# Breeding AST & APBT's together good or bad?



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Since I know many people on here have different views on breeding AST and APBT's together for the show ring, I think it is a good topic. This would be a good discussion to see what some breeders motivations are (No slamming can we keep this civil please) and why or why not this is a great idea. There are 2sides to this and both are very passionate. I can see both sides of the argument all tho I am partial to one side. So I want to hear it in a nice debate.


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

Since I have never owned an akc dog I really can't say from experience rather it's a good or bad thing. What I can say is I like my ukc style dogs although I like game dogs to but prefer my ukc style dogs. I like a female no taller then 18in no more then 50-55 lbs no overly thin or heavy. Don't want no dog with a huge head either I like a well proportioned dog. I like my males to be no more then 19-19.5 in and I'd like to stay at 70 or less pounds although midas is 21in and 85lbs (i love him but he's not my ideal pit lol).


----------



## FloorCandy (Feb 19, 2009)

Honestly I think cross-breeding for working is fine, if both dogs are great workers, cross em in hopes of getting great pups. But for conformation I think thee looks are different, and should be kept separate, as each has it's own charm. I know a staffy can do well in UKC conformation, but staffies have their own place in AKC events, and the APBTs have their UKC shows. I can appreciate both types, but it would be a shame to see only hybrids of the two down the line because of cross breeding. If conformation is your thing, stick to one breed. As far as working, like WP, if you have some kind of Pit/Staffy/Mastiff/Catahoula whatever with hung papers like 20 generations back, if it pulls it's heart out, and excells, well the ability and health should really be your only concern. JMO


----------



## Bulldoggin (Jun 15, 2009)

I think if the cross brings to you what you are looking to acheive from your breeding then it is all good.... My only worries would be health issues, AST have some very serious health issues that have as yet not contaminated all the APBT breeding stock... So I would be doing an aweful lot of research on health issues and peds before I ever crossed that line, either way.


----------



## American_Pit13 (Apr 23, 2007)

I personally see no reason to do Amstaff/APBT breedings. I don't mind that some of my dogs have Amstaff in the line, but the Amstaff look is something I try to avoid. I personally don't like the game look either tho. I like an in between of a Heavier boned dog ( not quite amstaff heavy) but still slender and lean. So I stick to UKC/ADBA lines that are throwing what I want, of course like I said they already have staff mixed somewhere along those lines. So I can't say its bad because it is in my lines and my dogs look fine, but then again its how those breeders went about using it. The Amstaff also tends to add a deeper chest that I really don't care for.


Yeah I don't ever make much seance lmao... But my view is there is nothing the Amstaff can provide that it needs to be mixed in. Anything the Amstaff can offer we can already get with UKC/ADBA dogs.


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

I know I personally only like select lines although I do like ruffian which is an akc based line I dont really have the blood on my yard the one dog that I have ownership to and produced has it back in like the fourth gen off his dam and I have not bred him nor have any plans to right now. My lines of choice happen to be mostly ukc lines and I breed to that structure alone although if Misty were not a blue nose I think she would do well in adba and would probably put her in some of the shows with adba but since she is blue I won't bother most I'll do with adba with my current lines is wp hell the other dogs barking at them would make em go nuts any way and I hate that. I don't like seeing my dogs get da I prefer folks saying i got pet bulls.


----------



## Jenna23 (Jun 1, 2009)

Bulldoggin said:


> I think if the cross brings to you what you are looking to acheive from your breeding then it is all good.... My only worries would be health issues, AST have some very serious health issues that have as yet not contaminated all the APBT breeding stock... So I would be doing an aweful lot of research on health issues and peds before I ever crossed that line, either way.


Just curious, what are the health issues that AST have that APBT don't? from your statement, I'm assuming you view believe the dogs to _now_ be entirely different breeds. So what is the difference in your opinion, besides looks? (I say besides looks b/c duh :hammer: they look different, what I mean is i guess dog wise)

Anyone else is welcome to answer, lol you know me and my questions :hammer::hammer:


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

well i can tell you lately there are more hip, heart issues and the amstaff has been experience atoxia and epilepsy issues as well. A lot of breeders have covered things up which is totally unethical! It hurts our breed greatly when you stop breeding with a purpose (I'm speaking in reference to working ability). A lot folks do honestly breed just for color and looks and that kills the function of both the pit and the amstaff personally I breed for a total dog not just a pretty one.


----------



## Jenna23 (Jun 1, 2009)

Wow, I knew about hip problems but not epilepsy, heart, or ataxia issues. You are right, not a lot of AST breeders disclose this information. Ataxia is loss of muscle control correct? How or rather what does that look like?


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

no atoxia is more so to do with the brain from what i read when i had the blood but they do loose function and kind of look like they are walking drunk.

Link:
http://www.caninegeneticdiseases.net/ataxia/


----------



## Bulldoggin (Jun 15, 2009)

It is a shame about the ataxia, Frosha I believe was diagnosed later in life, and most show lines were bred into that blood, There are 3 main dogs gr ch's who carried ataxia, unfortunately they were bred heavily before they were diagnosed... Most ever AST alive today has at least one of the three in their ped.
Day blindness is another one, sorry cannot pull the med term off the top of my head....
kinked tails, heart issues are also on the top of the list...
patellas, hips, god there is a long list. 
Now APBT's do also have to worry about those things, but there are still lines which are not affected by them
It's not so much that I feel the dogs are different breeds, I just feel that because of the way they were bred, the AST and the APBT do not have the same percentages of problems on their health issues... Now you can test for Ataxia, but you cannot test for Day blindness yet... and the heart and joint issues I hear about from long time breeders of some ch and grch AST's admittedly say the AM staff's are ruined. 
Lower mandible degeneration is prevelent, c'mon, how can you even begin to intigrate an animal with not enough bone structure to NOT break their jaw playing with a bone???? Are they all like that? I doubt it, but it is an evergrowing problem.
Do I know it to be a fact, that there is not enough of a healthy gene pool in AST's to recover, No I do not, but I most certainly would investigate very closely before I would add that blood to my yard. 
There are just way too many health issues, and breeders all know someone who has them, but surprisingly every breeder you talk to does not have those problems themselves... Very few will be truthful, so I would be careful. If you breed for pretty, you will inevitably loose in the long run.


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

Bad,unless the breeding results in pups that are superior in working ability to there sire or dam.Both are fine breeds by thereself,and very similar.
Mix breeding of the two creates a ukc show dog in type,jmo.


----------



## pitbullfanatic (Jun 4, 2009)

Fashion vs. work
Registry preference 

That usually determines ones motives and answers on the issue.

The more closed a breeding population is the greater the level of inbreeding depression. The greater the level of inbreeding depression the higher the risk of genetic illness. The UKC pool is considerably larger than that of the AKC. 

There are over 500 genetic illnesses known and this is just the top of the ice berg. Most can be eliminated in a large enough stock pool through proper breeding practices and working at limiting/eliminating inbreeding relationships within three prior generations. After three generations of proper out-crossing to non-related (within 3 or more generations) Pit Bulls almost all negative health impact can be removed from inbred consequence. This is due to the increased level of genetic diversity that has been added. Kills bloodlines though unless you are willing to do some serious bloodline research and relate back at the 5th generation.


----------



## Bulldoggin (Jun 15, 2009)

What do you have left after 3 generations of outcrosses?
Not being sarcastic, just wanna hear your opinion?


----------



## pitbullfanatic (Jun 4, 2009)

No sarcasm taken. That depends on how varied it gets beyond three. One thing you do get is a lager gene pool and greater genetic diversity. The next thing you get is significantly decreased risk rates with genetic illness. The AKC AST vs. the UKC APBT is a prime example of the more closed the greater the genetic harm. Here is my post on Bloodlines, health and inbreeding. http://www.gopitbull.com/bloodline-discussion/14529-adba-paper.html#post155977


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

Actually if you've not been keeping up the info on hearts the ukc dogs are getting hit worse then the akc dogs in that aspect! It doesn't matter what registry you are in if you are not keeping up with health data (not health testing) you don't know what you have and by the time you find out the dog is probably dead and has been bred a few times so without knowing because you were to ignorant to spend a lil money you just put x amount of sick dogs into the breeding market.... Folks sit and reason why health testing is so unimportant by saying things like oh we have working dogs and blah blah it don't matter if you've never tested that dog you don't know what it carriers simple as that! 

I have not done hearts yet but you better believe I'm going to a specialist to get it done not just an average vet. I'm going to do all that I can to ensure that I am indeed breeding up and not making things worse for this breed I love so much!

Now when I got my first pit hip tested it was a nightmare, I had gone to the cheapest vet I could find not realizing he didn't know what the hell he was doing he gave to much anst. my girl didn't come around out of it till five am, she pee herself was walking drunk didn't even know who I was then to top it all off her ofa test was invalid because she was in heat! I was totally pissed off after the fact and said i'd never do hip testing again cause they could have easily killed my baby with as much as they put her under... Long story short I decided well I need this info in my program so I turned to penn hip instead and that is what I've been using since was a great experience they also provide reversal so my boy came out the same way he went in and the vet took me in showed me the xrays assured me his hips were totally fine and also said he'd never personally had a pit done that had bad hips but had been hearing the hips in our breed are degenerating. I then learned the difference between penn hip vets and ofa vets, in order for penn hip to allow a vet to do their testing they have to under go several courses where as with ofa any vet can do the xrays and such which means they may not know a thing about how to read them or what to look for but that was my mistake for putting cost over effectiveness.


----------



## Alex004 (Mar 11, 2009)

FloorCandy said:


> Honestly I think cross-breeding for working is fine, if both dogs are great workers, cross em in hopes of getting great pups. But for conformation I think thee looks are different, and should be kept separate, as each has it's own charm. I know a staffy can do well in UKC conformation, but staffies have their own place in AKC events, and the APBTs have their UKC shows. I can appreciate both types, but it would be a shame to see only hybrids of the two down the line because of cross breeding. If conformation is your thing, stick to one breed. As far as working, like WP, if you have some kind of Pit/Staffy/Mastiff/Catahoula whatever with hung papers like 20 generations back, if it pulls it's heart out, and excells, well the ability and health should really be your only concern. JMO


Loving this reply!!!

If you want to cross your dogs it's your business. If you plan on selling or breeding crossed dogs please do so with integrity. Meaning sell or breed them as "cross bred" dogs and not falsely as pure breds. Also health and and genes should be the first and highest priority when doing any breeding of any dogs.


----------



## Bulldoggin (Jun 15, 2009)

Just a lil FYI and food for thought.

As far as cerf, OFA etc. You can retest your dog as many times as you like and only have the results published if they are good if you choose ( lil box on ofa form) . Not everyone who reviews your info will give the same rating, so some people just keep submitting till they get a good review. I have also known certain kennels who take a dog who has passed and submit the good dogs info with a dog who is not gonna pass Name, and get good ratings on bad dogs. It is a good way for you to know about your own dog if that is what you want to know, but let me add, some people do not like pits, and will fail everyone who gets submitted. It's six of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. 
it can be accurate, and it can be misleading, both good and bad. 

As far as working dogs.
If you truely work your dogs, genetic flaws will become evident. ( truely working, that would be a whole nother thread) 
So yes I would agree that real working dogs who have proven themselves and excelled will produce for the most part more genetically sound offspring.

Inbreeding line bred dogs is a good tool for learning what flaws your dog carries.

I just wanted to throw this out there cause it is my opinion that there is more than one way to skin the genetic mystery cat.

Not knocking health testing, I just do not feel that every single dog that is not tested is a ticking time bomb. 
Some methods have been around longer that xrays and have proven their worth time and again.


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

Bulldoggin said:


> As far as working dogs.
> If you truely work your dogs, genetic flaws will become evident. ( truely working, that would be a whole nother thread)
> So yes I would agree that real working dogs who have proven themselves and excelled will produce for the most part more genetically sound offspring.


Health testing is not as important as proper selection for working type & temperament,meaning a mildly displastic dog can still be a excellent working dog,dog fighters never health tested yet still produced a dog that was healthier than most breeds[at one time].Of course it couldn't hurt but it isn't absolutely necessary,it is however responsible and provides the prospective puppy breeder with a little more security.I mean some breeds of working dog will only have a ofa score of average,yet still produce hard working stock,a gimp will never be a good working dog And a gimpy dog should be evident vary early,but a pup born from healthy parents usually produce healthy pup,if not time to cull.
*IMHO.*


----------



## wheezie (Aug 4, 2006)

*


performanceknls said:



Since I know many people on here have different views on breeding AST and APBT's together for the show ring

Click to expand...

*


performanceknls said:


> , I think it is a good topic. This would be a good discussion to see what some breeders motivations are (No slamming can we keep this civil please) and why or why not this is a great idea. There are 2sides to this and both are very passionate. I can see both sides of the argument all tho I am partial to one side. So I want to hear it in a nice debate.


i think it a real shame that people are breeding for the show ring period.


----------



## Bulldoggin (Jun 15, 2009)

wheezie said:


> *
> 
> i think it a real shame that people are breeding for the show ring period.*


*

Many breeds have fallen pray to the show ring.
Breeding for pretty instead of function has a very detrimental effect on any breed. IMO.

What so many people fail to realize is that form follows function.

These dogs may have been bred on their gameness, but I can guarantee you that a ch fighting dog who excelled in the pit without fail, 
was conformationally proportioned correctly, he would not be able to succeed time and time again with genetic or structural flaws.

A slight lil turn in his feet here, could give more stability,an underbite there, could add more devistating damage when shaking, that was a matter of preference, but overall, conformationally superior in their intended function as the ultimate athelite.

AKC and UKC do not IMO care about function at all, just pretty, or at least it appears that way to me.*


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Bulldoggin said:


> These dogs may have been bred on their gameness, but I can guarantee you that a ch fighting dog who excelled in the pit without fail,
> was conformationally proportioned correctly, he would not be able to succeed time and time again with genetic or structural flaws.
> 
> A slight lil turn in his feet here, could give more stability,an underbite there, could add more devistating damage when shaking, that was a matter of preference, but overall, conformationally superior in their intended function as the ultimate athelite.
> ...


:goodpost:


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

I hate when people talk in general you can't lump a whole group of people into on catagory.... If UKC did not care about function they wouldn't continue to come up with working sports. It's not the registry who is breeding it is the breeders. The registry is doing it's part in making sure our breed is able to compete in most events out there so whose fault is it if the owners/breeders don't enter them or breed healthy sound dogs/pups?


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

I don't like it. I think the current pit-or-staff dogs should be left alone, but the UKC & ADBA should stop allowing APBT/AmStaff litters to be registered as APBTs. They've been separate for 73 years (re-opening AKC studbooks notwithstanding). Let it go already. Let the two breeds go where they're going without interference from one on another.


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

I don't have any akc dogs mine are ukc and that's where I plan to stay no matter what the akc, adba or abkc does or any other registry that comes along. Some like the fact that they can dual their dogs and that's fine to each his own all mine are ukc a few were dual registered but since 05 the only registry I've been using for anything has been the ukc again to each their own...


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

Maybe if the UKC would just recognize the AmStaff as its own breed, everyone could be happy.


----------



## Bulldoggin (Jun 15, 2009)

redsky said:


> I hate when people talk in general you can't lump a whole group of people into on catagory.... If UKC did not care about function they wouldn't continue to come up with working sports. It's not the registry who is breeding it is the breeders. The registry is doing it's part in making sure our breed is able to compete in most events out there so whose fault is it if the owners/breeders don't enter them or breed healthy sound dogs/pups?


I have personally seen handlers putting heat packs on dogs hauches before entering the ring in AKC so their dogs can have a semi loose gait and their HD is not so evident, although anyone worth a grain of salt could still see it, and the Judges have made that animal a GRCH. 
I have seen UKC Judges CH out an animal who would have heatstroke running from the car to the couch.
I have seen both registries overlook obvious faults which rule out function time and time again to promote a pretty animal. 
I have too many examples to list...
They do not promote function, just pretty, IMO
Not to say all animals registered with either are not functional of course, just they do not have to be to show. That is my point.


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

We all know what they say about opinions lmao. At any rate my dogs are not amstaffs so I'm not up for calling them such.... They may have amstaff ancestry (one or two any way) but they are not direct amstaff descendants none of them...

This will always be an argument that I view rather pointless regardless of what one thinks either should be called or considered both are facing bsl and fighting over what the name of it should be does nothing...


----------



## buzhunter (Sep 3, 2007)

bahamutt99 said:


> Maybe if the UKC would just recognize the AmStaff as its own breed, everyone could be happy.


Very good idea.


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

Bulldoggin said:


> I have seen UKC Judges CH out an animal who would have heatstroke running from the car to the couch.
> I have seen both registries overlook obvious faults which rule out function time and time again to promote a pretty animal.


That is because these registry's and especialy the akc prefer dog's with gross mutations over animals that function,then they make up bogus historical claims for the reasons these dogs are built the way they are,take the bulldog or neo mastiff for instance,dog's so grossly disproportioned they can hardly walk yet live to be 5 yrs of age,weather its the national breed clubs or the registry whos at fault the dog is ultimately the one who suffers,either way there will always be good working stock out there,you just have to select and breed for it.rigid standards have destroyed too many breeds since everyone can make there own interpretation of what these standards mean and twist them around to fit there dream of the ultimate dog.


----------



## Alex004 (Mar 11, 2009)

Bulldoggin said:


> Many breeds have fallen pray to the show ring.
> Breeding for pretty instead of function has a very detrimental effect on any breed. IMO.
> 
> What so many people fail to realize is that form follows function.
> ...


Don't know if I'm reading this wrongly but I think you are mistaken in some aspects. True APBT confirmation was brought about by game enthusiasts. ADBA's standards is the true APBT confirmation standards. Underbites do not give any dog an advantage in the arena. They give them disadvantages and so do easty westy feet. Proper bite for maximum utilization in the pit is a scissor bite or perfectly interlocking bite, same as in the show arena. If you take a look at Irish Staffies in the UK you will see a more properly conformed dog. Not to say that the Irish Staffies are better or better conformed but they are a closer look to the old time pit dogs than *most of* the *current* APBTs especially after all of this teenie bopper and street thug hype took over.


----------



## Bulldoggin (Jun 15, 2009)

Yep you are mistaken, lol 
I have nothing bad to say about the adba.
as far as some preferences for bites and a slight turn ( not easty westy) those are preferences that a couple of dogmen had.

But yes adba still upholds the true apbt conformational standards IMO.


----------



## Alex004 (Mar 11, 2009)

Bulldoggin said:


> Yep you are mistaken, lol
> I have nothing bad to say about the adba.
> as far as some preferences for bites and a slight turn ( not easty westy) *those are preferences that a couple of dogmen had.*
> 
> But yes adba still upholds the true apbt conformational standards IMO.


I'm curious to know where did you get that info from?


----------



## Guitarist302008 (May 20, 2009)

redsky said:


> Since I have never owned an akc dog I really can't say from experience rather it's a good or bad thing. What I can say is I like my ukc style dogs although I like game dogs to but prefer my ukc style dogs. I like a female no taller then 18in no more then 50-55 lbs no overly thin or heavy. Don't want no dog with a huge head either I like a well proportioned dog. I like my males to be no more then 19-19.5 in and I'd like to stay at 70 or less pounds although midas is 21in and 85lbs (i love him but he's not my ideal pit lol).


Ok, now I could be wrong here, but i'm not sure why you say this. As I understand it... the AmStaff is simply a pitbull that had it's name changed because the AKC won't recognize the name "pit" in it... and when you say game dogs... do you mean as in dogs who are fighters or what? I hear that term from people who fight them and people who don't... just curious how you mean it. I understand what you are saying on how you like your dogs apperances, but wouldn't that be based much more simply on the bloodlines rather than whether it is an AST or APBT?


----------



## CINCINNATIBULLIES (Jan 15, 2009)

every apbt alive today leads back to colby bred amstaffs also labeled as apbt. only the facts make a decision for yourself.


----------



## Alex004 (Mar 11, 2009)

CINCINNATIBULLIES said:


> every apbt alive today leads back to *colby bred amstaffs *also labeled as apbt. only the facts make a decision for yourself.


That's a new one.... :s


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

Guitarist302008 said:


> Ok, now I could be wrong here, but i'm not sure why you say this. As I understand it... the AmStaff is simply a pitbull that had it's name changed because the AKC won't recognize the name "pit" in it... and when you say game dogs... do you mean as in dogs who are fighters or what? I hear that term from people who fight them and people who don't... just curious how you mean it. I understand what you are saying on how you like your dogs apperances, but wouldn't that be based much more simply on the bloodlines rather than whether it is an AST or APBT?


Game as in high driven (these dogs are usually conditioned very nicely and adba, bfk registered some are ukc registered as well). Bloodline is correct but you won't find many that will agree with that so I have to break things down to how I can explain where it is understood. Nobody over here will agree that the ast and apbt are one in the same because it has been separate for some time now but yes I do agree they are the same in a lot of ways. One may be bred to be a better athlete then the other but they all did start at the same point and just taken in different directions depending on what the breeder was trying to accomplish.


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Here is one for the record books.
Bahamutt is absolutely right, the UKC should make AST's and APBT's 2 breeds. They are obviously not the same in size, structure, or temperament. That is why I am so against the UKC allowing AST's to compete in the same ring as APBT's. If you get a judge who likes AST's, forget it! Then you have a heavy influence of AST x APBT mixes.
I do not feel even for working purposes that the two should be bred together. Why would you breed AST into the APBT for a better working dog? You wouldn't! since many AST's lack drive. when you see them crossing for working ability it's the AST's that need to cross into the APBT's to get some function and drive back. I think it is a bad idea all around and the AST has ruined UKC for the real APBT's.

There was a comment that Redsky made about UKC caring about function and that is why they have dogs sports. Sorry I think that is a (much love for you redsky nothing personal) load of crap. The AKC and UKC are very similar in sports. The agility programs are crap and they have made it so even the Fat Ass 200lbs lab and qualify with titles in agility. Now there are always exceptions to the rule, there are some nice working dogs in AKC and UKC agility but those dogs also compete in other venues. Most of the crap that runs out there would never be able to run "real" agility courses. I see it time and time again some one shows up with a "MACH" dog and they cannot qualify in USDAA or NADAC novice. Sorry got OT...... But even sports like dog sport, the UKC's version of Schutzhund is watered down. I think the only great programs that the UKC does is Obedience/Rally (not real need for correct structure there), dock dogs, and the hunting program.

So I have to laugh at a venue that will make a sport like agility and tailor it to a pathetic show dog. I do compete in UKC sports but I would rather do other venues. Many sports in AKC and UKC are watered down so the show dogs have a chance. JMO


----------



## wheezie (Aug 4, 2006)

am i wrong in my thinking that cragan dogs are heavily staff influenced


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

wheezie said:


> am i wrong in my thinking that cragan dogs are heavily staff influenced


You can look on peds online, I had someone say they found ruffian way in the back there so I cannot be sure. I love my Caragan dogs and they are co-owned for her future breeding program. So this brings up a good point, how far back does the Staff have to be to be considered a APBT again, or do you feel like once it is mixed in is remains a pitterstaff no matter how many generations back it is?


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

People have said that the Lar-San dogs have AmStaff in them, so anything that goes back to that stuff would have a shot of AmStaff, too. I am not that much of a purist. What happened 30 years ago (or whenever), don't care. It's already mixed in, even in some game lines, so let the current dogs be. But breeding UKC dogs to AKC dogs can certainly stop at some point. Its not like either gene pool is incapable of standing on its own by now.

And yeah, to the Colby-bred AmStaffs remark... Colby's Primo was the model for the AmStaff pedigree, but was himself an APBT. Just because the AKC wrote down some words that described an APBT to make their standard, that doesn't make Colby dogs AmStaffs. If you believe what Diane Jessup writes, in her book The Working Pit Bull she says that the Colby dogs were registered AKC for 3 years before they went back to strictly APBT registration.


----------



## pitbullgirl22 (Jul 27, 2008)

What about dogs like KK9's "Freebie" who is also LarSans "Xia"? Where does she fall? She is championed in both shows. Only reconditioned for each. Why can't APBTs be both? At one time they were. Albeit some dogs wouldn't make it in UKC or AKC shows just like those kinds of dogs couldn't cut it in the ADBA but it is something to think about. How do you know though if it never happens?


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

You are talking about a CH in UKC and ADBA there are many dogs who can CH in both venues. What we are talking about is AKC and the American Staffordshire Terrier a different breed from the APBT.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

pitbullgirl22 said:


> What about dogs like KK9's "Freebie" who is also LarSans "Xia"? Where does she fall? She is championed in both shows. Only reconditioned for each. Why can't APBTs be both? At one time they were. Albeit some dogs wouldn't make it in UKC or AKC shows just like those kinds of dogs couldn't cut it in the ADBA but it is something to think about. How do you know though if it never happens?


I have the pleasure of personally knowing a dog who's a dual GRCH in both ADBA and UKC. Here's the thing. ADBA calls them APBTs. UKC calls them APBTs. Therefore, we speak of the same breed for both. AKC has the AmStaff, and has distanced themselves from the APBT a long time ago. You cannot take an APBT and register it as an AKC AmStaff (limited licensing notwithstanding), so why can you take an AKC AmStaff and register it as an APBT? Ponder.


----------



## redsky (Feb 28, 2009)

Very good valid points. Personally I like my dogs with function ability. For the comment on how crappy the agility stuff is in the ukc that's solely up to the club to do, the UKC itself is not responsible for that the hosting club is. You know I feel like this if you don't like how something is done speak up and give some feed back tell them what you don't like and how you'd like to see it improved other wise your just waisting hot air. I mean when I want something different I start working on it, doing petitions and contacting who ever needs to be contacted to find out what measures need to be taken so that we can get this stuff in shape! Nothing will happen less you step up and take some initiative.


----------



## wheezie (Aug 4, 2006)

ADBA, UKC, AKC. ... a show dog is a show dog.. diff forms and looks but they are all show dogs unless you ae testing there workability in some manner IMO

give me a hard working staff over a ch ADBA show dog any day


----------



## Alex004 (Mar 11, 2009)

bahamutt99 said:


> People have said that the Lar-San dogs have AmStaff in them, so anything that goes back to that stuff would have a shot of AmStaff, too. I am not that much of a purist. What happened 30 years ago (or whenever), don't care. It's already mixed in, even in some game lines, so let the current dogs be. But breeding UKC dogs to AKC dogs can certainly stop at some point. Its not like either gene pool is incapable of standing on its own by now.
> 
> *And yeah, to the Colby-bred AmStaffs remark... Colby's Primo was the model for the AmStaff pedigree, but was himself an APBT. Just because the AKC wrote down some words that described an APBT to make their standard, that doesn't make Colby dogs AmStaffs. If you believe what Diane Jessup writes, in her book The Working Pit Bull she says that the Colby dogs were registered AKC for 3 years before they went back to strictly APBT registration*.


Thanks for that... Wanted Cincinnatibullies to explain his comment but... You're very correct, Colby and Colby's dogs exsisted long before AKC recognized or coined the name Am Staffs so how could they be something that didn't exsist at the time.


----------

