wiseguy

Are you saying there are two (two ?) seperate & independent APBT registries in the USA? And they don't agree on what the dog actually looks like? Are you also suggesting the UKC standard isn't the true breed description? Remembering the UKC is the second biggest registery in the USA & was founded specifically to give APBT a registry when the AKC didn't then, & still doesn't, consider the APBT answered the criteria required to accepted onto their register as a genuine, bona fide, pure breed. And you say the ADBA doesn't even have a written description? their members just ''know'' how the breed should look. A telepathic standard. ,Wow how so 21st century is that? And how so very very interesting. What you are saying though certainly seems to vindicate the AKC stance, don't you agree? I mean to say, if the breed enthusiasts can't agree how the breed looks, how could anyone possibly write a definitive standard for it to be allowed onto a genuine pure breed registery.? Also, it is puzzling that the UKC, which claims to be a pure breed registery, will register just about any breed, regardless of how obscure it may be, except the American Staffordshire Terrier. Don't you find that extraordinary?

Was there an appeal that overturned the courts decision? If not, it's too early to rejoice just yet.

I'm not sure where you got that they can be bigger than a Bull Mastiff, sure they can be SBT size or smaller, I think the average weight Is around 30 - 35 lbs But a well bred true to type APBT Is meant to be a medium sized dog, where nothing Is exaggerated...... These larger low grounders wide and heavy so called dogs that are being called APBT that they're breeding now especially In the States Is certainly doing damage to the real APBT of old. I feel breeding them to 2 or 3 different size standars Is not the answer, and I would hate to see that happen. The reason why they can vary Is because to me they are bred for function rather than show, just as your other working breeds look so much different to their show versions Maybe I was being a little too factitious with the Bull Mastiff comparison. The UKC standard does state 35-60lbs, which in itself is quite an amazing weight differential for a genuine pure breed, almost a 100% tolerance, the most ludicrous part though is when it then goes on to state, in effect, dogs that exceed the 60lbs are not be penalised if their weight is proportionate to their height, neither too coarse or to fine, so where do you draw the line? there is no upper limit. Hence the Bull Mastiff reference. I think you are well off the mark with the 30-35lb average. A well bred, well conditioned, show ready SBT dog weighs in excess of 35lb. I would suggest the average weight for a APBT dog in similar condition would be closer to 50-60lb.

i'm out. You have twisted everything I have said & degenerated a discussion into a slanging match. That's not my style.

Ah, pitbull people. Any wonder the bsl is so entrenched. They claim their dogs are ''pure breeds'' while at the same time claiming they can't be positively identified. Does that mean to say one owner of this so called pure breed cannot recognise another so called pure breed of the same breed owned by someone else? That's mind boggling. They must be the only pure breed anything on the planet so afflicted. Or is it they just wont identify them, preferring to allow other breeds wear the blame for their on going exploits in public relations? BTW, they are not recgonised as a pure breed by the AKC, the only pure breed registry in the USA with international accreditation, they never have been, they never will be. So maybe you are right, they are really generic SBTs & ASTs after all.

It was meaningful until you posted things like this, "If the incident involves a person, I am sorry the stafford is again copping the blame for the deeds of some bogans pitbull." Have you ever owned a pitbull? I understand you don't want the SBT being misrepresented by people who own lookalike dogs, but the same goes for pitbull owners who don't want any 'joe' owning one and having the potential to harm the breed even more. This side of your discusion i completely agree with. Not all pitbull owners are bogans, some are great, just like not all SBT owners are great. Blaming pitbulls for the potential demise of SBT's is not the way to try to protect them, especially as there are thousands more staffies around than pitbulls. Sure there are pitbull types about and unfortunately staffie crosses fall into that category, which is exactly why BSL doesn't work and is not fair. PS I do know plenty about the subject, I just choose not to lecture people about it. Where ever you believe the AST, APBT, come from it doesn't make one an angel and the other a monster, neither does it make one ounce of difference in changing BSL laws. BSL has not reduced dog attacks, calling dogs a different name will not reduce dog attacks, only social change and education will help reduce dog attacks. Until then i suggest people with pitbull type dogs, start working to get rid of BSL instead of trying to protect just one breed. One more time. One for the road. It isn't/wasn't a BSL discussion, it is/was a misrepresentation issue. Just as you are misrepresenting what I said now. It's obviously endemic. As an example, & regarding dog/human contact, statistics from a couple of years ago showed there wasn't one dog bite reported that involved a KC registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier In the Greater London area. There were estimated 100,000 KC registered SBTs living in the London area at the time.. There has never been a case of dog attack by a registered CKC Staffordshire Bull Terrier reported in Canada. Ditto AKC USA. A breed doesn't get to be the most popular terrier in world & one the top ten most popular breeds over all if they are as unreliable as the bite statistics, & people like you, would suggest. And I know most PB lovers are responsible,( as are the vast majority of dog owners in general), that is not the point, those that aren't pull the SBT/AST cloak over their shoulders whenever their dogs are involved in an ''incident''. Which is still much to often despite the restrictions required by the BSL. The only proof of probable pure breed status is ANKC registration. The chances of an ANKC registered SBT being involved in unprovokes attacks upon humans are about the same as Harvey Norman not having a sale this w/e, or next, or the one after, ad infinitum. I wont put my rubbish in your bin if you don't put yours in mine, accept responsibility for own, deal? Edit "If the incident involves a person, I am sorry the stafford is again copping the blame for the deeds of some bogans pitbull." The point of the sentence is ''bogan'' not ''pitbull'' You appear to have missed the point. Again. Still.

I don't agree, the poor lady that died in Toowomba was reportedly attacked by a pitbull... But it was a Bull terrier x lab. This helped ban the pitbull but they had nothing to do with that attack.. I've lost count of the times the media will immediately say "pitbull attacks" with absolutely no proof of breed. I had people cross the road because they thought my SBT was a pitbull, even people at dog classes, so t think the media doesn't try to sensationalise an attack with the words "pitbull" is just plain wrong. BSL in the USA & UK is about TYPE (though SBT in the UK are not restricted), BSL here is about trying to seperate the type by paperwok, and fortunately it's saving alot of AST"s, but the poor ones without paperwork are on a slippery slope to the injection room. If you seriously believe that your dog is so far removed from the bogans pitbull down the road you are delusional. The difference is that if you owned the bogans pitbull I'm sure you would have raised a better dog / bought one from a decent breeder etc.. The thing is bogans own SBT's and AST's in more numbers than pure bred pitbulls, they don't care where they come from, they don't read this forum to expand their knowledge about their chosen breed and this is the problem all the breeds are facing. How you come to the conclusion that just because a dog attacks a human it must be a pitbull i never know, what a bigoted view point, i suppose all the criminals in your area are black, the women don't leave the kitchen, pitbulls have lock jaw, and the good lord above created the world in 7 days..!!! You really are a sorry piece of work geo. I plead not guilty to everything you have stated. People can make up their minds about that. Not much point in trying to have meaniful discussion with you. You are not a devils advocate, you are an agent provocateur. And an ill informed, spitefull one at that. Maybe if you actually knew something about the subject you would have some credibility. Whether that ever happens is doubtful though. Au Revoir.

The name is appropriate geo. More than you will ever realise. I haven't ''bagged out anyones breed. Merely expressed concern at the seemingly never ending torrent of misinformation. Maybe you should actually read the UKC standard for the APBT, & after you do, you can then tell me how big the APBT actually is. Sure hell can't get a handle on it from reading their breed description. from 35lb to somewhere near infinity. The media reports what they are told geo. So when the report says SBT you can back it in they are reporting what the owner of the dog involved has told them. If the incident involves another dog, I'm sorry the owner didn't keep his stafford under control. If the incident involves a person, I am sorry the stafford is again copping the blame for the deeds of some bogans pitbull. EDIT. Btw geo. I make no apologies for trying to protect my breed. It wasn't necessary prior to the introduction of the BSL. That should tell you something. Then again, maybe not.

Incorrect, the only faults In regards to eye color In a well bred APBT are both eyes not matching In color and blue eyes, Light eyes In Am Staffs however yes Is a fault That's interesting. Although it is does seem unusual to accept any colour except blue. Why bother. One in all in. And why not blue eyes for a blue dog?. Makes more sense than yellow. Doesn't it? Without predujice, the UKC standard really is a pakapoo ticket for this breed in any case. How can a genuine pure breed defining standard have a weight differential ranging from 35 to 60 pounds for the same breed & expected to be taken seriously? But wait, there's more, dogs that exceed that maximum are not to be penalised unless they are exceptionally heavily built or excessively rangy. So there is really no limit. Any amount of different breeds could be fitted under that description. (Maybe they should take a leaf from the Poodle breed & have miniatures, toys & standards ) Could this possibly be the reason the breed isn't considered to be a pure breed by other pure breed registries? It's certainly is a problem for other bull breeds have to contend with when dubious breed identications come to the fore. From smaller than a Staffordshire Bull Terrier to bigger than a Bull Mastiff, yet all the same breed? That really is ridiculous.

If you access ozentries.com you can call up the show schedule. I would assume the prize list would be there.

The thing is that most people now are buying amstaffs with or without papers and they're the ones who're going to ruin the breed, especially while AKNC rego'd breeders advertise dogs with massive heads, huge muscle mass etc.. These breeders are doing it to the breed, not pitbull owners. I'm not so sure about your facts but i've yet to read a case where a dog that has attacked has been proven to be a pitbull but the owner has called them a staffy. Usually they'll be accused of being a pitbull first so generally the damage has already been done, and as usual the pitbull is at the rough end of the deal not the other way around. There's plenty of AST's and SBT's (that are big enough to look like a pitbull) and there's plenty out there more than capable of misbehaving, I hope you don't think that having a pure bred papered dog makes it less likey to attack? Sorry geo, but cross breeds are neither Staffordshire Bull Terriers nor American Staffordshire Terriers. Nor any other pure breed for that matter. A genuine, well bred SBT is not as big as a pitbull, how every big that is? However, your uninformed descriptions should be a warning & serve to encourage any person genuinely wanting either of the pure breeds you seek to denigrate to do research & seek out only ethical ANKC registered breeders. How do you know which are the ethical. That is the reason the research is necessary. Every savvy dog person knows any dog is capable of attacking, try the Maltese for example. Horrible little creatures. The pure breed SBT is the least likely to attack a person as a matter of fact. Bold, fearless, totally reliable. To deny the constant misrepresentation of dogs of dubious breeding as ASTs & SBTs is a display of duplicity in the charade. Shame geo, shame.

That many years ago so called dogmen were less concerned about certain breed but more into Type, which is where some areas of origin for the APBT vary. Many articles state that they come from Bull terrier type dogs from the UK, some say the old buldog/ or bull & Terrier... just because they weren't in a kennel club means nothing to me. I'm sure there's genuine APBT's in Australia other than the AKNC amstaffs and the American Imported amstaffs probably have apbt papers somewhere along the lines..? , though I'm happy to call them amstaffs if that suits everyone. I have no proof but have been told that they were imported before breed bans... Do you have an issue with Tybrax? Do I have an issue with Tybrax? No. I admire & support her & her supporters fight against the terrible genocide of her preferred breed in Qld. They are also victims of the worst of owners. Want I don't support is deliberate misrepresentation, not for any reason. I deplore the GCCC & their apparent determination to persecute any square headed dog without pure breed registration. However, the GCCC sat in the court & looked on, probably smiling, as the litigants case was destroyed by her own so called expert witness. That is the truth. Anyone who followed the case will know that is the truth. To say otherwise is not . & I wont support any such suggestion. there was so much misinformation in Chrissies post I was gobsmacked. Disillusioned actually. And laying a guilt trip on the other bull breed owners isn't much of a plan either, the facts of the matter is so called ''pitbulls'' are being maliciously misrepesented as ASTs & SBTs & those breeds are now under the hammer with their owners now having their own battles to fight. One for you geo, did bull terriers really play any part in the development of the APBT? I haven't heard or read information to support that theory. The English dogs that were the ancestors of the APBT were known as bull & terriers & they were much bigger than the Staffordshire Bull Terrier we know. That they were the ancestors of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier & the American Pitbull terrier is generally acknowledged, . However to declare the APBT to be the descentant of the SBT is not true. BTW, the Bull Terrier could possibly be declared to be the first ''designer dog'', created for appearance rather than function. The SBT can rightly lay claim to being the genuine ""Bull Terrier

Re Chivers;I think that unless you've walked a mile in someone elses shoes may not understand where it is they're coming from. I fully support what they were trying to achieve. The GCCC are bumbling fools who were desperate to win against Kylie and Jon at all costs, the ACO's involved in the case proved themselves less than professional, and when reports etc.. "are lost" you question their honesty. Honestry? What an interesting concept. What is honest when everyone involved isn't? In a different place, at different time, in a different social climate, American Staffordshire Terrier people, those that actually know the history of their chosen breed, would proudly, & rightly so, declare their breed to be the true, the authentic APBT, the genuine article. A breed forward thinking persons who foresaw the controversies that currently plague it, so sought to have it accepted onto it's country of origins pure breed registry, with the real breed description, so as to preserve the genuine article for posterity. Has there ever been a genuine APBT in Australia, other than the AST that is? I doubt it. One other ''irregularity'' of Chrissies to ponder, if the UKC was formed over one hundred years ago, yet the Staffordshire Bull Terrier wasn't granted pure breed status until 1935 in its country of origin, a mere 76 years ago, & not until 1974 in the USA, 37 years ago, how could the APBT be a descendant of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Just being the devils advocate, honest. Although my previous post was certainly truthful & honest, honest,

I have only read the original post & found so many variations from the facts that I decided it would be a waste of time to wade through the rest.. For one thing, it was Chivers own ''expert witness'' that testified the American Staffordshire Terrier & the American Pitbull Terrier were if fact the same dog. A classic example shooting of ones self in the foot if ever there was one. This case was followed with much anxiety by many bull breed owners & the subsequent groans of disbelief reverberated around the country at this revelation was like rolling thunder. DNA can not distinguish breed, it can prove or disprove parentage & it can declare species, but verify breeds? no. The U.K.C was raised because the AKC wouldn't allow the APBT on to it register as a pure breed. It was raised specifically to register the pitbull. Nothing to do with sporting types V conformation types at all. The American Staffordshire Terrier was admitted on the AKC register at a later date. As the Staffordshire Terrier. It was in fact the APBT with a name change & a legitimate standard. A siimilar scenario to when an application for a prefix name is rejected, one reapplies with a different name. Come on Chrissy, you can do better than that.

No, AST's are not my breed of choice. But, I would hope no well bred, bred to the standard Am Staff would have ''bird of prey'' eyes. They are a highly undesirable, previously called a disqualfying, fault. I would imagine it would be the same case with well bred APBTs. That colour is called blue these days, what I was alluding to was that that colour was originally known as liver. A disqualifying fault. Blue was not a listed colour for the SBT & ''liver'' was despised. Now they describe the ''highly undesirable'' colour as ''burnt'' liver. & blue (liver) is still a problem for the SBT.

absolutely. If you scroll the American Staffordshire Terrier breed profiles you will find plenty. Sans cropped ears. As I said, it depends on your point of view regarding the breed(s) development. American Staffordshire Terrriers have been (hopefully) bred faithfully to their registered stand, while the American Pitbull Terrier is bred to an opinion. This is evident if you scroll the APBT sites. Depending what part of the country they come from appears to determine the ''type'' That is not to say they aren't pure breeds, it does say they are bred to differeing opinions though. Off topic. Do your really class that colour as ''blue''? Looks to me to be the original liver that was banned by the SBT pioneers. Just my opinion of course.

Depends on your point of view &/or your interpretion/knowledge, of the breed(s) history. Those who consider the breeds to be one & the same would dispute there are no pure bred blue & white ''APBT''s in Australia (see the magazine cover posted above ) It would be distinct possiblity that the only red nose ASTs in the U.S.A would only be found in the areas where the APBT was banned. Interchangeable breeds. Depending on the situation. Very conveniment. Just playing devils advocate you understand. ;)

Unpapered? Maybe, but unlikely (altho the bitch does have terrible ears)

That observation is patently obvious simply by reading the off topic snipes on this thread. Although, some of the on topic comments display a remarkable lack of "smarts" as well Experience wins over theory every time. The really smart people are invariably graduates of Wotsamatta U in any case.

Actually, they do. Though because the kennel clubs that hold the standards don't operate in full here. The Kennel Clubs that recognize the APBT and hold a standard for the breed are the United Kennel Club (UKC) & the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA). If you go to www.google.ca (not www.google."com" - that's a whole other post) and look it up, you should be able to find each respective kennel club and their standards for the dogs The APBT has never, ever been recognised as a pure breed by the AKC. Not even way back when. This rebuff of the ''breed'' was the catalyst for C.C.Bennet to raise the U.K.C. Specifically to register his own dog. Bennets Ring. The U.K.C is a privately owned commercial enterprise. & a very profitable one at that. No dog, solely registered with the U.K.C, is recognised as a pure breed by any affiliated pure breed registery in world. The major difference between the American Staffordshire Terrier & the American Pitbull Terrier, besides the name, is one has been faithfully bred to a registered standard, the other to an opinion. One is a genuine APBT, the other isn't. However, the U.K.C now no longer recognises AKC registered AST's as APBT's. Bit of payback there me thinks. So people holding cc registered papers for their A.S.T can now feel a little more secure for the future of their breed. APBT owners? your struggle still has way to go.

It was exactly this type of behaviour, by both dogs & their apologists that started the B.S.L rolling in the first place. It appears we haven't progressed very far have we? Well, some haven't & that's disappointing.

One can not chant the mantra "Deed not breed" on one hand & then defend a dog that attacks the head of a full grown man as he approaches the front entry of a dwelling as just ''a family pet protecting it's territory''. "Family pet" indeed. That is just too ridiculous for words. I am positive I would not like that type of "family pet" living next door to my family. Not even in the same street as a matter of fact, or suburb, or state. Too many people have worked too hard for too long to let hypocritical idiocy espoused by those with dubious agendas undo all their good work. And we still have some blaming the victim? Denial is such a weak defence. We still have a long way to go folks. A long, long way.

In your opinion. In mine, pet dog's which guard property are welcome in society. This is a general claim and has nothing to do with your alleged reservation of judgement about the breed involved in this case, which is why I did not include it in the quote. ''In my opinion'' of course, Another sad display of the recalcitrant attitude of an antisocial minority that has dog ownership as we know it in peril. People who keep unrestrained savage dogs as guards of suburban dwellings should be charged with malicious assault causing grevious bodily harm should the dogs attack anyone. Fine them. Gaol them.

It would make no difference if everyone who had Pitbull's kept them in a secure run, the rate of attacks reportedly involving Pitbulls would not be affected, because for the most part a dogs breed has little bearing on how it is reported. I did stipulate "if they actually were pitbulls." If you wish to quote me, please do so in context. What ever they are, at least one of them should have been confined. What ever they are, dogs with the temperament displayed here have no place in society in any case. But then again, it was probably just doing what it was trained do. bogan owner, bogan dog. Sad.

Remembering of course, that if these actually were pitbulls, the B.S.L states they must be kept in a compound of described minimum dimension & security requirements. And when the dogs are outside this compound they are to be muzzled at all times, even when they are inside their owners house. Draconian? definately, but that is the law, whether you agree with it or not. It will be very difficult to overturn the B.S.L as long as people ignored it & incidents like this keep reoccuring. Blaming the victim doesn't help much either.