the standard, but we still need to have a good presentation of the breed to generate additional interest from new breeders.”

The White faced the same issue in the next cycle and once again, was nearly lost.

To highlight the danger that the American was in, the American Livestock Breed Conservancy added rabbit breeds to their Conservancy Priority List. Listed amongst the rarest breeds in the “Critical” category, sat the American. This was in 2005.

Interestingly enough, a year later the ABWRC acknowledged a previously undiscovered group of “American Whites” that had been located in Canada. I’ve written an article about these rabbits which later came to be known as CanAms. You can read about them here, along with the article written by one of the ladies involved in the CanAms on page 34 of the 2026-2030 BARNSC Guidebook, discussing the Great Migration.

These new rabbits did very little for the breed numbers, as breeders were extremely divided on whether or not they really were Americans. To assess the breed “situation”, ABWRC began performing a yearly breed survey. The numbers showed just how dire things had gotten:

• The 2006 survey showed 183 rabbits – 109 blues and 74 whites from 16 breeders
• The 2007 survey showed 284 rabbits – 193 blues and 91 whites from 42 breeders

It’s believed by many that the ALBC list had successfully drawn attention to the breed, and with that, breeders. While the surveys were done online only, the numbers being reported had started to improve.

• The 2008 survey showed 304 rabbits – 200 blues, 104 whites from 32 breeders
• The 2009 survey showed 446 rabbits, 300 blues, 146 whites from 37 breeders

During these surveys and within the online groups that had been formed, a problem within the breed was exposed. The gene pool had gotten so shallow in parts of the country that the rabbits were beginning to suffer issues with size, weight and other genetic issues. In many cases the breed existed in isolated pockets, and these pockets had linebred just about as far as they could go.

In 2009, breeder (and later club President of BAR) Jeremy Cowan developed a plan to spread breed genetics from Coast to Coast in an effort to increase genetic diversity. This plan came to be called the American Drift. More information about the Drift can be found on page 40 of the 2026-2030 BARNSC Guidebook.

The ending of ABWRC and the beginning of BAR created quite a bit of hostility amongst the breeders. I won’t get in to specifics here, as everything I know about the end of ABWRC, and the rise of BAR has been relayed to me second hand. What is undeniable is that the rift created drove multiple breeders out of the breed entirely. Others kept the rabbits and continued breeding but have never joined the new club. No matter how you view the issue, it was a blow to the breed as a whole.

Since 2009, the Convention numbers have increased. While BAR (now BARNSC) failed to host a national show for the first several years of its charter, the National has now been held continuously since 2014. Status with the ALBC (now the LBC, Livestock Breeds Conservancy) has fluctuated, with the breed currently being listed at “Threatened”.

Around 2014 there was discussion about a Black variety Certificate of Development being applied for with the ARBA. Several breeders had been quietly working on the project, but apparently it went nowhere. Other breeders have since taken up the mantle and are actively working on a Black variety that they hope to obtain a COD for in the next few years. Whether that will happen and if they will be successful remains to be seen. (You can read more about the Black and other Varieties in articles on pages 165 and 169 of the 2026-2030 BARNSC Guidebook, respectively.)

Today, club numbers are steadily improving. At present, there are over 130 members of BARNSC. A poll was conducted in 2025 amongst the members, with the following results:

• 71% of responding members state that 76% or more of their Americans are pedigreed.
• 70% of responding members have doe herds of 10 or less.
• 85% of responding members have buck herds of 10 or less.
• 44% of responding members are raising American Blues.
• 37% of responding members are raising American Whites.
• 13% of responding members are raising American Blacks.
• 5% of responding members have an unrecognized color variety within their herds.
• 13% of responding members are raising American Blacks.

In 2026 there are plans to conduct a population survey along the lines of what ABWRC had done to more fully gauge the breeding population of the American breed.

The future of the American rabbit remains far from certain. As Franco Rios, former member of BAR said in his 2016 article on the History of the American Rabbit Breed:

The reason [the American] has survived for almost 100 years is because of the potential that was developed by Lewis H. Salisbury. The potential is in there, waiting to be tapped by the American rabbit breeder.

As breeders, we must remember our roots as one of the once widely hailed most “representative triple purpose breeds”, and strive for those multi-faceted attributes. The future of the American is in our hands.