How Can You Tell...

[cruzzi]

Britain doesn't recognise the AST. It is just another alias for the APBT as far as they are concerned.

I've spoken to a number of people deeply involved with BSL in the UK and their take on it is that as the Amstaff is recognised by the AKC the KC would recognise the breed however it is unlikely any Amstaff would have made it through quarantine prior to the amendments to the BS laws allowing "new" 'pitbulls' (this was 4 or so years ago from memory) to be put on the register rather than automatically PTS. Not sure where it stands at the moment but my guess would be it's pretty much a vicious circle really - the KC won't recognise a breed that isn't in the country and their quarantine is unlikely to let a "suspect" breed in which isn't recognised by the KC.

My take is they are two separate breeds - they have separate registries and separate breed standards. The 'pit bull' is a long long stretch from the American Pit Bull Terrier.

25 years ago these same generic yellow mongrel dogs probably would've been called Labradors.

The Brit Gov considers the AST is another name for the APBT & is therefore banned. Which is the reason it isn't recognised by the K.C.

Which doesn't mean there aren't any there of course.

The K.C. doesn't recognise the Jack Russell Terrier either. Go figure.

Australia was first to recognised the Border Collie & actually wrote the original standard but has never claimed it to be an Australian breed.

[melzawelza]

Okay, this has been bothering me for quite a bit- when people say they have a Pitbull or a Pitbull cross, how do they (or you) know that the dog is actually a Pitbull and not say a Stafford/Amstaff or a cross from those or another breed?

If it looks like a PB then it is one (if unpapered)? is that how everyone thinks? Also- how would one go about trying to find a purebred PB?

(I'm excluding Pitbulls that may have a written pedigree- if they exist here in Australia I have no idea?)

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.

The APBT has been registered with the ABDA since the late 1800s. They are not recognised by the ANKC but the ANKC isn't the be-all and end all.

Not everyone who likes the APBT wants a "tough" dog or is a moron with a need to boost their ego, and saying you own one doesn't necessarily mean it's aggressive. Effectively they're the same breed so whether someone wants to call it an APBT or an AST, doesn't really matter to me Only reason they can't prove it's an APBT or that it cannot be called an APBT is due to BSL.

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?

Well it goes both ways. If they say their unpapered dog is an Amstaff how do they know it's an Amstaff and not an APBT?

At the end of the day, an unpapered dog is an unknown dog. My dog is a rescue but I know who bred her. The person who bred her says she's a pure bred 'pit bull' and a friend who used to show and breed pedigree APBT before the bans also thinks she's pure. I call her a "Pit Bull type dog' because that is what she is. She fits the 'type' but I don't know her history so I don't want to call her pure bred anything.

[Erny]

In the current Victorian law (which is flawed and sucks big time), it is based on "type" and that "type" is what fits a description that has been set down as a "standard" by the Government.

Not only is it a matter of a dog fitting the said "standard" in terms of description, but the law is being exercised by those empowered by it that they assert "partial compliance" to any specific body-part that is covered by that (so-called) "standard". So, for example, if a PB's tail is described in the standard to "reach the hock", then a tail that goes beyond the hock might get noted as "partial compliance" of point. Tick enough boxes with these "partial compliances" and your dog's a PB, so says the Government.

The way it is working here is that a dog who is a Boxer could possibly fit the Pit-Bull "standard".

It's all a bucket of crock.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Erny

[mita]

I Tick enough boxes with these "partial compliances" and your dog's a PB, so says the Government.

The way it is working here is that a dog who is a Boxer could possibly fit the Pit-Bull "standard".

It's all a bucket of crock.

When dogs were being hunted down in Q'ld if they fitted a pitbull-type checklist, I saw a pic of 2 dogs that had to be quickly taken to NSW because the eye of the law was on them.

Those 2 dogs couldn't look more different. One looked like a slightly longer-legged Staffy and the other looked like a slightly reduced Ridgie.

So you're right, a Boxer could be made to fit the Pit-Bull type 'standard'.

Even more insane, is the notion that all this somehow predicts behaviour.

[cruzzi]

Melzawelza,

I think you are referring to the UKC.

Which was raised specifically to register APBT's after the AKC steadfastly refused to recognise them as a "pure" breed.

The APBT isn't recognised as a pure breed by any affiliated pure breed registry in the world.Not Just our ANKC.

It's ADBA btw.

Edited February 4, 2013 by cruzzi

[Sheridan]

Not everyone who likes the APBT wants a "tough" dog or is a moron with a need to boost their ego, and saying you own one doesn't necessarily mean it's aggressive. Effectively they're the same breed so whether someone wants to call it an APBT or an AST, doesn't really matter to me Only reason they can't prove it's an APBT or that it cannot be called an APBT is due to BSL.

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?

If you look at any topic where an accusation has been made that a pit bull has been involved in an attack, it appears the only people who can identify one are those who have them and sometimes not even then.

[Erny]

Not everyone who likes the APBT wants a "tough" dog or is a moron with a need to boost their ego, and saying you own one doesn't necessarily mean it's aggressive. Effectively they're the same breed so whether someone wants to call it an APBT or an AST, doesn't really matter to me Only reason they can't prove it's an APBT or that it cannot be called an APBT is due to BSL.

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?

If you look at any topic where an accusation has been made that a pit bull has been involved in an attack, it appears the only people who can identify one are those who have them and sometimes not even then.

I can only say what I know of our Victorian law - but in our instance it is only an AST if there is an ANKC breed certificate to say so. If not, then it is a PB or PBx (FYI : ANKC breed certificates to prove other breeds, don't count and aren't considered, so if you have an ANKC registered Boxer, for instance, you're not necessarily off the hook.)

Edited February 5, 2013 by Erny

[melzawelza]

Melzawelza,

I think you are referring to the UKC.

Which was raised specifically to register APBT's after the AKC steadfastly refused to recognise them as a "pure" breed.

The APBT isn't recognised as a pure breed by any affiliated pure breed registry in the world.Not Just our ANKC.

It's ADBA btw.

Apologies, you are correct that UKC was first - ten years prior to ADBA, who started in 1909. So both have registered APBT for a very long time. There are lots of breeds that aren't registered with FCI affiliated registries, doesn't mean they aren't pure breeds. UKC and ADBA registered dogs have incredibly lengthy pedigrees behind them.

I know it's ADBA, that was a typo.

[Sandra777]

UKC and ADBA registered dogs have incredibly lengthy pedigrees behind them.

If their pedigree goes back to the start of either registry then a APBT would have a longer "official" pedigree than an American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier - both not recognised as breeds until 1935 (and so admitted into an "official" studbook). Food for thought there :)

[cruzzi]

UKC and ADBA registered dogs have incredibly lengthy pedigrees behind them.

If their pedigree goes back to the start of either registry then a APBT would have a longer "official" pedigree than an American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier - both not recognised as breeds until 1935 (and so admitted into an "official" studbook). Food for thought there :)

SBT was recognised by the K.C in 1935 but not until 1974 by the AKC.

The AST was accepted by the AKC in 1936.

[Sandra777]

UKC and ADBA registered dogs have incredibly lengthy pedigrees behind them.

If their pedigree goes back to the start of either registry then a APBT would have a longer "official" pedigree than an American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier - both not recognised as breeds until 1935 (and so admitted into an "official" studbook). Food for thought there :)

SBT was recognised by the K.C in 1935 but not until 1974 by the AKC.

The AST was accepted by the AKC in 1936.

So if the SBT was recognised in the UK in 1935 it's official pedigree stretches back to 1935 - the Amstaff wasn't recognised in Australia until the late 80's/early 90's - was still a recognised breed in 1936. I had always read that Amstaffs were recognised the same year as Staffords, will have to remember we got in first :laugh:

[cruzzi]

UKC and ADBA registered dogs have incredibly lengthy pedigrees behind them.

If their pedigree goes back to the start of either registry then a APBT would have a longer "official" pedigree than an American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier - both not recognised as breeds until 1935 (and so admitted into an "official" studbook). Food for thought there :)

SBT was recognised by the K.C in 1935 but not until 1974 by the AKC.

The AST was accepted by the AKC in 1936.

So if the SBT was recognised in the UK in 1935 it's official pedigree stretches back to 1935 - the Amstaff wasn't recognised in Australia until the late 80's/early 90's - was still a recognised breed in 1936. I had always read that Amstaffs were recognised the same year as Staffords, will have to remember we got in first :laugh:

Also, the AKC briefly opened it's books to selected UKC registered APBT's to boost the AST gene pool.

So it's reasonable to assume a diligent search would trace the AST back to the earliest UKC registered APBT's, maybe even to Bennetts Ring.

To assume the APBT has a longer pedigree than the AST may not necessarily be correct.

& then to absolutely pedantic, as the APBT isn't recognised by any bona fide pure breed registry on the planet, is their pedigree really "official"

[Liebhunde]

yes the Alsation and the German Shepherd are the same dog..the name was changed to Alsatian during the Great War...because of the enmity between the English and the Germans The Englosh did the name changing . I've also noticed that American Staffordshires are a very solid muscular dogs...well bred ones being exhibited at the Royal for example and many so called PitBulls are much lighter framed....such a damn shame so many dogs are being targeted by this stupid stupid BSL ....will it ever be dumped and knowledgable people have a determining input???

[Skruffy n Flea]

a very interesting and informative read during another sleepless night...

i decided to do some research on the topic and came across this! --- a bit of light reading that supports the case that the APBT and AST are more that just closely related.

i don't care for BSL because there is too much room for error: PickThePitty!

just out of interest, the APBT [or PBT] is a prohibited import and that prohibition extends also to advertising them.

[WExtremeG]

yes the Alsation and the German Shepherd are the same dog

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.

[Dame Aussie]

I don't see any difference in the two breeds, apart from some of the Amstaffs that are being bred to look like they're on steroids.

[WExtremeG]

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?

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.

[Ruin Maniac]

I feel disappointed in myself, that I find it hard to associate the name "pitbull" with the gorgeous Staffy bitch who passes my house every day with her owner and says hello to Sully. She's the softest girl. The stigma around the name is suffocating.

I understand the significance of a working vs. show pedigree, but if pitbulls are staffodshires then I don't at all see why there's such a hype about them when they've been bred for the ring over a few generations and not for something awful like fighting.

[cruzzi]

I feel disappointed in myself, that I find it hard to associate the name "pitbull" with the gorgeous Staffy bitch who passes my house every day with her owner and says hello to Sully. She's the softest girl. The stigma around the name is suffocating.

I understand the significance of a working vs. show pedigree, but if pitbulls are staffodshires then I don't at all see why there's such a hype about them when they've been bred for the ring over a few generations and not for something awful like fighting.

Are you talking Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier?

Doesn't matter which, it is good publicity for both.

[Sandra777]

So it's reasonable to assume a diligent search would trace the AST back to the earliest UKC registered APBT's, maybe even to Bennetts Ring.

To assume the APBT has a longer pedigree than the AST may not necessarily be correct.

If the Amstaff and the APBT are two different breeds APBT pedigree records don't apply to Amstaffs - their pedigrees begin in 1936 when they became a recognised breed. The opening of the Amstaff stud book to UKC APBTs no doubt means that some Amstaffs can trace part of their pedigree back further. Probably no different to the introduction of the bob tail gene to the Boxer. The Corgi part of the pedigree can be traced back further - doesn't make the Corgi & the Boxer the same breed though.

& then to absolutely pedantic, as the APBT isn't recognised by any bona fide pure breed registry on the planet, is their pedigree really "official"

Define bona fide - I consider the UKC to be a perfectly good bona fide registry.