Pit Bull/amstaff Difference

[ruthless]

The dogs on the cover have dark eyes. I would consider them to be Amstaffs. This is a blue and white APBT. I don't think such dogs exist in Australia.

http://nicolemlakarphotography.com/blog/?p=1698

I know there's the whole "they come from the same DNA" debate, but can you get Amstaffs that look like the dog in the link above??

[julzjc]

The dogs on the cover have dark eyes. I would consider them to be Amstaffs. This is a blue and white APBT. I don't think such dogs exist in Australia.

http://nicolemlakarphotography.com/blog/?p=1698

I know there's the whole "they come from the same DNA" debate, but can you get Amstaffs that look like the dog in the link above??

My old neightbour in Sydney had a blue/white light eyed(orangey, greeny) "AST", not too sure wether it had papers. All I can say is he was one magnificent looking dog.

[wiseguy]

The dogs on the cover have dark eyes. I would consider them to be Amstaffs. This is a blue and white APBT. I don't think such dogs exist in Australia.

http://nicolemlakarphotography.com/blog/?p=1698

I know there's the whole "they come from the same DNA" debate, but can you get Amstaffs that look like the dog in the link above??

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.

[ruthless]

Do you have any links to papered ASTs in this country that have yellow eyes? I'm genuinely curious.

Yeah, I call that blue. Same as Cesar's Junior.

[wiseguy]

Do you have any links to papered ASTs in this country that have yellow eyes? I'm genuinely curious.

Yeah, I call that blue. Same as Cesar's Junior.

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.

Edited February 23, 2011 by wiseguy

[geo]

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.

You only have to look at AST breeders pages to see that they're also breeding to their own opinions and what they take from the standard.

Why would anyone want to get into dog breeding only to breed to a standard that they must conform to, it's against human nature not to try and improve something (it can still fit the standards), even judges vary their opinions on their take of the breed standards.

I've lost count of how many people are breeding for "solid muscle" "big bone mass" "rare blue", these people are registered breeders flaunting their wares as they think this is what people want to buy and this is the direction they feel the breed should go... these breeders aren't 20 year plus veterans they've got their rego and prefix and that's it.

If you know what you're looking for you can spot the decent breeders a mile away, usually by their dogs, but sadly many owners of the AST nowadays don't have the feintest idea.

[RottnBullies]

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.

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

[wiseguy]

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.

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.

Edited February 24, 2011 by wiseguy

[RottnBullies]

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.

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.

I have been told previously on another forum why blue eyes were not acceptable, but I really don't remember, I personally though don't see this as being any different to any other breeds who have their own set of faults within their standards.

I also much prefer the yellow/amber eyes on Pits than blue, but having said that I still enjoy seeing the blue eyes especially on the whites

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

[wiseguy]

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.

[geo]

I'm not a fan of the oversized monsters that are being peddled as APBT by some (probably many) UKC breeders.

I think most of the people that i've met that are interested in the APBT here in Australia prefer the ADBA type dogs, it's the same in NZ, many breed fanciers are only interested in the APBT in it's original form.

Though the ADBA standard doesn't mention weight, it's clear by all of the shows i've seen that there is definitely a standard size that is applied when judging and i've not seen any large dogs, same as i hadn't seen any really small ones. This isn't to say there aren't any though.

I think the general public are also misinformed about what an original style pitbull looked like, and will always think it's a large dog, and with the variances between the 2 clubs it's very easy for other breed representatives to argue that they are not a pure breed of dog.

Are we going to see another breed (ambull, bullypit, short wide and stupid looking) strive for independence from the APBT and decide that they're not pitbulls (which they're not) to get away from BSL, but all the while give the general public the idea that they are pitbulls.

[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?

[geo]

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?

My post was in relation to weight, i did not say that the ADBA doesn't have a written description. It does and i have read it.

I made no reference to the UKC breed standard, same as all the AST breeders here, you'll find a a wide variety of the same type, from 16-22 inches tall, big, small, terrier type, bully type etc.. I mentioned many UKC breeders were producing large dogs.

I don't really care for club politics, as this is clearly the issue between the 2 clubs, core enthusiasts would more likely prefer a APBT bred with the ADBA conformation in mind.

Funny how the AKC wont recognise them as a pure breed, but had opened it's stud books to them.

As for your last comment i do find that extraordinary, most likely tit for tat.

[ari.g]

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?

Why is that extraordinary? Wouldn't you make a stand? Why ban the breed that bred the breed but not the breed bred from the breed?

Edited February 26, 2011 by ari.g

[wiseguy]

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?

Why is that extraordinary? Wouldn't you make a stand? Why ban the breed that bred the breed but not the breed bred from the breed?

The breed that bred the breed? Almost correct. But not quite.

Which, however, does makes them the same breed, yes? Of course it does. Or more to the point, one is pure.

So why ban the branch of the family that has been faithfully bred to a standard for 75 years, the true APBT, as opposed to a type that no one can agree what the hell it is suppose to look like?

Now let's all dance around the elephant in the room one more time.

Edited February 26, 2011 by wiseguy

[geo]

They will register the dogs but they will call them APBT.

So Wiseguy if you firmly believe that the AST is a pure bred pitbull, so why not rename all the AST's APBT in the name of originality etc..?

If you're trying to convert APBT people into believing their chosen dogs are not pure bred you're going to have a hard task. No matter how right you think you are, i think a dog that has been bred under the ADBA standards since 1909 with many many years of lineage and proof of parentage is pure enough for me.

If you believe that somehow that dog isn't pure bred because the AKC say's so, your head must be (to be polite) stuck in the sand.

[RottnBullies]

They will register the dogs but they will call them APBT.

So Wiseguy if you firmly believe that the AST is a pure bred pitbull, so why not rename all the AST's APBT in the name of originality etc..?

If you're trying to convert APBT people into believing their chosen dogs are not pure bred you're going to have a hard task. No matter how right you think you are, i think a dog that has been bred under the ADBA standards since 1909 with many many years of lineage and proof of parentage is pure enough for me.

If you believe that somehow that dog isn't pure bred because the AKC say's so, your head must be (to be polite) stuck in the sand.

Absolutely Geo

Am Staff comes from the APBT, yet the Am Staff Is the real Pit Bull :D

Me thinks someones got one too many pink elephants floating around In his head!

wiseguy you sound awfully familiar to a reincarnated member from the past here

[wiseguy]

They will register the dogs but they will call them APBT.

So Wiseguy if you firmly believe that the AST is a pure bred pitbull, so why not rename all the AST's APBT in the name of originality etc..?

If you're trying to convert APBT people into believing their chosen dogs are not pure bred you're going to have a hard task. No matter how right you think you are, i think a dog that has been bred under the ADBA standards since 1909 with many many years of lineage and proof of parentage is pure enough for me.

If you believe that somehow that dog isn't pure bred because the AKC say's so, your head must be (to be polite) stuck in the sand.

You obviously either don't read all the posts or you are very selective about which bits you choose to comment on. Actually that is patently obvious.

I have said there is no doubt there are pure bred APBTs, there is no denying that, the problem being is that different regions have different opinions about what the ''true'' APBT is & what it looks like. Too much variety to be taken seriously as all being ''pure breeds'' of the same breed. Even you have made mention of the anomalies in the ''breed''.

Genuine, ethically bred, registered pure breeds are easily recognisable regardless of what COUNTRY they are bred in. APBTs vary from city to city, suburb to suburb depending on the opinion of the people who are breeding them.

And that, my man, is why they were not, & more than likely never will be, recognised as a bona fide pure breed by any legitmate pure breed registry on this earth. Or any other earth for that matter.

And please don't insult my intelligence by trotting out the usual petulant nonsense about ''we don't care'', ''ours are performance registers'' et al, etc, etc, waffle, waffle.

Any genuine, ethical breeder of recognised, registered pure breeds loves to have their ''work'' displayed at sanctioned championship shows, & especially if they can qualify for prestigious events such as westminister or crufts, the holy grails of the pure breed world & genuine, ethical APBT breeders would be no different if given the chance. They would jump at it if it was offered to them

BTW, about 6-8 (?) years ago, the top agility dog in the USA, as in numero uno, was an AKC registered SBT bitch. A little white girl, a dead ringer for my old girl reggie in fact, God rest her soul

It would be an interesting if the APBTs were given the chance at AKC registration though.

If all the factions could agree on an acceptable standard & then if they passed the required criterium , & were admitted on the AKC pure breed register, how many so called APBTs of today would be looking for a new identity tomorrow do you think?

[geo]

And please don't insult my intelligence by trotting out the usual petulant nonsense about ''we don't care'', ''ours are performance registers'' et al, etc, etc, waffle, waffle.

Any genuine, ethical breeder of recognised, registered pure breeds loves to have their ''work'' displayed at sanctioned championship shows, & especially if they can qualify for prestigious events such as westminister or crufts, the holy grails of the pure breed world & genuine, ethical APBT breeders would be no different if given the chance. They would jump at it if it was offered to them

BTW, about 6-8 (?) years ago, the top agility dog in the USA, as in numero uno, was an AKC registered SBT bitch. A little white girl, a dead ringer for my old girl reggie in fact, God rest her soul

It would be an interesting if the APBTs were given the chance at AKC registration though.

If all the factions could agree on an acceptable standard & then if they passed the required criterium , & were admitted on the AKC pure breed register, how many so called APBTs of today would be looking for a new identity tomorrow do you think?

Not trotting out petulant nonsense, i did not say "ours are performance registers". You have an issue and it's clearly deeply rooted and existed before i started posting on this forum.

I wish you all the best in showing your "work" at your "prestigious events" to find your "holy grail". The rest of us will stick with enjoying our dogs for what they bring into our lives regardless of breed.

PS, when you quote someone the other person has to have actually posted the information in the first instance. Plus i'd also back a UKC titled super dog over any AKC agility dog, any given day..

[wiseguy]

They will register the dogs but they will call them APBT.

So Wiseguy if you firmly believe that the AST is a pure bred pitbull, so why not rename all the AST's APBT in the name of originality etc..?

If you're trying to convert APBT people into believing their chosen dogs are not pure bred you're going to have a hard task. No matter how right you think you are, i think a dog that has been bred under the ADBA standards since 1909 with many many years of lineage and proof of parentage is pure enough for me.

If you believe that somehow that dog isn't pure bred because the AKC say's so, your head must be (to be polite) stuck in the sand.

Am Staff comes from the APBT, yet the Am Staff Is the real Pit Bull

Me thinks someones got one too many pink elephants floating around In his head!

Another red herring.

The American Staffordshire Terrier is the APBT. It isn't a product of it.

A name change & bona fide standard was necessary to enable it to be accepted onto the AKC pure breed registry..

An act of love, an act of breed preservation. Job done.

Although its situation is looking decidedly shaky the more the APBT is put under scrutiny.

G.B. has declared them to be APBTs, the Queensland judiciary has declared them to be the same breed, Ontario Canada has declared them to be the same (along with the SBT I hasten to add) Banned the three of them.

A hypothetical for you, assuming you have a genuine passion for pure breeds in general, Rottweilers in particular.

Would you really consider 40lb Rottweilers types, pure bred, to be the same breed as 100lb Rottweilers types, also pure bred, simply because a privately owned company without pure breed registry accreditation said they were?

I am not saying APBT are not pure breeds. Many are.

Every different type & style of them.

It's the figuring out which one is the genuine APBT that is problem.

Is it the 35 pounders or the 60+ pounders?

The AST maybe?

Now there's a thought.