What Constitutes A "pit Bull Terrier"

[ricey]

Hi corie,

My personal view (and it is certainly not the view of a lot of breeders) is that breeding for a conformational 'visually ideal' dog historically has tended to result in dogs that look pretty but are very unhealthy. A good example of what I mean is the Cavalier King Charles spaniel; over the last 90 years or so these were bred solely to resemble the idealised spaniels that could be seen in some rather bad paintings from the King Charles the Second era. Interbred with flat nosed dog breeds such as the pug, this breed is recognised as having mitral valve disease (resulting in heart failure) which affects most Cavs at some stage and is the most common cause of death in this brred. Also well known is the common issue of syringomyelia (google "pedigree dogs exposed") which UK breeders of this breed were shown to have knowingly continued to breed from stud dogs with this awful disease. But the stud dog did look rather pretty....

And then there is the Ridgeback; the ridge indicates spina bifida occulta, and by continuing to breed for the ridge, breeders knowingly continue this problem. Quote "if it doesn't have a ridge, it wouldn't be a ridgeback", as one breeder said on 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'.

So, when I said there is 'a way' that dogs should be bred, all I mean was that the health of the resultant pups should be the primary concern; not what the dog looks like. I'd feel rather sorry for a young family who bought themselves a Cavalier King Charles spaniel because they and their kids liked what it looked like. When the dog dies at an early age from heart disease (as most do), or when the dog dies from the unspeakable agony that is syringomyelia (sadly, very common), how do they explain this to their traumatised kids? This is not a rhetorical question; really, how would mum and dad explain to their kids why little Charlie spent his last months increasingly agonised by the pressures building up in his skull? "Sorry kids, Charlie's breeder didn't give a sh*t" How well do you think that is going to go down?

Just from a factual point of view - Cavalier King Charles spaniel were not bred with pugs, it was the King Charles/toy spaniel that came to be with the addition of pugs. The Cavaliers were bred specifically to regain the look of the original spaniels - the ones from the paintings - a look they had before the introduction of pugs with the King Charles. As for their health problems, it's stated from wikipedia (I know, always to be taken with a grain of salt, but there are references to the information) that it is largely the result of Cavs having a limited 'founding' gene pool, something that modern selective breeding can't control for.

I agree completely that health should never be compromised when breeding for any standard. But that itself is a general statement. With the Cavalier example, MVD can't be guaranteed clear by one test before breeding, and MRI machinery for screening SM for dogs is quite uncommon (and very expensive). SM is also a progressive disease, some dogs never showing signs of SM even though they are affected, and on top of that most cavaliers already have a degree of skull malformation. So without even an absolutely clear standard yet of what categorises a Cav 'clear' for SM, it's not fair yet to say that the breeders aren't breeding for health when the technology and information isn't there yet.

With your Ridgeback example - I didn't look beyond the wiki page for that documentary, but it says in there that 'The programme mistakenly claims that the ridge itself is a mild form of spina bifida'. I learnt myself the hard way to always remember to think critically about documentaries, regardless of how well it's presented. This of course doesn't mean that all the information they provide is false!

Also my 'problem sellers' wasn't directed at the breeding practise (although now that you've put it that way, they can certainly be included) - it was more about people who sell dogs to pet homes when they are unsuited for them (from working lines, high energy level, dominant temperament to inexperienced owner etc), which then results in a problem dog.

Edit to say that I got completely sidetracked - I definitely agree that historically, conformational breeding has led to breed-associated health issues. But I also think that breeding for health as the only criteria isn't always viable either.

Hi corie,

I think that we probably agree on a lot of things; I accept that I was sloppy to accept the statement from "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" that the ridge indicated a mild form of spina bifida without checking whether that statement was valid. I guess that I have been lulled into a false sense of security by BBC documentaries; generally they get it right and then they hammer it home.

I would never say that breeding for health is the only consideration when breeding dogs; I'd just say that it should be the first consideration. Once the 'health box' is ticked, then other considerations can be entertained. Really, if the dog is unhealthy why would you breed it?

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel was interbred with flat nosed dog breeds, but possibly not with pugs. I do not have evidence to support one or the other. Either way, the cav did not benefit.

The thing is, this breed (Cavs) is recognised as being more than just somewhat sickly. And that is due to decisions made by its breeders. Maybe we should just go back to square one and start again. Get a breeding pair of wild wolves and start breeding for a new companion/hunting/protection dog (and I am only joking a little bit when I say this).

ricey

[Rocketeer]

Hi Ricey,

I do see your point about working dogs being generally healthier than non-working dogs. But I do believe a working dog doesn’t always equal a suitable family pet. In some cases it equals a nuisance dog. For some dogs the only work they have is being a pet. And I do agree that health (mental and physical) should be the first priority. But that’s not always the case in both Show and Working dogs.

In terms of breeding for the original purpose- Not every Apbt, Amstaff , Sbt and BT want to breed their dogs for fighting. Some people just want them as pets. Not every Belgian/German Shepherd owner wants it to guard livestock/ herd. Some people think they are great for police/service. Not everyone wants a Golden/Labrador retriever for flushing and retrieving game. Some prefer them as guide dogs.

Dogs can be very versatile and I believe they can serve many purposes. I think if every dog was bred the ‘one’ way they were intend for, most people in the suburbs will be stuck owning little lap dogs. And all working breeds would only be kept in small circles. But I believe freedom to choose is the basis of who we are.

[corie]

Hi corie,

I think that we probably agree on a lot of things; I accept that I was sloppy to accept the statement from "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" that the ridge indicated a mild form of spina bifida without checking whether that statement was valid. I guess that I have been lulled into a false sense of security by BBC documentaries; generally they get it right and then they hammer it home.

I would never say that breeding for health is the only consideration when breeding dogs; I'd just say that it should be the first consideration. Once the 'health box' is ticked, then other considerations can be entertained. Really, if the dog is unhealthy why would you breed it?

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel was interbred with flat nosed dog breeds, but possibly not with pugs. I do not have evidence to support one or the other. Either way, the cav did not benefit.

The thing is, this breed (Cavs) is recognised as being more than just somewhat sickly. And that is due to decisions made by its breeders. Maybe we should just go back to square one and start again. Get a breeding pair of wild wolves and start breeding for a new companion/hunting/protection dog (and I am only joking a little bit when I say this).

ricey

That is a really, really intriguing idea. It would definitely take a while, and wolves probably wouldn't adapt to a human's modern lifestyle as they did oh so long ago (considering the issues people have with living with hybrid wolves already), but still, definitely interesting.

A solution like that though, it gives no room for improvement. When people conduct a trial and then make a mistake, wouldn't it sometimes be better to try and fix the mistake, rather than to scrap the trial and start from scratch again? What if people forget protocol during the restart, and make the same mistakes again? Finding a better detection system for the illnesses common in the Cavs, or even better, finding a cure, I think that would be more beneficial all around, especially since a new scientific discovery, especially in the area of health, can have a positive affect in so many other arenas.

I guess I'm trying to say something along the lines of, human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw too, but I think to start talking about human nature would be a little too off topic :laugh:

[Rocketeer]

Hi corie,

I think that we probably agree on a lot of things; I accept that I was sloppy to accept the statement from "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" that the ridge indicated a mild form of spina bifida without checking whether that statement was valid. I guess that I have been lulled into a false sense of security by BBC documentaries; generally they get it right and then they hammer it home.

I would never say that breeding for health is the only consideration when breeding dogs; I'd just say that it should be the first consideration. Once the 'health box' is ticked, then other considerations can be entertained. Really, if the dog is unhealthy why would you breed it?

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel was interbred with flat nosed dog breeds, but possibly not with pugs. I do not have evidence to support one or the other. Either way, the cav did not benefit.

The thing is, this breed (Cavs) is recognised as being more than just somewhat sickly. And that is due to decisions made by its breeders. Maybe we should just go back to square one and start again. Get a breeding pair of wild wolves and start breeding for a new companion/hunting/protection dog (and I am only joking a little bit when I say this).

ricey

That is a really, really intriguing idea. It would definitely take a while, and wolves probably wouldn't adapt to a human's modern lifestyle as they did oh so long ago (considering the issues people have with living with hybrid wolves already), but still, definitely interesting.

A solution like that though, it gives no room for improvement. When people conduct a trial and then make a mistake, wouldn't it sometimes be better to try and fix the mistake, rather than to scrap the trial and start from scratch again? What if people forget protocol during the restart, and make the same mistakes again? Finding a better detection system for the illnesses common in the Cavs, or even better, finding a cure, I think that would be more beneficial all around, especially since a new scientific discovery, especially in the area of health, can have a positive affect in so many other arenas.

I guess I'm trying to say something along the lines of, human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw too, but I think to start talking about human nature would be a little too off topic :laugh:

I agree,

Starting over is a bit of a stretch. I think going back in history to undo all the wrongs of the past is counterproductive. I think focusing on the direction you want to go from where you stand is more productive. If a car of today doesn’t pass today’s safety ratings. Should we go back to a car of the 60s and begin there? And start pin-pointing all the problems we made all along the way? Or should we begin with what we have today and focus on improving it?

People love to talk about the ‘good old days’ and how good everything was. Yes things may have been great, but great compared to what was available and accepted back then. The cars back then were great, compared to the horse and cart.

Then some people love to beat the drum about all the social, economic and health problems of today and how ‘bad’ everything has become. I know the world is not a perfect place. But on a whole everything has gotten better. Life expectancy, intelligence, health, wealth, technology, quality of life and world peace has improved greatly compared to 40 or so years ago, as a whole.

If you take a person in Australia today who is living under the poverty line and compare him to someone living in the 60s. They would be considered very well off in terms of what they have and what they have access to.

The same applies to dogs in my opinion. Going from the chain dogs kept in dudgeons of past, to the fleabag chained up in the yard. Nowadays dogs as a whole are healthier, more intelligent, more trainable, more sociable, and more domesticated. And just more widely accepted in the community. Then you see a dog riding a skateboard and you think to yourself ‘ Shit, I can’t even ride one of them’. That’s when you know we’ve come a long way.

And what has allowed expansion? It certaintly wasn’t conformity.

( and also, what do you mean when you say "human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw " ?? )

Edited May 30, 2013 by Rocketeer

[corie]

I agree,

Starting over is a bit of a stretch. I think going back in history to undo all the wrongs of the past is counterproductive. I think focusing on the direction you want to go from where you stand is more productive. If a car of today doesn’t pass today’s safety ratings. Should we go back to a car of the 60s and begin there? And start pin-pointing all the problems we made all along the way? Or should we begin with what we have today and focus on improving it?

People love to talk about the ‘good old days’ and how good everything was. Yes things may have been great, but great compared to what was available and accepted back then. The cars back then were great, compared to the horse and cart.

Then some people love to beat the drum about all the social, economic and health problems of today and how ‘bad’ everything has become. I know the world is not a perfect place. But on a whole everything has gotten better. Life expectancy, intelligence, health, wealth, technology, quality of life and world peace has improved greatly compared to 40 or so years ago, as a whole.

If you take a person in Australia today who is living under the poverty line and compare him to someone living in the 60s. They would be considered very well off in terms of what they have and what they have access to.

The same applies to dogs in my opinion. Going from the chain dogs kept in dudgeons of past, to the fleabag chained up in the yard. Nowadays dogs as a whole are healthier, more intelligent, more trainable, more sociable, and more domesticated. And just more widely accepted in the community. Then you see a dog riding a skateboard and you think to yourself ‘ Shit, I can’t even ride one of them’. That’s when you know we’ve come a long way.

And what has allowed expansion? It certaintly wasn’t conformity.

( and also, what do you mean when you say "human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw " ?? )

As in, in an ideal world, people would be able to change, or accept/work towards change, without having a threat pressing over their livelihoods in order to do so (so possibly 'change' would've been a better word than 'innovation'). Can't think of a good example off the top of my head. On a smaller scale though, something along the lines of a student staying up all night before a major exam, while they had all semester to study. In an ideal world, that student would be frowned upon by their peers for not better utilising their time, but realistically, they're with a bunch of friends on the same night doing the same thing :laugh:

[Santo66]

A Pitbull is an Amstaff without papers, or a Bull breed that isn't a pure Bull Terrier or Staffy isn't it

[ricey]

Hi corie,

I think that we probably agree on a lot of things; I accept that I was sloppy to accept the statement from "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" that the ridge indicated a mild form of spina bifida without checking whether that statement was valid. I guess that I have been lulled into a false sense of security by BBC documentaries; generally they get it right and then they hammer it home.

I would never say that breeding for health is the only consideration when breeding dogs; I'd just say that it should be the first consideration. Once the 'health box' is ticked, then other considerations can be entertained. Really, if the dog is unhealthy why would you breed it?

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel was interbred with flat nosed dog breeds, but possibly not with pugs. I do not have evidence to support one or the other. Either way, the cav did not benefit.

The thing is, this breed (Cavs) is recognised as being more than just somewhat sickly. And that is due to decisions made by its breeders. Maybe we should just go back to square one and start again. Get a breeding pair of wild wolves and start breeding for a new companion/hunting/protection dog (and I am only joking a little bit when I say this).

ricey

That is a really, really intriguing idea. It would definitely take a while, and wolves probably wouldn't adapt to a human's modern lifestyle as they did oh so long ago (considering the issues people have with living with hybrid wolves already), but still, definitely interesting.

A solution like that though, it gives no room for improvement. When people conduct a trial and then make a mistake, wouldn't it sometimes be better to try and fix the mistake, rather than to scrap the trial and start from scratch again? What if people forget protocol during the restart, and make the same mistakes again? Finding a better detection system for the illnesses common in the Cavs, or even better, finding a cure, I think that would be more beneficial all around, especially since a new scientific discovery, especially in the area of health, can have a positive affect in so many other arenas.

I guess I'm trying to say something along the lines of, human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw too, but I think to start talking about human nature would be a little too off topic :laugh:

Hi Corie,

I am not that sure that it will take that much time. Might take 9 or 10 breeding cycles, or possibly a few more. The well known Russian experiment into the domestication of the silver fox had, by well before the 20th breeding cycle, resulted in pet quality foxes. They now sell these foxes as pets to Russians who can afford to buy them.

You can read about the Russian experiment here, on Wikipedia (gulp)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Thing is, all dogs were puppies once, all dogs were wolves once, and we should all accept that all dogs could be wolves again. My Lulu of all my dogs is the one closest to a wolf. Lulu is a Maltese/Shih Tsu/Silky cross but she has survived mast cell tumout; pyonephritis; and anything else that gets thrown at her. Tough little shit. Scared the f*#k out of the rescue pit bulls that dragged their sorry arses through my yard. Hobbes my pit bull is so far away from being a wolf; he is a woose bag.

ricey

[ricey]

A Pitbull is an Amstaff without papers, or a Bull breed that isn't a pure Bull Terrier or Staffy isn't it

Yes, I agree; an American Staffordshire Terier without breed papers is by definition a pit bull terrier. Only the AmStaff breed papers separate the AmStaff from their progenitors, the American Pit Terrier. Apart from a piece of paper, they are the same breed. Bred along differing lines for nearly 80 years now, they share the same DNA.

Having said that, in 80 years of breeding for a somewhat different temperament and look, after at least 25 breeding cycles the American Staffordshire is quite possibly a different breed. AmStaff breeders would say that they are different breeds, and I think that I am now starting to believe them. Only just starting to believe them though.....

Cheers,

ricey

[ricey]

Hi corie,

I think that we probably agree on a lot of things; I accept that I was sloppy to accept the statement from "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" that the ridge indicated a mild form of spina bifida without checking whether that statement was valid. I guess that I have been lulled into a false sense of security by BBC documentaries; generally they get it right and then they hammer it home.

I would never say that breeding for health is the only consideration when breeding dogs; I'd just say that it should be the first consideration. Once the 'health box' is ticked, then other considerations can be entertained. Really, if the dog is unhealthy why would you breed it?

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel was interbred with flat nosed dog breeds, but possibly not with pugs. I do not have evidence to support one or the other. Either way, the cav did not benefit.

The thing is, this breed (Cavs) is recognised as being more than just somewhat sickly. And that is due to decisions made by its breeders. Maybe we should just go back to square one and start again. Get a breeding pair of wild wolves and start breeding for a new companion/hunting/protection dog (and I am only joking a little bit when I say this).

ricey

That is a really, really intriguing idea. It would definitely take a while, and wolves probably wouldn't adapt to a human's modern lifestyle as they did oh so long ago (considering the issues people have with living with hybrid wolves already), but still, definitely interesting.

A solution like that though, it gives no room for improvement. When people conduct a trial and then make a mistake, wouldn't it sometimes be better to try and fix the mistake, rather than to scrap the trial and start from scratch again? What if people forget protocol during the restart, and make the same mistakes again? Finding a better detection system for the illnesses common in the Cavs, or even better, finding a cure, I think that would be more beneficial all around, especially since a new scientific discovery, especially in the area of health, can have a positive affect in so many other arenas.

I guess I'm trying to say something along the lines of, human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw too, but I think to start talking about human nature would be a little too off topic :laugh:

I agree,

Starting over is a bit of a stretch. I think going back in history to undo all the wrongs of the past is counterproductive. I think focusing on the direction you want to go from where you stand is more productive. If a car of today doesn’t pass today’s safety ratings. Should we go back to a car of the 60s and begin there? And start pin-pointing all the problems we made all along the way? Or should we begin with what we have today and focus on improving it?

People love to talk about the ‘good old days’ and how good everything was. Yes things may have been great, but great compared to what was available and accepted back then. The cars back then were great, compared to the horse and cart.

Then some people love to beat the drum about all the social, economic and health problems of today and how ‘bad’ everything has become. I know the world is not a perfect place. But on a whole everything has gotten better. Life expectancy, intelligence, health, wealth, technology, quality of life and world peace has improved greatly compared to 40 or so years ago, as a whole.

If you take a person in Australia today who is living under the poverty line and compare him to someone living in the 60s. They would be considered very well off in terms of what they have and what they have access to.

The same applies to dogs in my opinion. Going from the chain dogs kept in dudgeons of past, to the fleabag chained up in the yard. Nowadays dogs as a whole are healthier, more intelligent, more trainable, more sociable, and more domesticated. And just more widely accepted in the community. Then you see a dog riding a skateboard and you think to yourself ‘ Shit, I can’t even ride one of them’. That’s when you know we’ve come a long way.

And what has allowed expansion? It certaintly wasn’t conformity.

( and also, what do you mean when you say "human innovation reaches its peak when the problem is pressing. In an idealistic world, this would be a flaw " ?? )

Hi Corie and Rocketeer,

I take onboard a lot of the points you both make; I was only semi-serious when I suggested going back to square one and start breeding wolves to produce a new domestic dog.

The gene pools of some dog breeds have become somewhat stagnant and inbred, and shallow. The obvious way to improve the gene pool of a breed with health deficiencies is to introduce genes from other breeds that do not have the same genetic disease deficiencies as the initial breed. This is heresy in the minds of a lot of breeders that want to keep their breed 'pure'. However, the American Staffordshire terrier breed club in the US of A did exactly this when they perceived that the AmStaff needed a fresh injection of American Pit Bull Terrier genes. And the AmStaff benefited from this far sighted intervention.

I think that it is fair to say that there have been a multitude of mistakes made when breeding dogs to a conformation standard. To be fair, there have been just as many good decisions made that have resulted in fine healthy breeds. I do not accept the analogy you make when you compare the breeding of dogs to the designing of cars and suggest that starting over with dog breeding is similar to starting over with cars. Any engineer/car designer can start with a clean sheet of paper; today's dog breeders do not.

Any engineer can take onboard all that has been learned about cars in the last 110 years and p*ss off all the cr@p decisions and wrong turns made. They have an opportunity to design a totally new car without any of the imperfections of previous cars. It is not quite so easy to p*ss off all the genetic imperfections of a dog breed that have built up over many decades or centuries.

Cheers,

ricey

[corie]

A Pitbull is an Amstaff without papers, or a Bull breed that isn't a pure Bull Terrier or Staffy isn't it

It is generally used as a blanket term. But the definition becomes more of an issue in states with BSL, and people can't protect their dogs from the law (as well as vice versa, when people try to hide their dogs from the law).

Hi Corie,

I am not that sure that it will take that much time. Might take 9 or 10 breeding cycles, or possibly a few more. The well known Russian experiment into the domestication of the silver fox had, by well before the 20th breeding cycle, resulted in pet quality foxes. They now sell these foxes as pets to Russians who can afford to buy them.

You can read about the Russian experiment here, on Wikipedia (gulp)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Thing is, all dogs were puppies once, all dogs were wolves once, and we should all accept that all dogs could be wolves again. My Lulu of all my dogs is the one closest to a wolf. Lulu is a Maltese/Shih Tsu/Silky cross but she has survived mast cell tumout; pyonephritis; and anything else that gets thrown at her. Tough little shit. Scared the f*#k out of the rescue pit bulls that dragged their sorry arses through my yard. Hobbes my pit bull is so far away from being a wolf; he is a woose bag.

ricey

I was about to bring up the fox experiment, because not only did temperaments of the foxes change through breeding, but some lost the silver coat as well, and started developing much more variation - patches, black and white instead of silver fur, etc, which gives some indication as to how the variation in dogs originally started.

When I say, 'it will take I while', I was referring to the time it would take for some people to accept them. I bet if you offered someone who was in love with their small white dogs who had health issues with a genetically healthy wolf, they would tell you thanks but no thanks!

And 'wolf-like' isn't just a temperament. It's a behaviour. Wolves aren't 'tough' - they are wild. I can say that Lulu is even 'tougher' than a wolf; but that doesn't make her close to one. A wolf could never live with a modern human. Even wolf hybrids are banned outright in specific places for good reason.

Hi Corie and Rocketeer,

I take onboard a lot of the points you both make; I was only semi-serious when I suggested going back to square one and start breeding wolves to produce a new domestic dog.

The gene pools of some dog breeds have become somewhat stagnant and inbred, and shallow. The obvious way to improve the gene pool of a breed with health deficiencies is to introduce genes from other breeds that do not have the same genetic disease deficiencies as the initial breed. This is heresy in the minds of a lot of breeders that want to keep their breed 'pure'. However, the American Staffordshire terrier breed club in the US of A did exactly this when they perceived that the AmStaff needed a fresh injection of American Pit Bull Terrier genes. And the AmStaff benefited from this far sighted intervention.

I think that it is fair to say that there have been a multitude of mistakes made when breeding dogs to a conformation standard. To be fair, there have been just as many good decisions made that have resulted in fine healthy breeds. I do not accept the analogy you make when you compare the breeding of dogs to the designing of cars and suggest that starting over with dog breeding is similar to starting over with cars. Any engineer/car designer can start with a clean sheet of paper; today's dog breeders do not.

Any engineer can take onboard all that has been learned about cars in the last 110 years and p*ss off all the cr@p decisions and wrong turns made. They have an opportunity to design a totally new car without any of the imperfections of previous cars. It is not quite so easy to p*ss off all the genetic imperfections of a dog breed that have built up over many decades or centuries.

Cheers,

ricey

Another point that can be made is that not everyone can be an engineer, You need some kind of proof of qualification when you try to sell to the public a car that you made, and probably dozens of safety tests. The same standards just don't apply with dog breeding, and the restrictions in regards to selling alone are comparatively non existant. More mistakes are made, and more mistakes are continually made because without that education/qualification, some people just don't know better. Without that legal restriction, some people just don't care, and they are allowed to not care. There is also a more straightforward blame/responsibility between someone who had designed a faulty car, and someone who has bred genetically unsound dogs - an attitude that is changing, now with DNA testing and screening more widely available.

As an aside, can you point me in a direction where I can read about the introduction of some Pit Bull in the AmStaff breed?

[blakkjackal]

As an aside, can you point me in a direction where I can read about the introduction of some Pit Bull in the AmStaff breed?

You can still dual register Amstaffs, AKC recognising Amstaffs and UKC APBTs so really there was never need for an "introduction".

[BlackJaq]

As far as I'm aware the AmStaff breed was founded when some people decided to take their APBT and write a standard and show them and cease any involvement with dog fighting... So as Hockz said, you can still dual register them (in the US). Not sure why you think one was "introduced" to the other?

Edited June 11, 2013 by BlackJaq

[blakkjackal]

As far as I'm aware the AmStaff breed was founded when some people decided to take their APBT and write a standard and show them and cease any involvement with dog fighting... So as Hockz said, you can still dual register them (in the US). Not sure why you think one was "introduced" to the other?

Correct. They made up a fancy name to try and cut any connections to pit dogs.

[corie]

As far as I'm aware the AmStaff breed was founded when some people decided to take their APBT and write a standard and show them and cease any involvement with dog fighting... So as Hockz said, you can still dual register them (in the US). Not sure why you think one was "introduced" to the other?

Correct. They made up a fancy name to try and cut any connections to pit dogs.

That clears things up for me, thank you both for the info.

[Dame Aussie]

Our next dog will be an Amstaff, only because we can't get an APBT as we're in VIC.

[Wobbly]

One thing I am noticing now, which I am delighted with -

Just recently, I have become quite interested in obedience training. After 5 years of basically conditioning my dog away from focusing on me (we were bushwalkers, she sniffs and generally delights in the environment while I ambled beside her woolgathering), I am finding I have a dog whose temperament seems tailor made for obedience. She has the drive and motivation, and a great attitude, although we are at puppy basic level on focus because I never worked on it before. But the improvement we've made on that even in the last week is just astounding, such versatile dogs. I used to be mesmerised by her physical and athletic ability (Jarrah is pretty incredible in terms of agility, sometimes seeming more like a cat than a dog in her climbing skills especially). Now I find myself mesmerised by just how quickly she is picking up on the focus homework we have been set by Denise Fenzi in an online course I am doing with her. I am afraid I am a bit of a slow learner, so I am holding her back here a bit, she has the talent, I need to learn more though.

Simply amazing dogs. It was just a happy accident I walked into the pound and got Miss Jarrah, so glad I did!

There is a real visual difference between APBTs & Amstaffs, whether they are a separate breed depends on which registry you prefer, AKC, UKC or ADBA. Here's a great visual comparison: http://www.game-dog.com/showthread.php?t=31155&page=1

Note the very, very handsome Hornet's Ch Kit Carson, who is just the spitting image of Jarrah. For myself I do prefer the look of ADBA registry dogs, specifically Kit Carson, wish I could find more pics of that dog.

[Wobbly]

I do think a really well bred APBT might be too much dog for the average owner. Lots of breeds are like this - most people are aware of the lengths they would have go to to manage a really well bred kelpie of working lines in suburbia - you basically need to be doing organised dog sports of some sort if you don't have access to sheep to keep the dog happy and balanced, or for those less inclined toward organised sports you will see people throwing balls and frisbees on beaches & in parks for hours, or walking, cycling or jogging with the dog for hours, it's a basic neccessity for the dog. People already accept and understand that about working line kelpies and collies, they need to accept that about Pit Bulls too.

[Wobbly]

Although that said, as Mel and I were discussing in another thread, in Australia "Pit Bull type" covers an incredibly broad range of temperaments and structures, so it's most definitely not one size fits all, there's massive variation in ancestry for any given Pit Bull type in Australia. Blanket statements don't tend to cover it here, so the above is for the Jarrah types only. XD

[blakkjackal]

Is Jarrah a ped dog?

I personally think there is only one real APBT and that is the game/performance bred variety. The others are just Amstaffs with a "cool" name. One of the biggest issues with pit bulls is the sad thing that everyone likes to call their bull mutts and anything with a red nose a pit bull. That's obviously not the case. Especially with pit bulls it's not one unless you know the dogs behind it.

On a side note though, it's incredible what crap registries are willing to register as pure so even a pedigree doesn't guarantee anything -- just look at any Whopper dog...

[ricey]

One has to ask; what is gameness? We all "know" that 'real APBT's' are bred for gameness, but really, what is gameness?

Is gameness the willingness to fight another dog to the death, or is it the willingness to not give up? Is it the drive to achieve what the dog wants at the moment?

Me, I think that a load of shit is spouted about gameness and most of it is spouted by cowards who want their dogs to make them look tough.

APBT's are the best of dogs, but they are just dogs. A truly game APBT might be possibly too much dog for some pet dog owners, but I'd like my next dog to be a game APBT. I'd like to have a calm, confident dog that is OK with people and not phased by other dogs or other circumstances. Gameness, whatever it is, results in dependable dogs. Don't we all want dependable, calm dogs? The APBT is the best of dogs and I am really pissed off when this magnificent breed gets vilified in the news.

ricey