AmStaff / Pit Bull debate

This is where to talk about Pit Bulls!

Postby Blitzkrieg Staffords » March 16th, 2006, 5:57 pm

cheekymunkee wrote:I believe they are all APBT too. The AST starting foundation was the APBT, no other breed was added in order to create the AST, therefor they are STILL APBT, just with a different name. You can call them Yankee Terrier, Snot Nose Brat dogs, Big Whining Baby dogs and they are STILL American Pit Bull Terriers. :|


They are all wannabe Staffordshire Bull Terriers. :lol3:

:bowDown:
APBT................SBT................AST
Blitzkrieg Staffords
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 62
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

Postby Purple » March 16th, 2006, 8:35 pm

Everytime this argument comes up, I like to post this link to X-Pert AmStaffs. The photos and history of their lineage is recorded here. I find it fascinating how these dogs changed over the years, and to be able to see the pictures, to see the change, is an opportunity....so, I present to you, the world of X-Pert.......

http://www.lamasko.com/x-pert/History.html
User avatar
Purple
I live here
 
Posts: 5115

Postby Purple » March 16th, 2006, 10:02 pm

User avatar
Purple
I live here
 
Posts: 5115

Postby Carla » March 17th, 2006, 10:59 am

mnp13 wrote:
I would guess what you are saying is correct actually, BUT if you can't back it up with actual data then I don't think you should say it. Whether you mean it that way or not, it makes it sound like AKC breeders are the responsible ones and the UKC/ADBA breeders are the problem. that's just not true.


No, it' not. But AKC DOES publish litter registrations and dog registrations for each breed every month. These are published in the monthly magazine - The AKC Gazette. And AKC will send you these stats free of charge - they recently sent me all litter and dog registration stats for the last 10 years. It is interesting to note the rise and fall of certain breeds.

There were 1367 Stafs registered in 1994 (#73 of 137 breeds).
There were 1723 Stafs registered in 2004 (#65 of 154)

We DO know that the APBT is UKC's 2nd most popular breed. The most popular is one of the hunting hound breeds. I have been told that although we do not know actual UKC numbers that this hound breed is EXTREMELY popular, so we can extrapolate that UKC numbers for Pit Bulls is MOST LIKELY more than the 1700 Stafs registered by AKC. Then you can add the few more registered by ADBA. Sure, there are duplications, but I would be willing to bet that there are many more APBTs out there than Stafs.

Again, Stafs have their share of irresponsible breeders. But when it comes to sheer numbers, I don't believe there is hardly a comparison!

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby Carla » March 17th, 2006, 11:07 am

Romanwild wrote:The UKC allows them to register. That means that there is UKC and ADBA blood that comes back into the AKC. HAAA!


Huh? Do you mean that it's AKC blood that gets into the UKC and (to a much lesser extent), the ADBA dogs? Once you breed an AKC dog to a UKC-only or ADBA-only dog, it is NOT registerable by AKC...

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby Romanwild » March 17th, 2006, 11:26 am

Carla wrote:
Romanwild wrote:The UKC allows them to register. That means that there is UKC and ADBA blood that comes back into the AKC. HAAA!


Huh? Do you mean that it's AKC blood that gets into the UKC and (to a much lesser extent), the ADBA dogs? Once you breed an AKC dog to a UKC-only or ADBA-only dog, it is NOT registerable by AKC...

Carla


I understand that it's a one way street if the AKC is bred to a ukc/adba only dog BUT there are many other variations that can occur and do.

They are all pit bulls. This is silly. :|
User avatar
Romanwild
I live here
 
Posts: 2931
Location: Watertown NY

Postby Carla » March 17th, 2006, 11:30 am

cheekymunkee wrote:I believe they are all APBT too. The AST starting foundation was the APBT, no other breed was added in order to create the AST, therefor they are STILL APBT, just with a different name.




Nothing was added to the English Foxhound to get the American Foxhound. There ARE differences in the two, differences in type because of selective breeding and this is enough, whether you agree with it or not, to create a different "breed". Same for English and American Cocker.

The Norwich Terrier used to consist of individuals with prick ears and some with drop ears. A new "breed" was created when the British Kennel Club recognized the drop eared as the Norfolk Terrier.

The AKC book states about the Harrier, "it is a smaller edition of the Foxhound, developed by selective breeding." Again, selective breeding for differences in type CAN produce a new breed - according to the registries anyway.

So, obviously it CAN take very little to create a new "breed". Registries have done it for a long time.


I see the UKC/AKC dogs being the same breed essentially (with some really bad un-typey individuals in BOTH registries!). UKC is full of the AKC dogs and I would consider Stafs and UKC Pits as the same breed. The "game-bred" type dogs really ARE different-looking for the most part (AND differently pedigreed) and are a different breed to me (these would be the ADBA dogs).

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby mnp13 » March 17th, 2006, 12:29 pm

Carla wrote:
Romanwild wrote:The UKC allows them to register. That means that there is UKC and ADBA blood that comes back into the AKC. HAAA!


Huh? Do you mean that it's AKC blood that gets into the UKC and (to a much lesser extent), the ADBA dogs? Once you breed an AKC dog to a UKC-only or ADBA-only dog, it is NOT registerable by AKC...

Carla


You're playing alphabet soup here.

If an AmStaff is bred to a UKC Pit Bull the dogs are half AmStaff but can only be registered as UKC Pit Bulls making them Pit Bulls? No... making them half AmStaff and Half Pit.

:rolleyes2:

They are all Pit Bulls. When dogs from one litter can finish in all three registries you can't tell me the breeds are different. There are PLENTY of dogs that are finished in both the UKC and AKC - if they were different breeds that wouldn't be possible.

I don't really care what the registration numbers say. I can look in the newspaper and find PLENTY of 'AKC' dogs, that doesn't mean they are registered or that they will be registered.
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 Pitcrew » March 17th, 2006, 12:57 pm

Show Goldens and field Goldens are very different in both type and drive, but no one argues whether they are the same breed. Owners of both types want different things, and if those dogs were bred together they would produce goldens. Have you not seen two wonderful "typy" dogs whose puppies did not share the temperament or physical characteristics of their parents? Genetics is a tricky thing. I have also seen two very different dogs produce puppies BETTER than either parent.

I believe they are different types of the same breed. Maybe all dogs don't have all of the same characteristics to fit into a mold, but neither do we... That is what prejudice is based on isn't it? Some of my registered dogs cannot easily be identified as what they are. Does that mean they aren't? No, they just aren't "show" quality. Maybe they are better. Variety is what allows us all to have what we want in the breed we love, and I think it makes it stronger and more interesting.

Michelle, how well you do showing under any registry will be based on that judges OPINION, the current fad of that registry, in that part of the country, at that time, on that day... excluding any politics (don't make me go there :rolleyes2: ). Either way you will learn a lot. Useful information? You decide.

Pedigree has alot to do with pride, but doesn't make the dog.

I have seen a breeder ( will not mention name) practically slobber over a beautiful dog he wanted to breed to... to find out the dog wasnt registered... then acted as if it was some kind of cur or mongrel. Come ON!
"Pedigree indicates what the animal should be;
Conformation indicates what the animal appears to be;
But, Performance indicates what the animal actually is."
- author unknown
User avatar
Pitcrew
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 350
Location: Central, NY

Postby Carla » March 17th, 2006, 2:03 pm

mnp13 wrote:
You're playing alphabet soup here.


Nah, just stating registry policy. It is what it is.

mnp13 wrote:If an AmStaff is bred to a UKC Pit Bull the dogs are half AmStaff but can only be registered as UKC Pit Bulls making them Pit Bulls? No... making them half AmStaff and Half Pit.


You can certainly look at it that way. But they ARE only REGISTERABLE as APBTs.


mnp13 wrote: When dogs from one litter can finish in all three registries you can't tell me the breeds are different. There are PLENTY of dogs that are finished in both the UKC and AKC - if they were different breeds that wouldn't be possible.


Certainly true and therein lies the confusion, that's for sure, as to whether they are or aren't the same breed! The only dogs that can finish in all 3 registries are those registered by AKC. Plenty of Pit Bulls are NOT.

mnp13 wrote: I can look in the newspaper and find PLENTY of 'AKC' dogs, that doesn't mean they are registered or that they will be registered.


Well dang, if they aren't registered, they AREN'T AKC (or UKC or ADBA), are they? I have called some of these "Am Stafs for sale" and most often they DON'T have papers or they have one set of papers, because the dad is a registered Am Staf, but the mom, she just has these UKC papers....that has been my experience. I KNOW there are ads in the paper that ARE Am Stafs. Here in the Dallas area anyway, the vast majority ARE registerable ONLY with UKC or ADBA. I am sure that is different elsewhere!

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby Blitzkrieg Staffords » March 17th, 2006, 3:11 pm

What a group of silly people you are all being. :lol3:
Blitzkrieg Staffords
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 62
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

Postby chance's mom » March 17th, 2006, 10:40 pm

i am going to say this as someone who has never stepped foot into a ring, nor do i understand totally the akc vs ukc and their standards. so this is strictly my observation:
1. my understanding was that ukc did not want to recognize the apbt so they said we will recognize amstaf's.
2. as i dont know the exact difference in the temperment of amstaf vs a apbt i would think regardless and overall it would be based on the litter since they both originated from the same dog in europe i believe someone said it was the staffordshire bull terrier? agian please keep in mind i am still trying to learn and this is just my what i gather from what i have seen and read.
3. i do see the weight difference preference that ukc vs akc seem to like as michelle mentioned, however, the most noticable thing i see is the size. from what i have noticed amstaff's seem to be shorter than apbts.

now i am sure there are other differences such as distance of the nose to the head, how far long their neck is, how big their head is, to be honest, i never cared. i loved my boy, and never thought of showing him.

again imo i dont believe that one breed has a better temperment over the other, becuase from what i see they are the same, just that ones size is different. to me saying they have a different temperment doesnt make sense when temperment of the same breed can be different per litter of who breeds what bloodline?
no i do not breed nor do i know anyone who does. this is just from my readings and observations, am i totally off in my obsevation?
User avatar
chance's mom
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 322
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby Maryellen » March 17th, 2006, 10:44 pm

from what i understand the AKC wouldnt recognize the APBT due to its fighting heritage... supposedly amstaffs are not that dog aggressive, but i bet there are some that are..

i dont understand why amstaff people get mad at apbt people when they call the am staff a apbt by mistake.. they both came from the same place...

then again i am probably wrong.
Maryellen
I live here
 
Posts: 5971

Postby chance's mom » March 17th, 2006, 10:54 pm

maryellen you said what i was thinking and honestly a little shy to say. that is what i gather was they basically were snobby and said "we wont recognize a fighting dog" !!! thats probably why i wanted nothing to do with showing, i hate snobbby people! i tell them where they can put their nose and it wont be in the air!

plus, i love politics, just not doggy politics, i am too opinionated and would loose my cool with ignorant people too quickly, becuase of how much i care about my boy!!
User avatar
chance's mom
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 322
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby Carla » March 17th, 2006, 11:06 pm

Maryellen and Chance.....you might want to start here...

http://www.dogworld.com/dogworldmag/pop ... breeds.asp

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby Maryellen » March 17th, 2006, 11:30 pm

Unable to ignore the growing demands of fanciers who wanted to legitimize the breed through conformation shows but still unwilling to perpetuate the negative image of pit fighting, the AKC agreed to accept APBTs under the more genteel name of Staffordshire Terrier. In 1972, the breed’s name was changed to American Staffordshire Terrier to distinguish between the heavier AmStaff developed in the United States and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of England. The 1936 Staffordshire Terrier breed standard was written by APBT breeders; all of the original AKC Staffordshire Terriers were UKC-registered APBTs. But fanciers agreed to the name change from Pit Bull to Staffordshire Terrier as a compromise in order to legitimize the dogs in the show ring.

Because of this common ancestry, some people feel that the two—APBTs and AmStaffs—are essentially the same breed with different names. Sara Nugent, president of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of America and also a UKC American Pit Bull Terrier judge, points out that the AmStaff stud books have been opened to Pit Bulls as recently as 1966. “People try to say one is different from the other, but they all came from the same gene pool, and no other blood had been added to the mix, so how can you say they are different?” says Nugent. “Genetically, they are the same. The difference is only in what traits people have selected for and what registry they have chosen.”





now that is just what i heard.. i never looked up the difference.
Maryellen
I live here
 
Posts: 5971

Postby Blitzkrieg Staffords » March 18th, 2006, 1:11 am

Maryellen wrote:i dont understand why amstaff people get mad at apbt people when they call the am staff a apbt by mistake.. they both came from the same place...

then again i am probably wrong.


The same reason Staffordshire Bull Terrier people do it. They have all become so proud to be a part of their respective breeds, that it has lead them all to becoming blind to the correlation of similarities shared by all of the bull and terrier breeds. Another reason could simply be ignorance, and fear of the stigma that has slowly binded itself to the term "pit bull" over the last few decades.
Last edited by Blitzkrieg Staffords on March 18th, 2006, 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blitzkrieg Staffords
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 62
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

Postby Blitzkrieg Staffords » March 18th, 2006, 1:11 am

Maryellen wrote:
Unable to ignore the growing demands of fanciers who wanted to legitimize the breed through conformation shows but still unwilling to perpetuate the negative image of pit fighting, the AKC agreed to accept APBTs under the more genteel name of Staffordshire Terrier. In 1972, the breed’s name was changed to American Staffordshire Terrier to distinguish between the heavier AmStaff developed in the United States and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of England. The 1936 Staffordshire Terrier breed standard was written by APBT breeders; all of the original AKC Staffordshire Terriers were UKC-registered APBTs. But fanciers agreed to the name change from Pit Bull to Staffordshire Terrier as a compromise in order to legitimize the dogs in the show ring.

Because of this common ancestry, some people feel that the two—APBTs and AmStaffs—are essentially the same breed with different names. Sara Nugent, president of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of America and also a UKC American Pit Bull Terrier judge, points out that the AmStaff stud books have been opened to Pit Bulls as recently as 1966. “People try to say one is different from the other, but they all came from the same gene pool, and no other blood had been added to the mix, so how can you say they are different?” says Nugent. “Genetically, they are the same. The difference is only in what traits people have selected for and what registry they have chosen.”





now that is just what i heard.. i never looked up the difference.


That sums it up nicely for me, ME.
Blitzkrieg Staffords
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 62
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

Postby bahamutt99 » March 18th, 2006, 1:24 am

The AmStaffs are still missing the best part of the breed: The REDNOSE dogs! :D
~~~
[b]Lindsay
[i]& the [url=http://www.freewebs.com/bahamutt99/index.htm]Gravity Dogs[/url][/i][/b]
User avatar
bahamutt99
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 513
Location: west Texas

Postby Carla » March 18th, 2006, 1:40 am

bahamutt99 wrote:The AmStaffs are still missing the best part of the breed: The REDNOSE dogs! :D


LOL!

Those red noses look GOOD - on PIT BULLS!


:wink:

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

PreviousNext

Return to Pit Bull Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]

cron