How Can You Tell...

[WExtremeG]

I think it is impossible to identify them unless they come with pedigree paperwork, which is why BSL is simply impossible to enforce unless you eradicate any bull breed type dog under say 40 kg.

If there were a way, trust me, councils that are rabid with BSL would be all over it, not getting shat all over in court.

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!

[WExtremeG]

Is it possible the name has been changed because of all the bad publicity Pit Bulls have been getting? Not being an expert of bull breeds, but to my eye they look the same.

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.

[Little Gifts]

If I look at pics of dogs labelled pit bulls in America they look quite different to my untrained eye to the Am Staff pics of dogs out here in Oz. It is almost like I can see a little boxer in the physique,height and head/jawbone of the US pitbulls. This will make me sound stupid but is the red nose common in Am Staffs? If I see a dog with a red nose I don't assume it is PB (red kelpies commonly have the same nose look but different body and head shapes, even in crosses) but I will look at it more closely to try and identify for my own curiosity what breed/s it might be.

I can't understand how so called educated professionals can lump a breed in as dangerous especially when it seems clear to everyone in the dog world that aggression also relates to how you train, manage and treat your dog regardless of breed.

[korbin13]

I have had it explained to me as the APBT is considered the working line of the breed and the AST is the show dog line. Not sure if it is true but I have always considered the APBT and the AST to be the same dog, rightly or wrongly.

I think to make things more difficult, the US media basically have labelled a dog with a staffy type head, a 'pitbull'. So it is more of a generic term over there, a bit like our 'staffy'. I think a lot of Aussies would be shocked to think that a lot of Americans would considered the Staffordshire Bull Terrier a 'pitbull'. I think even our politicians are confused by this.

[Dame Aussie]

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.

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.

[WExtremeG]

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.

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 :)

[WExtremeG]

If I look at pics of dogs labelled pit bulls in America they look quite different to my untrained eye to the Am Staff pics of dogs out here in Oz. It is almost like I can see a little boxer in the physique,height and head/jawbone of the US pitbulls. This will make me sound stupid but is the red nose common in Am Staffs? If I see a dog with a red nose I don't assume it is PB (red kelpies commonly have the same nose look but different body and head shapes, even in crosses) but I will look at it more closely to try and identify for my own curiosity what breed/s it might be.

I can't understand how so called educated professionals can lump a breed in as dangerous especially when it seems clear to everyone in the dog world that aggression also relates to how you train, manage and treat your dog regardless of breed.

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.

[dancinbcs]

If I look at pics of dogs labelled pit bulls in America they look quite different to my untrained eye to the Am Staff pics of dogs out here in Oz. It is almost like I can see a little boxer in the physique,height and head/jawbone of the US pitbulls. This will make me sound stupid but is the red nose common in Am Staffs? If I see a dog with a red nose I don't assume it is PB (red kelpies commonly have the same nose look but different body and head shapes, even in crosses) but I will look at it more closely to try and identify for my own curiosity what breed/s it might be.

I can't understand how so called educated professionals can lump a breed in as dangerous especially when it seems clear to everyone in the dog world that aggression also relates to how you train, manage and treat your dog regardless of breed.

No the red nose is not at all common in Amstaffs but is in very common in Pitbulls. Red nose Pitbulls were being bred in Aust long before the first ANKC registered Amstaff ever set foot in a show ring here. Local papers used to have ads for them all the time. Ever second house round me seemed to have a red nosed Pitbull, registered or not, for quite a few years so Pitbull crosses would be much more likely than crosses from the more tightly controlled ANKC registered Amstaffs but there is no way of knowing for sure with any crossbred. Our area still has plenty of red nose Pit types but you don't see them running loose as often or hanging around with gangs near the shopping centres like they used to.

[cruzzi]

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?

Yes

[cruzzi]

Is it possible the name has been changed because of all the bad publicity Pit Bulls have been getting? Not being an expert of bull breeds, but to my eye they look the same.

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.

It is the only recognised pure breed dog registry in Australia.

[Sabbath]

This Amstaff/APBT debate is one that still rages even on APBT forums. I like to think that the divide occurred when in 1936 people took a breed in a better direction. Amstaffs very much are the show/companion type and APBT is the working or game type. Without papers my Amstaff is considered a 'pit bull' by my local government and would be destroyed.

Most APBT owners don't want their dog called a 'pit bull'. This has become a 'type' rather than breed description. Every idiot that has a bull breed cross and calls their dog a 'pit bull' is applying a name to a mutt.

I love these breeds but realise they are attractive to morons too. Much like any powerful breed, some people are drawn to them for the wrong reasons.

I agree there is no genetic difference between APBT and an Amstaff but temperament and breed standards have lead to two different dogs.

[cruzzi]

No - the Amstaff breeders went one way, and the APBT breeders went another way. I think when pit fighting was outlawed, some breeders wanted to develop and promote the dog away from the pits. They were named Staffordshire Terriers in the 30s and that was amended to American Staffordshire Terrier in the 60s or 70s.

Different people involved with either/both breeds seem to have differing opinions on whether they are the same or different dogs. I feel that because of the length of time since the original split, they are different dogs.

During a court case in Q not too long ago, the judge also ruled that APBT and Amstaffs were different breeds. (Not that that means much except legally!!)

It is only pretty recently, within the last few years, that the UKC stopped accepting AKC registered AST's onto their register as APBT's.

This was probably more a tic for tat reaction because the AKC refused to recognise APBT as a pure breed rather than a seperation of the breeds.

The AKC did open its stud book for selected pedigree APBT's once to increase the gene pool of the AST.

So they are definately the same breed.

The Qld case actually found the AST & the APBT to be the same dog.

It was an act od parliament that declared the AST to be a pure breed & avoided a catastrophic situation.

[tdierikx]

A DNA test on a pure AST will come up 100% the same as for a pure APBT...

For a breed that has supposedly been completely restricted in Australia for a good many years I find it hard to believe there are as many true APBTs and their crosses as some would claim.

The media hype has resulted in pretty much any bull breed cross with tan/red colouring and/or having a red nose being branded a "pit bull"...

T.

[WExtremeG]

This Amstaff/APBT debate is one that still rages even on APBT forums. I like to think that the divide occurred when in 1936 people took a breed in a better direction. Amstaffs very much are the show/companion type and APBT is the working or game type. Without papers my Amstaff is considered a 'pit bull' by my local government and would be destroyed.

Most APBT owners don't want their dog called a 'pit bull'. This has become a 'type' rather than breed description. Every idiot that has a bull breed cross and calls their dog a 'pit bull' is applying a name to a mutt.

I love these breeds but realise they are attractive to morons too. Much like any powerful breed, some people are drawn to them for the wrong reasons.

I agree there is no genetic difference between APBT and an Amstaff but temperament and breed standards have lead to two different dogs.

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?

No - the Amstaff breeders went one way, and the APBT breeders went another way. I think when pit fighting was outlawed, some breeders wanted to develop and promote the dog away from the pits. They were named Staffordshire Terriers in the 30s and that was amended to American Staffordshire Terrier in the 60s or 70s.

Different people involved with either/both breeds seem to have differing opinions on whether they are the same or different dogs. I feel that because of the length of time since the original split, they are different dogs.

During a court case in Q not too long ago, the judge also ruled that APBT and Amstaffs were different breeds. (Not that that means much except legally!!)

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).

A DNA test on a pure AST will come up 100% the same as for a pure APBT...

For a breed that has supposedly been completely restricted in Australia for a good many years I find it hard to believe there are as many true APBTs and their crosses as some would claim.

The media hype has resulted in pretty much any bull breed cross with tan/red colouring and/or having a red nose being branded a "pit bull"...

T.

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.

[Dame Aussie]

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.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Aussie3

[WExtremeG]

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?

[cruzzi]

This Amstaff/APBT debate is one that still rages even on APBT forums. I like to think that the divide occurred when in 1936 people took a breed in a better direction. Amstaffs very much are the show/companion type and APBT is the working or game type. Without papers my Amstaff is considered a 'pit bull' by my local government and would be destroyed.

Most APBT owners don't want their dog called a 'pit bull'. This has become a 'type' rather than breed description. Every idiot that has a bull breed cross and calls their dog a 'pit bull' is applying a name to a mutt.

I love these breeds but realise they are attractive to morons too. Much like any powerful breed, some people are drawn to them for the wrong reasons.

I agree there is no genetic difference between APBT and an Amstaff but temperament and breed standards have lead to two different dogs.

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?

No - the Amstaff breeders went one way, and the APBT breeders went another way. I think when pit fighting was outlawed, some breeders wanted to develop and promote the dog away from the pits. They were named Staffordshire Terriers in the 30s and that was amended to American Staffordshire Terrier in the 60s or 70s.

Different people involved with either/both breeds seem to have differing opinions on whether they are the same or different dogs. I feel that because of the length of time since the original split, they are different dogs.

During a court case in Q not too long ago, the judge also ruled that APBT and Amstaffs were different breeds. (Not that that means much except legally!!)

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).

A DNA test on a pure AST will come up 100% the same as for a pure APBT...

For a breed that has supposedly been completely restricted in Australia for a good many years I find it hard to believe there are as many true APBTs and their crosses as some would claim.

The media hype has resulted in pretty much any bull breed cross with tan/red colouring and/or having a red nose being branded a "pit bull"...

T.

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.

Actually the plantiff introduced expert testamony from an American APBT expert who stated that AST was the show name for the APBT.

Shot right in the foot.

Although was end of game the much maligned GCCC then immediately withdraw so the court didn't really have to make a ruling.

Imagine the catastophe through out the country if the ruling had have actually been handed down.

Every AST would have then been an APBT regardless of ANKC papers or not.

You mention the GSD & the SWS.

The standard & the name was change to allow the SWS to be added to the pure breed registries.

Same deal with the AST.

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

[Dame Aussie]

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?

I'd guess it's whatever they're told it is when they get it, the way I see it, it doesn't matter how they know or don't know, because it's the same dog. It's what the owner wants to call it. If we want to be technical it should be called an APBT because that's what the breed started out as.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Aussie3

[Greytmate]

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.

[Sandra777]

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.