WExtremeG

The photos are misleading The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion. The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement. Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds. :) Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse. so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds? Those of us who know what we are talking about? No What we are saying is, as they are the same breed they should look the same & the photos are misleading. You wont see many well bred representatives of the "genre" that resemble the AST pic in a sanctioned show anywhere in the world. You will see them in the hands of the bovver boys as pitbulls however. Coarse & overdone. not really a good example of breed actually. Once upon a time...Shiloh Shepherds were GSD's too- http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdsCoatColor.pdf would you say they were the same today? http://www.riverwindshilohs.com/6.html

The photos are misleading The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion. The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement. Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds. :) Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse. so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds?

Going back and having a look, I'm finding the 'Boxer' a bit harder to believe than the GSP he totally looks like he could be a Lab x GSP... :)

How do know you are getting the bloodlines you want in any purebred dog? You buy a dog whose pedigree contains dogs of those lines. If the difference in bloodlines is important to you, then you would take care not to buy a dog of unknown lines. I agree. I'm more or less referring to people who like to say that they have a APBT through ignorance (was sold to them as such, but isn't or there is no proof) rather than people who know what they have a dog of known bloodlines. I don't think I've seen one for a while (15 yrs or more). Would be interesting and rare to find a pure one of known lines.

Yes, it was a name change for a short period, NOT a breed division. From what I have read, The AST derived from the APBT after some breeders started selecting different criteria which then became a new breed overtime.

Lab x Kelpie! :D

Getting back to the original topic how do they KNOW that they have a APBT and NOT an AST? is it just a case of calling what they like better?

Totally agree. It's almost like on one hand you have someone who has a AST and acknowledges it, and the other you have someone who claims that they have a APBT- so are they admitting that there dog is dog aggressive or what's the motive behind it- other than the ego boost they get? That's how I see it too. The original dog was the APBT the AST originated from that. Not unlike the GSD and the SWS (though that was to do with coat colour, and not temperament- but same kind of thing). I agree with this. I'd dare say that the majority of the so called "Pitbulls" are either generic "staffy x's" or unpapered AST's with moronic owners. someone said that the courts ruled that APBT and AST were the same breed...is that a bit like Clark Kent and Super Man (you know- stick some glasses on and no-one knows who you are?) call it a different name and you're all good....? Isn't that like sticking your head in the sand!? lol. I don't agree that they are the same breed though- the separation between the two has been quite a while.

I don't know- but here is the breed standard: http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/173200-american-staffordshire-terrier/ Eyes: Light or pink eyes undesirable. Colour:.... and liver not to be encouraged.

Just being ignorent here, but aren't Amstaff's really Pitbulls? Not quite..there was a breed divide. Yes, one is registered, the other isnt. Look up past and present of just about every registered breed to see how many changes the show ring does to the original in the pursuit of "maintaining the standard" somehow it always seems to end up more like "improving " it out of recognition. I don't agree- if that were the case, then every unpapered American Staffordshire Terrier would be considered a banned/restricted/illegal/legal breed (depending on which state you're in) They are in Vic. yep, that is why I said depending on what state you're in :)

I believe that is how the breed started to divide... There are registered APBT (whether reputable or not) ANKC is not the only registry for dogs. The breeds divided in 1935 - when the APBT was an American icon & much beloved family breed.. so long long before modern media created the hype & misconceptions. There is really no way to tell what any cross bred dog is, so why would a "pit bull" cross be any different? Any 'unpaper' Amstaff is seriously in danger of being classified as restricted or prohibited - which is why anyone who breeds unregistered bull breed pups needs their head read. Very true.

exactly. It annoys me to no end when people advertise "pure pitty's" or "pitbull crosses" or say that they had/have a Pitbull (rather than a American Stafford)I think yeah, right where's your proof!

I believe that is how the breed started to divide... There are registered APBT (whether reputable or not) ANKC is not the only registry for dogs.

Just being ignorent here, but aren't Amstaff's really Pitbulls? Not quite..there was a breed divide. Yes, one is registered, the other isnt. Look up past and present of just about every registered breed to see how many changes the show ring does to the original in the pursuit of "maintaining the standard" somehow it always seems to end up more like "improving " it out of recognition. I don't agree- if that were the case, then every unpapered American Staffordshire Terrier would be considered a banned/restricted/illegal/legal breed (depending on which state you're in)

I have seen many links to kennels discussing this subject before but cant remember where they are now Essentially a pitbull and a Amstaff is the same as an Alsation is to a German Shepherd. Same body, different label depending on who wants which connontation. "Alsation" was the name given for GSD's during/after world war 2 --they eventually changed the name back, but for some the name stuck.

curious, so what makes it a Pitty/mix as opposed to a Amstaff/mix?

Just being ignorent here, but aren't Amstaff's really Pitbulls? Not quite..there was a breed divide.

aint' that the truth! thanks for the info :)

I have no idea either as they are? genetically the same as an American Staffordshire Terrier- I have always wondered how people "knew" that they had/have a Pitbull (or a cross) instead?

Okay, this has been bothering me for quite a bit- when people say they have a APBT or a APBT x, how do they (or you) know that the dog is actually a APBT and not say a AST/SBT/BT or a cross from those or a mix of other breeds? If it looks like a 'pitbull' then it is one (for unpapered dogs) is that how people think? Also- how would one go about trying to find a purebred APBT? (I'm excluding APBT's that may have a written/official pedigree- if they exist here in Australia I have no idea?) amended, so as no confusion to terminology.

Could be Isabella? looks similar to this dog- http://www.k9-pines.com/germanshepherds_Avatar.html

got a pic? (:

Just found this- http://www.chromadane.com/ColorPunnettSquaresDoc.htm Since Harlequin and Merle are thought? to be related- and Harl x Harl results in embryonic loss of any Homozygous Harlequin pups, it makes sense that they'd call these dogs "Lethal Whites" --Seems as though the name also got passed on to dogs that are Homozygous Merle which really doesn't make any sense as these dogs are alive and kicking albeit short sighted and hard of hearing.

Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised. My bad- I thought the term 'lethal white' was given to dogs who were homozygous Merle/Harlequin- Must go and read into it a bit more... edit- Yep, what I originally thought- http://www.lethalwhi...ethalwhite.html http://www.australia...thal-white.html http://www.amazingau...al%20Whites.pdf http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lethal+gene lethal gene n. A gene whose expression resultsin the death of the organism, usually during embryogenesis. http://ghr.nlm.nih.g...ary=lethalgene0 Definition(s) Genes which result in the premature death of the organism; dominant lethal genes kill heterozygotes, whereas recessive lethal genes kill only homozygotes.Definition from: MeSH via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine Any gene in which a mutation will result in the premature death of the organism carrying it.Definition from: CRISP Thesaurus via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine A gene that in some (as homozygous) conditions may prevent development or cause the death of an organism or its germ cells -- called also lethal factor, lethal mutant, lethal mutation.Definition from: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary by Merriam-Webster Inc. We wern't referring to the lethal gene???- but the term "lethal white" for dogs who are double merle (Homozygous Merle) or double Harlequin (Homozygous Harlequin). Homozygous Merles/Harlequins won't die at birth unless at the hands of the breeder.

Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised. My bad- I thought the term 'lethal white' was given to dogs who were homozygous Merle/Harlequin- Must go and read into it a bit more... edit- Yep, what I originally thought- http://www.lethalwhites.com/lethalwhite.html http://www.australian-shepherd-lovers.com/lethal-white.html http://www.amazingaussies.com/What%20are%20Lethal%20Whites.pdf