How Can You Tell...

[cruzzi]

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.

Rather than just accept as fact the regurgitated misinformation on sites people who really want to talk facts should do their own research before they step out their comfort zone.

Firstly, the APBT & the AST are the same breed.

It was a name change & a definative pedigree needed to have the breed accepted onto the AKC register by breed enthuiasts who wanted to preserve the breed for posterity.

Still the same dog.

Why would, until recently, the UKC accept AKC registered AST's onto their register if they weren't the same breed?

for goodness sake, that should tell you something.

Why doesn't a bobtail mongrel have corgis in it's "predigree"?

& how can anyone declare after four generations they are now "pure" when they can't produce a uniform "bob tail"?

If the DNA for fun topic is anything to go by the bobtail boxers DNA will come up "Mixed Breed"

The boxer is one breed that will benefit from a no docked tails rule, as long the bobtail is declared to be not natural for the breed i.e.

Secondly, To be bona fide you need to be recognised as genuine by someone other than yourself.

A privately owned registry that is not recognised by any of the affiliated pure breed registery in the world isn't a bona fide pure breed registry IMO.

A registry whose dogs & even some of it's breeds aren't recognised by any of the affiliated pure breed registry on the planet is not a bona fide pure breed registry IMO.

So what' your opinion of the IKC?....bona fide?

Edited February 6, 2013 by cruzzi

[griff]

:)

[Dame Aussie]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

[cruzzi]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

The photos are misleading

The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion.

The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement.

Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds.

:)

[Dame Aussie]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

The photos are misleading

The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion.

The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement.

Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds.

:)

Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse.

[WExtremeG]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

The photos are misleading

The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion.

The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement.

Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds.

:)

Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse.

so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds?

[Dame Aussie]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

The photos are misleading

The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion.

The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement.

Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds.

:)

Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse.

so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds?

No. All I was saying was that some people breed them to be bigger and bulkier than they should be.

[Sabbath]

Some breeders are breeding AST to be HUGE. It is often assumed they are using Mastiff blood and hanging the papers.

[Sabbath]

ADBA APBT are very lean and athletic. It suits the idea that they are 'gamebred' dogs. There isn't the ideal in AST to breed a dog more suited to fighting.

[Dame Aussie]

Some breeders are breeding AST to be HUGE. It is often assumed they are using Mastiff blood and hanging the papers.

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me. I think that's part of the problem with what your average Joe considers a "pitbull". You hear of 40kg dogs being touted as APBTs and they just aren't that big!

This pic I've attached is of APBTs to me most of the AST's I have seen look just like that I guess to answer the original question....only my opinion of course, but if two different people owned these dogs, they could say they were APBTs or ASTs and neither would really be wrong.

Having said that the second pic is of what your average Joe would call a pit bull. I actually prefer the second picture but the main difference is still the build and head size to me.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Aussie3

[Sabbath]

Using online databases I can trace the ancestry of my dog back quite a way and certainly dual registered (UKC AKC) dogs are in there. Also AST were still used for fighting after 1935 but it wasn't the goal of most breeders. The AST absolutely used to be APBT. I think countless generations of breeding for a slightly different standard (Yes APBT does have one even if it's not AKC) and a different temperament have resulted in two different breeds today. There is definitely a pure breed called APBT. My dog is an AST but as the picture used earlier in this thread show, people trying to explain the differences get it wrong all the time.

[Dame Aussie]

Your dog is gorgeous BTW Sabbath :)

[Sabbath]

Your dog is gorgeous BTW Sabbath :)

Haha! Thanks! He's such a sweet boy! Just turned 2 yesterday. He's much better looking than I can capture with a camera. :)

[cruzzi]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

The photos are misleading

The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion.

The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement.

Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds.

:)

Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse.

so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds?

Those of us who know what we are talking about?

No

What we are saying is, as they are the same breed they should look the same & the photos are misleading.

You wont see many well bred representatives of the "genre" that resemble the AST pic in a sanctioned show anywhere in the world.

You will see them in the hands of the bovver boys as pitbulls however.

Coarse & overdone. not really a good example of breed actually.

[WExtremeG]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

The photos are misleading

The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion.

The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement.

Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds.

:)

Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse.

so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds?

Those of us who know what we are talking about?

No

What we are saying is, as they are the same breed they should look the same & the photos are misleading.

You wont see many well bred representatives of the "genre" that resemble the AST pic in a sanctioned show anywhere in the world.

You will see them in the hands of the bovver boys as pitbulls however.

Coarse & overdone. not really a good example of breed actually.

Once upon a time...Shiloh Shepherds were GSD's too- http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdsCoatColor.pdf would you say they were the same today?

http://www.riverwindshilohs.com/6.html

[cruzzi]

Good pic griff. The only difference I see between the APBT and AST is that the AST is stockier and shorter.

Having said that not all are bred that way and I have seen taller, finer ones that look just like the APBT in that pic, obviously without cropped ears.

The photos are misleading

The AST standards states 19" is the preferable height, which is iffy at the best of times. Weight in proportion.

The APBT standard is even more iffy but the weight in proportion to height also a requirement.

Given that, regardless of the height, both dogs should have similar builds.

:)

Yeah, that's been my experience. I don't like how some AST's look these days. Massive heads and chests like a brick sh*thouse.

so, we're agreeing that they're two separate breeds?

Those of us who know what we are talking about?

No

What we are saying is, as they are the same breed they should look the same & the photos are misleading.

You wont see many well bred representatives of the "genre" that resemble the AST pic in a sanctioned show anywhere in the world.

You will see them in the hands of the bovver boys as pitbulls however.

Coarse & overdone. not really a good example of breed actually.

Once upon a time...Shiloh Shepherds were GSD's too- http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdsCoatColor.pdf would you say they were the same today?

http://www.riverwindshilohs.com/6.html

You may be better served to do research into the AST/APBT & for that matter even include the SBT rather than throwing up obscure examples of breeds that you think justifies the misnomer that the APBT & the AST are seperate breeds.

You might even try to find copies of the Ontario hearings.

The APBT Club of America testified the two were the same breed & the American answer to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Result?

All three breeds were banned.

Your example of the GSD & Alsation is the perfect answer to your own lack of knowledge.

Same breed, two different names & for reason that suit the different demographiocs of the two seperate owners/admirers situations.

Pommies still call the GSD "Alsations"

The only difference between the AST & the APBT is owner attitude.

AST owners don't want to be associated with the reputation of the APBT while the pittie owners revel in it.

And therein lies the difference.

It's a breed of people difference rather than a breed of dog difference.

[WExtremeG]

I'm well aware of the history behind the GSD thanks. ;)

http://www.wagsdogclub.com/Community/articles/alsatian_is_a_gsd.htm

Many consider the AST to be the watered down version of the original breed APBT just like many consider the Shiloh to only look like a GSD but without the heart of a GSD :)

Different breeds.

http://www.apbtconformation.com/adbastandard.htm

http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=46

I guess this is just one of 'those' that will rage on forever..

[raffikki]

Different breeds.

http://www.apbtconformation.com/adbastandard.htm

http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=46

I guess this is just one of 'those' that will rage on forever..

I don't understand your comment "Different breeds" when in the ANCK breed extension(from the link you posted) it says

By the late 1800s a fighting dog registry was started in America to keep track of the

prized pedigrees and publish the rules for dog fighting organisations in that country.

The United Kennel Club registered the dogs as American Pit Bull Terriers. Sometimes

this was written as American (Pit) Bull, or American Bull Terrier. Mostly they were

known as Bulldogs, or Pit Bulls.

Although it is this dog’s fighting background that is mostly remembered, only a relatively

small number of the dogs were fought. Most of them went on being farmers’ and

general-purpose countrymens’ dogs and still worked stock, penning, guarding and

helping, just as they had done in their earliest days.

In the early 1930s a group of fanciers petitioned the American Kennel Club to accept

their dogs into the registry. These dogs were already registered with the United Kennel

Club, but their owners had no interest in dog fighting. They wanted to promote their

breed as family dogs and show dogs. They formed a national breed club and wrote a

standard for the breed. Much agonizing was done over the proper name for the breed

as the American Kennel Club was not inclined to register them with the same name

as the United Kennel Club. Finally, in 1936, they were accepted with the name

Staffordshire Terrier. This was just a year after the English bull-and-terriers under the

name of Staffordshire Bull Terriers were recognised with the Kennel Club of England.

The standards of both the English and American breeds were written similarly, and

even contained some identical phrases. The authors of both kept in touch with each

other working toward their common goal of acceptance by their kennel clubs. At that

time the dogs described were more similar in size and structure than the breeds

appear today.

In the early 1970s the name of Staffordshire Terrier was changed to American

Staffordshire Terrier when the American Kennel Club recognised the Staffordshire

Bull Terrier breed.

[Dame Aussie]

Exactly. The AST was created to be able to breed the APBT without the fighting history and attached attitudes associated with APBTs

[WExtremeG]

Different breeds.

http://www.apbtconformation.com/adbastandard.htm

http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=46

I guess this is just one of 'those' that will rage on forever..

I don't understand your comment "Different breeds"

what's there to understand? They have different breed standards- therefore they are different breeds- irregardless of how they started off.

here, also an extraction from the ANKC standard:

The bull-and-terrier evolved into three of our modern breeds, the Staffordshire Bull

Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and the American Staffordshire Terrier.

'Our' meaning ANKC recognized.

A product of some of

these dogs is the very American breed of Boston Bulldog, or Boston Terrier, as it is

known. These used to be 35-40 lb dogs, and were very similar to the early Am Staff

(or Pit Bull, Bulldog, American Bulldog, Bull-and-Terrier, Yankee Terrier, some of the

names these dogs were known under then), except for the shorter bulldog face and

screw tail.

Note 'early'

By the late 1800s a fighting dog registry was started in America to keep track of the

prized pedigrees and publish the rules for dog fighting organisations in that country.

The United Kennel Club registered the dogs as American Pit Bull Terriers. Sometimes

this was written as American (Pit) Bull, or American Bull Terrier. Mostly they were

known as Bulldogs, or Pit Bulls.

Although it is this dog’s fighting background that is mostly remembered, only a relatively

small number of the dogs were fought. Most of them went on being farmers’ and

general-purpose countrymens’ dogs and still worked stock, penning, guarding and

helping, just as they had done in their earliest days.In the early 1930s a group of fanciers petitioned the American Kennel Club to accept

their dogs into the registry. These dogs were already registered with the United Kennel

Club, but their owners had no interest in dog fighting. They wanted to promote their

breed as family dogs and show dogs. They formed a national breed club and wrote a

standard for the breed.

Hmm...separation

Nose “definitely black”: Before AKC registration, there were registered American Pit

Bull Terriers with red noses. These dogs came from different root stock and had a

different appearance- including liver colouration. The intention here was to prevent

them from entering the AKC breeding pool of American Staffordshire Terriers. The

nose should be black - not red or pink. We now know that it is genetically impossible

for a blue dog to have a black nose, yet there were blue Am Staffs then, as now, and

they were shown and finished championships. The nose should appear darkest charcoal

on dogs with blue diluted colouration. Forgiveness can be made for dark charcoal on

this colour, but the darker the better. The nose should still appear as black to the

observer. A dudley nose (flesh coloured) is listed as a fault. For dogs without dilute

colouration the nose must appear as written - definitely black.