AmStaff / Pit Bull debate

This is where to talk about Pit Bulls!

Postby mnp13 » March 18th, 2006, 1:56 am

Maryellen wrote:supposedly amstaffs are not that dog aggressive, but i bet there are some that are..


I just happen to have one upstairs.
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 » March 18th, 2006, 11:17 am

Blitzkrieg Staffords wrote:
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.


Okay, so in the name of balance, here is the OTHER side:

[quote]UKC senior judge Carol Gaines Stephens of Vancouver, Washington, respects her colleague’s opinion, but could not disagree more. “It’s like saying the Sheltie and the Collie are the same dog,” says Stephens, who has judged UKC Pit Bulls since 1988. “The dogs have gone in separate directions. Die-hard AKC and Pit Bull breeders believe very strongly that the breeds are different at this point.”

Mike Snyder of Seattle, Washington, is president of the UKC’s National Pit Bull Terrier Association. He sees both sides—to a point. He strongly objects to the increasing influence of the AmStaff on the Pit Bull, but he still thinks that AmStaffs differ from Pit Bulls in the way that show dogs differ from working dogs in other breeds. Or at least, they should.

“This is a can of worms that has been argued for decades,” says Snyder. “They were debating this back in the 1950s. It’s true these dogs all started with the same limited gene pool. But how many years of selective breeding does it take before you have a different dog?”[quote]

That sums up the debate pretty well, I think.


Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby Pitcrew » March 18th, 2006, 12:31 pm

I dont get it. Was somone trying to create a different dog? I am pretty sure that was not the intent when the breed became recognized by the AKC.
Changes do occur. But I dont think some of the minor differences that have allowed the AKC to decide to create seperate breeds is sufficient to actually make them really different breeds.
I dont consider Wire and Smooth Fox Terriers to be different breeds. They are different coat types. Or the coat types and sizes of Dachshunds. Or the Norwich and Norfolk on ear type. Poodles too, used to be only differentiated by size, and were often crossed.
The same with the Malanois, Belgian, Terv. and Lanenois Shepherds, coat and color. In their country they are the same breed and have the same standard. Having varietys within a breed does not generally make them sufficiently different to call them different breeds.
If this was the case, Goldens, Labs, German Shepherds and many other breeds would have different names for the field and working dogs to differentiate them from the show dogs. Because some of those breeds working/show lines are MUCH more different from eachother than amstafs and pits are.
If my memory serves, Shelties are NOT miniature collies. Just as Standard Schnauzers were bred to size and type for a purpose using different breeds than those that went in to the Giant Schnauzer and Miniature. The same with the Doberman, Min. Pin, and Manchester Terrier were created differently for different purposes. Other than size, they look similar but ARE by definition, DIFFERENT breeds. Not simply varieties of the same breedjust because they look similar.
Who decides to make them separate breeds? Or how many years it takes? or what is different enough?
Are breeds whose colors are rarely crossed, like Danes and Cockers, destined to become different breeds too?
I believe what defines a BREED is the intent for which it was CREATED. Just because lines and registies cause different VARIETIES of type, coat, color or ear within a breed, this does not make those a different BREED.
"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 chance's mom » March 18th, 2006, 1:14 pm

i agree with lisa!!
User avatar
chance's mom
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 322
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby cheekymunkee » March 18th, 2006, 1:25 pm

Me too. Different types-yes, different breeds-no. Munkee looks quite different than Justice does. They are both ( well I never registered Munkee but he could be regestered) ADBA dogs. Munkee is bullier and Justice has more of the terrier features. I've had people ask me if Munkee is Am Staff (I've also had them ask me if he is Am Bull yes......a very, very short one :rolleyes2: ). They are both very much pit bull but they are different types. Doesn't make one any less APBT than the other.
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Postby Maryellen » March 18th, 2006, 3:41 pm

It’s true these dogs all started with the same limited gene pool. But how many years of selective breeding does it take before you have a different dog?



that basically sums it up..the gene pool had to start somewhere, and then humans took it from there to add, delete, mix, match and basically stir th pot to make what they wanted...kinda like 2 people can make lasagna with mostly the same ingredients but one will throw in sausage and chopped meat while the other one doesnt...
Maryellen
I live here
 
Posts: 5971

Postby Carla » March 18th, 2006, 7:44 pm

Lisa wrote:I dont get it. Was somone trying to create a different dog? I am pretty sure that was not the intent when the breed became recognized by the AKC.
Changes do occur. But I dont think some of the minor differences that have allowed the AKC to decide to create seperate breeds is sufficient to actually make them really different breeds.


It WAS NOT intended for the Am Staf to be a different breed from the APBT. BUT, I think the founders underestimated the unique issues that would arise from a DIFFERENT NAME and having the one breed recognized by different registries under different names.

Also, AKC is a closed registry and it breeds groups of dogs from within a closed gene pool. It's a bit different system from UKC or ADBA which are more open. Maybe that fact is not appreciated for what IT can do to a "breed".

Lisa wrote:I dont consider Wire and Smooth Fox Terriers to be different breeds. They are different coat types. Or the coat types and sizes of Dachshunds. Or the Norwich and Norfolk on ear type. Poodles too, used to be only differentiated by size, and were often crossed.


The Fox Terriers once WERE varieties of one breed, but were approved to have separate standards (therefore different breeds) in 1985. It would be interesting to know how and why this came about.

And actually the Dachshund IS one breed, three varieties; as is the Poodle.

Lisa wrote:Who decides to make them separate breeds? Or how many years it takes? or what is different enough?
Are breeds whose colors are rarely crossed, like Danes and Cockers, destined to become different breeds too?


Ahhhh! The world of "purebred" dogs and registries. A whole new ball game from dogs doing what they were BRED FOR! It's actually a pretty arbitrary thing, isn't it? I guess once you can get a very specific "look" to breed "true", you can have a different breed...

Lisa wrote:I believe what defines a BREED is the intent for which it was CREATED.


Then you really wouldn't have "breeds". You would have "types" of dogs, which IS what we had before the whole "purebred" thing got started.

Lisa wrote: Just because lines and registies cause different VARIETIES of type, coat, color or ear within a breed, this does not make those a different BREED.


In the world of purebred dogs, it DOES, whether I agree or not.

The whole arbitrariness of "breed" is why I can see both sides of the "same breed" controversy when it comes to Stafs/Pits. IF the name had not been changed, we would just be having the same age-old argument over show vs working....where there is a "split" in a "breed".

Carla
Carla
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 103

Postby cheekymunkee » March 18th, 2006, 8:36 pm

I've been told that unless they are doing what they are bred to do they are not pit bulls anyway. :nono:
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Postby Pitcrew » March 19th, 2006, 12:08 pm

I just have trouble with the AKC calling them different breeds when they have opened the studbooks to American Pitbull Terriers SEVERAL times over the last 70 years. As late as the 70's I think.
That just seems like hypocritical denial to me.
The Miniature Bull Terrier is now a breed too, but what the AKC decides is a breed is extremely debatable in my book. But I guess thats their job (making money registering breeds) so I will leave it to them.
So, what is the debate? What a registry considers a breed? :| I think that will never be settled since all 3 say different.

What ANY breed was originally bred for, looks were unimportant. As registry became popular, it was necessary to have a physical discription. I think this is why the standards (ours at least) was written to allow variety of type. The more you adhere to a LOOK the more you tend to lose function. Its a fact. Its too superficial. We may not want or need our dogs to fight anymore, but they did perform more jobs than that and had to be very versatile. They would not have survived as a breed for fighting alone. They controlled rough stock, hunted, were farm dogs, protectors, baby sitters, worked in mines... etc. Its unfortunate the only history some take pride in, that gives the breed merrit of worth (although important history) is the pit. Perhaps because there are better hunters, herders, protectors, and baby sitters (human).
The breed to me is... heart, drive, trustworthyness, and determination, in a bull and terrier package of wonderous variety. Define it for the show ring if you must, but dont deny the rest.

Real life practicality... I need a little more of a substantial difference to call ours (or many breeds) a seperate breed. Especially when the standards are written to ALLOW quite a variety of type. And then when you have dogs that dont actually meet the standard (pets) that is even more variety still. Otherwise you are saying some pets arent actually that breed... unless they are registered... and that is NOT what makes the dog.
I have seen dogs, purebred, that you cant event identify as the breed they are, and some KNOWN mixes, ILPed (*) as purebreds by the AKC. Its just not that cut and dry.

*ILP is a limited registration given by the AKC to spayed/neutered dogs identified by them (the registry) to be purebreds, for the purpose of competing in AKC events like agility and obedience.

Some of the best dogs will never be seen outside of their backyards. The purpose for differentiating to the 9th degree is unimportant and meaningless (to me). Even within a "breed" you will have the same arguement between different 'lines'. Which is better looking, better working, better temperament... What difference does it really make? We are all in the same boat, love the same dogs, fight the same fight (bsl)...

Call them what you will. I love ALL of the bull and terrier breeds, they all have the same heart, and they all have mine.
"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 Verderben » March 21st, 2006, 3:26 am

My dog is registered with AKC as Am Staff and reg with UCK as APBT. AND he is pointed in conformation with BOTH registries.

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
Verderben
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 106

Postby Pitcrew » March 21st, 2006, 10:11 am

What a beautiful dog. What lines?
"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 Verderben » March 21st, 2006, 10:01 pm

he is pure Ruffian line
User avatar
Verderben
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 106

Postby Maryellen » March 21st, 2006, 10:07 pm

omg he is smokin'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what a beauty!!
Maryellen
I live here
 
Posts: 5971

Postby chance's mom » March 21st, 2006, 10:08 pm

he is gorgeous!! see this is why i dont understand the hole controversy, they say they are different but they both end up registering the same dog? again to me, it is them being snobbish, like saying uperclass show doesnt mix with lowerclass working. again this is just my opinion, i think its a little too political and to wordy, if they are so different why on several occasions do they both register the same dog? they cant even tell the difference, so why make such a big deal about it?
User avatar
chance's mom
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 322
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby JCleve86 » March 22nd, 2006, 2:46 am

The perspective depends on who you ask. Working folks will tell you show dogs are sissy dogs and just shells of what the REAL breed is (working). The only distinction I make is between what some may refer to as "gamey" or more classic looking pit bulls like Buck, and show pit bulls like the dog shown. There is a distinct difference in type.
JCleve86
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 465
Location: Puyallup, WA

Previous

Return to Pit Bull Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]