# I'm sorry I have a stupid question......



## smokemama (Feb 11, 2013)

Can someone tell me what makes an AMBULLY ? 

I have been reading every thread on bully 101 and I don't know if I'm tired or what. Is a AMBULLY = APBTxAmStaff?


----------



## BullyGal (Jun 25, 2012)

Its debatable. It started out with UKC APBTs and AKC AmStaffs breeding for a heavier bone and girth dog. Then you have the people who started mixing in other breeds to get the look they wanted.

Its pretty obvious when you look at a dog if something besides those two breeds have been used.


----------



## smokemama (Feb 11, 2013)

Ok let's go with the theory that a APBT and AmStaff have a litter, how would you paper the offspring?

*dont worry not looking to breed lol I love puppies as much as the next person but lack the time , energy, and patience. *


----------



## BullyGal (Jun 25, 2012)

Many AmStaffs are dual regged as an APBT UKC. So two UKC dogs have a litter and they get UKC registered. Then when the ABKC came around, those people with Bullies falsely registered as UKC APBTs used their UKC pedigree to get ABKC registered. Once you breed away from the standard of the UKC APBT, you are basically creating another breed and that is why the ABKC came around.

When you get down to it, AmBullies are basically out of standard AmStaffs, since the majority of UKC APBTs are from AmStaff blood.


----------



## ::::COACH:::: (Apr 4, 2012)

They would be mutts...two different breeds. No papers could even be given. amStaffs are AKC and APBTs are ADBA or UKC... Which the UKC dogs are more like AmStaffs.

But BullyGal said it well.... You can't just mix two different breads and bam -an American Bully...it's years and years of crossing dogs. And it's very clear that American Bullies are not AmStaff/American Pit Bull Terrier crosses.... They are more AmStaff crosses with other thicker bully type breeds like the Staffy Bully, Mastiffs, etc.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

BullyGal said:


> When you get down to it, AmBullies are basically out of standard AmStaffs, since the majority of UKC APBTs are from AmStaff blood.[/COLOR]


 No they aren't , and don't bother even making the attempt to argue about it. Since of course the UKC started in 1898 , the AKC didn't register/recognise ASts until 1936 , and *E V E R Y* ASt in the initial batch was previously a UKC dog and A L L of 'em came from UKC stock.

Without the UKC and gamebred base the AST wouldn't even exist. Quit dispensing erroneous information.


----------



## ::::COACH:::: (Apr 4, 2012)

Well....Ambullies started from the whole Dave Wilson stuff right? Which were AmStaffs that were crossed....maybe I am wrong so I hope Lauren the Bully expert sees this thread


----------



## redog (Oct 14, 2005)

OldDog said:


> No they aren't , and don't bother even making the attempt to argue about it. Since of course the UKC started in 1898 , the AKC didn't register/recognise ASts until 1936 , and *E V E R Y* ASt in the initial batch was previously a UKC dog and A L L of 'em came from UKC stock.
> 
> Without the UKC and gamebred base the AST wouldn't even exist. Quit dispensing erroneous information.


Explain OD. I took it as they are amstaff not bred to amstaff standard? What's your take?


----------



## BullyGal (Jun 25, 2012)

I didn't mean that the original UKC stock came from AmStaffs.


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the UKC may have started in 1898 but they didn't allow the APBT as a recognized breed until after the AKC allowed AST. at least that's my understanding.

Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Black Rabbit (Nov 14, 2009)

No Ames the APBT was a recognized breed long before the AKC adopted them as AmStaffs.


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

kg420 said:


> No Ames the APBT was a recognized breed long before the AKC adopted them as AmStaffs.


I know it was recognized by the ADBA as a breed long before that, but the UKC not recognizing the APBT was why the ABDA was created, right? But I must be mistaken in the order or the years. All good no worries Ill keep it straight one day lol


----------



## BullyGal (Jun 25, 2012)

UKC was founded in 1898 and the founder registered his own APBT. UKC is the first registry to accept the APBT.

ADBA was in 1909 as a multi-breed registry.

AKC recognized in 1936. But has been around since 1880s-ish


----------



## KMdogs (Apr 22, 2011)

Classes is a brilliant scam to offer non conforming show dogs their own class because there is no reason to otherwise have so many classes for the same dog with different physical abilities or lack there of.. then theres the small factor that all these dogs are supposed to be designed for the same purpose with same temperament under tithe same name..

All it is, marketing..

The toy and miniture poodle or schnauser or anything else you can think of falls under the same boat. Fad that became.astandard according to the registries because of the over whelming demand.. why not cash in? Now people get emotional when they are told their dogs aren't really what they are made out to be because of this whole demand and registry lightness which is nothing more than cash flow.

Iremember when these mini dogs really took off there was an out cry from those keeping true to dogs about how they didn't want to be associated with such horse shit, now those same people got pushed to the side because of the general assumptions..

The only difference with the bully dogs, or what have you,is brilliantly I might add, from nearly the start was set up for choice and options.. for NO other reason than what I already said.

Yeah I get a lot of crap from yall bully folk but it's the truth, it ain't bashing what you feed I don't care if you feed them and love them all the same. But I'm not blinded or have my eyes shut at the real reasons all this is there.

But then it goes back to my first point, the AST has been the perfect dog.from the start. They needed a fad, they needed marketing and they needed the ability to profit.. thus here they are and quite profitable business as well.

This was from a post of mine a while ago and sums up virtually all aspects of the question,,, The AmBully is a marketing ploy based on and centered around over bred and out of proportioned,, lacking functional stature..

There was no APBT in the foundation, at least I've never seen nor has anyone brought to my attention a [] dog used for such a dog.. mutation of AST genetics or mutts depending on where you look at.


----------



## Carriana (May 13, 2008)

BullyGal said:


> Many AmStaffs are dual regged as an APBT UKC. So two UKC dogs have a litter and they get UKC registered. Then when the ABKC came around, those people with Bullies falsely registered as UKC APBTs used their UKC pedigree to get ABKC registered. Once you breed away from the standard of the UKC APBT, you are basically creating another breed and that is why the ABKC came around.
> 
> When you get down to it, AmBullies are basically out of standard AmStaffs, since the majority of UKC APBTs are from AmStaff blood.





KMdogs said:


> There was no APBT in the foundation, at least I've never seen nor has anyone brought to my attention a [] dog used for such a dog.. mutation of AST genetics or mutts depending on where you look at.


I think this is essentially what BullyGal was getting at with her above post is that while UKC APBTs are APBT by name, functionally they are essentially ASTs carrying the APBT name.

Then again, according to the ADBA they're _all_ genetically APBT but bred in varying degrees from original form and function. But I know your take on the registries already KM so no need to repeat something you've already stated


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

ames said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but the UKC may have started in 1898 but they didn't allow the APBT as a recognized breed until after the AKC allowed AST. at least that's my understanding.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


 That's incorrect , Chauncy Z. Bennett started the UKC to register the APBT in the first place , first breed recognised by the UKC.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

Carriana said:


> I think this is essentially what BullyGal was getting at with her above post is that while UKC APBTs are APBT by name, functionally they are essentially ASTs carrying the APBT name.


 Nowadays . But not " back when" the UKC sanctioned matches up until the '40s , anyone here think Heinzl , Tudor , Corvino and a host of others kept non functional dogs?


----------



## Carriana (May 13, 2008)

OldDog said:


> Nowadays . But not " back when" the UKC sanctioned matches up until the '40s , anyone here think Heinzl , Tudor , Corvino and a host of others kept non functional dogs?


I agree, absolutely. But the UKC dogs of _today_ are basically pretty show dogs and lean more towards an AST apearance than APBT. These would be the "APBT" that went into Dave Wilson's RE foundation dogs.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

Carriana said:


> I agree, absolutely. But the UKC dogs of _today_ are basically pretty show dogs and lean more towards an AST apearance than APBT. These would be the "APBT" that went into Dave Wilson's RE foundation dogs.


 Yup. And of course the similarities in phenotype are evident , the modern Ukc dogs and ASts are in essence the same dogs , they derive from the exact same base genetic stock.

And before any individual here jumps , not I am NOT irritated *personally* with any specific individual as regards these questions , that said there are many facets of these questions wherein folks endorse revisionist history , conjecture and hyperbole in an effort to support the development of a " new breed" in a chronologically contracted period of time.

Genetically speaking it's almost a complete impossibility to destroy the basic phenotype/conformation i.e. to jump from the basic UKC/AKC phenotype to the more extreme versions of the " Bully" in the alloted time period without crossbreeding other breeds into the mix.

Part of the revisionist history that I refer to is the relatively constant refrain that I hear from a segment of both the " bully" and the AST communities that attempts to reverse the actual order of development within the breed(s) , this being primarily the fanciful notion that the " AST came first" , the more far out in left field proponents of that stance quite frequently endorse the notion that the AST derived from *completely* different genetic stock/base than the UKC dogs or the ADBA dogs , this question can of course be completely settled by the most basic of pedigree research which will highlight certain base dogs ( genetically speaking) which will turn up in ***EVERY*** APBT/AST pedigree , again that's ***EVERY*** pedigree.

I've been watching this crap develop ever since the " GrapeVine" dogs and others of the same ilk , and unlike some folks I don't place D. Wilson and certain other individuals on the massive pedestal that some have assigned to them.

Did they *start* with AKC/UKC stock , certainly they did , however the basic notion that crossing those genetics lines is " crossbreeding a new breed" is an entirely and completely , indeed highly flawed construct of socalled " logic" that is patently untrue and easily provable as a longrunning prevarication perpetrated upon an unknowing public that refuses to do the most basic of research and allows themselves to be led by the nose by whatever fanciful notion is put forth by the latest " Gurus of BullyDom"..


----------

