# any truth in this statement



## money_killer (Apr 14, 2008)

was wondering if there is any truth in this statement i often hear.

American Staffordshire Terrier is the show version of an APBT ?

thanks aaron


----------



## buzhunter (Sep 3, 2007)

In general, sure. Really depends on how he's bred.


----------



## money_killer (Apr 14, 2008)

i know wat u mean but they are either the same or they arent.....


----------



## buzhunter (Sep 3, 2007)

I'd call a dog bred like a pit bull a pit bull. Even if he was all AST.


----------



## franktank1 (Dec 29, 2009)

From what I understand, The AST is bred more for conformation. The APBT is bred for "game".


----------



## los44 (Jun 1, 2008)

buzhunter said:


> I'd call a dog bred like a pit bull a pit bull. Even if he was all AST.


:goodpost:

To op: they once were the same breed, but through selective breeding ast breeders went a different route. Genetically they are the same dog.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

There is probably a kernel of truth in that statement. But... Look at folks breeding specifically for the ADBA show ring who do nothing else with their dogs. Wouldn't their dogs be the show version of the APBT? Or are they not because they're bred to a more preferred standard? An AmStaff is an AmStaff. An APBT is an APBT. There are show and performance "versions" of both, but ideally both dogs should be able to be bred right and excel at everything.


----------



## Nizmosmommy (Jun 1, 2009)

I always thought that the amstaff was a similar breed to the pit, almost the same if not the same. That was created so that they could be show dogs. But I could just be hearing things lol. I just thought that back in the day lol, pits couldn't be showed because they weren't recognized as a breed. So along came the amstaff which could be shown where pits couldn't. Correct me if I'm wrong guys


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Originally they were bred from the same dogs but when you selectively breed for the AST standard for over 40 years you change the breed. Structurally and temperament wise they are now two separate breeds. Some say if you have nothing but show bred APBT's then they are the same as AST's. I think you definitely have two breeds now through selective breeding. Then you have show and working bred AST's and APBT's. I think the two will always be debated and many feel strongly about show bred APBT's being just AST's because they are not worked or proven in anyway.

I think the two are different breeds now and you have show and working lines with both.
I will have my AST by the end of the summer and I can really compare the two.


----------



## Bethb2007 (Jul 5, 2009)

money_killer said:


> was wondering if there is any truth in this statement i often hear.
> 
> American Staffordshire Terrier is the show version of an APBT ?
> 
> thanks aaron


Yes, to me, but everyone has their own opinion. To me it is like this, a true gamebred pitbull could/may be considered a different breed than an AKC amstaff. However, there are so many groups of pit bulls that fall in between those two classifications. There are show bred pits that are 6-10 generations from any known pitdogs, there a are pet bred pitbulls that are so scatter bred, you can not tell what they are or how they are bred, and then there are the pitterstaffs that are crosses of the two(amstaff/pitbull).

I personally feel that the average pit bull and amstaff are the same breed, just a different variety. ADBA and UKC also feels this way, and that is why they allow dual registration. A person really needs to know how to read a pedigree, and research it before they even know what they own. Most people do not. I would take a well bred Amstaff, in a heartbeat, over a sh!t bred pit bull.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

One of my goals before I die is to end dual UKC/AKC registration.  I want to see AmStaffs shown in their own breed ring in the UKC, because I understand there are people who dual register simply to be able to compete in more venues (and do weight pull), not because they really believe their AmStaff is an ideal APBT. Its asinine to *not* allow both breeds to go whichever way they're going without the influence of the other. AKC AmStaff judges should not be coming over to judge UKC dogs any more than an ADBA judge should be judging the AKC ring. Over 70 years being bred to different standards. When is enough enough, or do we simply not challenge the system because it is status quo at this point?

Beh. Micro-rant. Sorry.


----------



## Sampsons Dad (Jul 4, 2008)

An APBT is a dog bred for gameness ....the dog bred for shows is an AST.
I dont mean to insult anyone but there is a difference between gamebred dogs and show bred. I know on this forum many people call a certain type of look gamebred but that is not what gamebred is about. Game bred dogs have one or both parents game tested.


----------



## MISSAPBT (May 10, 2009)

I cant get my head around the whole two diffrent breeds when they started as one, why do they look a little diffrent to the apbt now?


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

Perhaps this will help. There is a lot of AmStaff influence on the UKC APBTs nowadays. And there is a difference in conditioning in the dogs shown in this thread. But IMO, they are different dogs.

http://www.gopitbull.com/goldmine/15410-visual-comparison-top-winning-ukc-akc-adba-dogs.html


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

bahamutt99 said:


> One of my goals before I die is to end dual UKC/AKC registration.  I want to see AmStaffs shown in their own breed ring in the UKC, because I understand there are people who dual register simply to be able to compete in more venues (and do weight pull), not because they really believe their AmStaff is an ideal APBT. Its asinine to *not* allow both breeds to go whichever way they're going without the influence of the other. AKC AmStaff judges should not be coming over to judge UKC dogs any more than an ADBA judge should be judging the AKC ring. Over 70 years being bred to different standards. When is enough enough, or do we simply not challenge the system because it is status quo at this point?
> 
> Beh. Micro-rant. Sorry.


Sorry for the high jack but I could not agree more! I would love to see the AST's and APBT's in their own classes in the UKC. that would be great!


----------



## PrairieMoonPits (Dec 16, 2009)

As per Joseph Colbys Book the APBT, the staffy is the same dog.. just the show dogs at the time when pit fighting was acceptable. Later on after pit fighting and this book are long gone when fighting was banned the UKC/ADBA were the regs that regonized the dogs that were the pit fighters as a 'pure' breed seperating them from the AKC show staffys that were regonized by them but after years of breeding for different qualities they come from the same breed but show different traits now. The UKC still sees staffys as APBT because at no point was another breed (that is known) used to seperate them they are just different styles of the same breed. I have both breeds and work with breeders who have both and have learned alot about the history of both and alot of APBTs acctually have AKC/CKC staffy ancestors through UKC reg.


----------



## SEO (Jul 7, 2009)

There is lots of good information in the web address bellow. Please read, you will be able to draw your own conclusion. I don't like to make very loooooong post, so I thought it would be easier to post the address. I hope I was of some help.

SEO

Official Pit Bull Site of Diane Jessup


----------



## MISSAPBT (May 10, 2009)

bahamutt99 said:


> Perhaps this will help. There is a lot of AmStaff influence on the UKC APBTs nowadays. And there is a difference in conditioning in the dogs shown in this thread. But IMO, they are different dogs.
> 
> http://www.gopitbull.com/goldmine/15410-visual-comparison-top-winning-ukc-akc-adba-dogs.html


Cool thank you, i have to say i am a ADBA kinda girl haha


----------



## Howardsperformancek9 (Feb 11, 2009)

Regarding the UKC show ring: The problem I see, with competing with a pure apbt is the judging. Until the judges have enough balls to pick a correct pit bull, no matter what the standard is, it will not be rectified. As far as I am concerned, most of the judges do not know what a correct apbt is. They have many times apprenticed underneath other judges, that do not know what a real apbt is.

Another misconception is that hardcore gamebred dogs have correct structure, and are athletically built. That could not be further from the truth. Most of the great gamedogs do not look as good as chinaman. Many have very poor fronts, splayed feet, bad toplines, and terrible looking heads.

Also, if UKC did separate the amstaffs and the pitbulls, where would the pitterpats go? Also, would they need a sub-class for show bred versus gamebred pit bulls, under the pit bull classification. H3ll, if the didn't allow the pitterpats, 90% of the UKC shows would be empty.

I was asked several times to get my UKC judging license. I even thought about it, until I realized if I went California one time, they would not have me back. LOL! I prefer a dog that is in condition and not oversized.

Here is a nice example of a pure Amstaff, ADBA GRCH(mutiple best in show)ACE of ACE, UKC CH, Silents Thunder Dreamer. Iseen her many times and she could of finished in all 3 registries, with different weight on her.


----------



## los44 (Jun 1, 2008)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> Another misconception is that hardcore gamebred dogs have correct structure, and are athletically built. That could not be further from the truth. Most of the great gamedogs do not look as good as chinaman. Many have very poor fronts, splayed feet, bad toplines, and terrible looking heads.


I've thought this for quite some time, I find it funny when someone posts a pic of what they describe as a "real" apbt and its a perfect specimen, no flaws, just perfect, lol. Sorry for going ot


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Unfortunately people are breeding gamebred pedigrees instead of looking at the dogs and the ped. You can have the best pedigree in the world but if the dog does not have great structure then what is the point? It is getting harder and harder to find a good gamebred dog with great structure. I think feet, top line, and tail set are among the worst I see. It was so hard to find a dog with great feet and a great tail set to breed to! 
I would like to see the gamebred dogs go back to being great specimens and when they bred looking at the dog first then looking at the pedigree.


----------



## buzhunter (Sep 3, 2007)

IMO, a pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed of dog. It's a bull and terrier type dog bred for the box, not a perfect dog bred to a standard. Don't much care for registries and judges deciding what a pit bull or AST is based on a "look". I'd say they are just as guilty of misrepresenting the breed as an indifferent puppy peddler. An ugly, game dog should be the top winner in any registry. I wasn't around 70 years ago but I gotta believe that there was much less debate over the difference back when breeding for function was a priority. I know, I know... times have changed...


----------



## Mcleod15 (Jul 17, 2009)

I reference pitbull to APBT, but I hate the name pitbull by its self its so widley confussed I can't stand it. I just call them bulldawgs or American Pitbull Terriers. I think a dogs abilities are more important than its looks. With that being said if you have a high output AmStaff I don't believe it should be called an APBT just because its not strickley show and is a good performance dog, it still should be called an AmStaff. Same goes for APBTs that have low drive and are mainly used in a show ring.


----------



## los44 (Jun 1, 2008)

buzhunter said:


> IMO, a pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed of dog. It's a bull and terrier type dog bred for the box, not a perfect dog bred to a standard. Don't much care for registries and judges deciding what a pit bull or AST is based on a "look". I'd say they are just as guilty of misrepresenting the breed as an indifferent puppy peddler. An ugly, game dog should be the top winner in any registry. I wasn't around 70 years ago but I gotta believe that there was much less debate over the difference back when breeding for function was a priority. I know, I know... times have changed...


I feel the same way :goodpost: :goodpost:


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

I'll address this , though after thirty plus years of explaing it over and over it sometimes grows a bit tedious. For reference please read the APBT FAQ a few of us put together many years ago. 

For the *record* , every example of these breed(s) goes back to the same small genetic pool , in toto they are the amalgamam of many different strains of bull-n-terrier crosses bred in the Olde Countries i.e. England ,Ireland and Scotland. 

There's not an example of *either* breed walking the face of the earth that doesn't have dogs like Cockney Charlie Lloyd's 'Pilot' , The Gas House Dog ( McDonald's Grip) , Bob The Fool , (Imported) Rafferty , Sweeney's " Fly"
The Bob Tail Bitch and The Bob Tail Dog and many others I could mention in their pedigree. 

The AST didn't come about until 1936 when the AKC recognised them under that name , dogs bedded down one night and the next morning were magically transformed in ASTs. And of the first group registered under AKC auspices the majority were *gamebred* dogs , including dogs from the Farmer Brothers and others active at that time. 

For those who think that Staffs were always show dogs , keep in mind that such lines as the Tacoma dogs , Expert , Ruffian etc. would never have existed without the efforts of men like Con Feeley , Charlie Doyle , Al Brown and Earl Tudor , you would't have Tacoma dogs without Tudor's 'Blackjack' , Tacoma Jack , Tacoma Jacks Replica etc .etc. 

In addition the line has remained blurred up until the '70s , ASTs were still being matched at that time and certain famous breeders of gamebred dogs ( who I will not name here) bred into ASTs at certain times based upon their performance. 

The dogs have diverged as regards phenotype and function , that's a given but they most assuredly *not* different breeds. 

And for those folks claiming that they have 'gamebred' dogs based solely upon the registry that issued their papers , if the first 'gamebred' dog in your pedigree is ten generations back you do *not* have a gamebred dog. 

Some of us prefer one thing , some of us another , but in the last analysis if you like what you're feeding then why does it matter. Me? I prefer a well structured 'gamebred' dog with an impeccable pedigree , and for those of you who wish to argue with me that such dogs are *not* well structured , don't bother , I've got too many ADBA Chs and Gr Chs behind me to bother with such nonsense. 

It's impossible to disconnect the two breeds , they *all* exist because of the same dogs and the same breeding practices. 


OldDog1


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> Also, if UKC did separate the amstaffs and the pitbulls, where would the pitterpats go? Also, would they need a sub-class for show bred versus gamebred pit bulls, under the pit bull classification. H3ll, if the didn't allow the pitterpats, 90% of the UKC shows would be empty.


Pitterpats? I assume you mean Pitterstaffs. 

I get this question a lot and it makes no sense to me. Why would ending further registration of AmStaffs as APBTs do anything to affect the current dogs showing? And no, we should not need sub-classes, especially not one which tacitly acknowledges illegal activities.

In addition, while the dog you posted is a nice one, the example is really no different than the plethora of folks who show a well-structured Ambully as redemption for the whole breed.


----------



## Howardsperformancek9 (Feb 11, 2009)

Actually, I can post about 1000 pictures of well structured amstaffs that if cut down, would easily finish ADBA,(the real pit bull standard) not so with bullies. A good quality amstaff with nice structure can fit all 3 standards with the right condtioning. Maybe not much roach, but having nice fronts, tight feet and more natural muscularity can make up for that fault.

Also, If I understand you correctly, the dogs already mixxed in with the gene pool would be OK(yes, the PITTERSTAFFS), so it would not really solve anything, as 95% of the dogs showing already have the staff blood in there. In fact, I can not name any line showing UKC that does not have some amstaff lines in them. Even Larsan is heavy bred on martins Ceaser of tuff who was an amstaff cross by the way of Archer blood. (Kind of wierd about that, when they had tons of real, quality pit bull blood back then, they could of used, and still used amstaff.)

Showing dogs is just a game, you just have to know how to play it!

Check this out:
http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=5346

This dog is an example of some Larsan stuff. Go back alon the Martins, and look at all the Archer staff blood back there. Also, not the amstaff looking head, deep chest, and bone on this dog, which many attribute to the AST blood.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> Actually, I can post about 1000 pictures of well structured amstaffs that if cut down, would easily finish ADBA,(the real pit bull standard) not so with bullies. A good quality amstaff with nice structure can fit all 3 standards with the right condtioning. Maybe not much roach, but having nice fronts, tight feet and more natural muscularity can make up for that fault.
> 
> Also, If I understand you correctly, the dogs already mixxed in with the gene pool would be OK(yes, the PITTERSTAFFS), so it would not really solve anything, as 95% of the dogs showing already have the staff blood in there. In fact, I can not name any line showing UKC that does not have some amstaff lines in them. Even Larsan is heavy bred on martins Ceaser of tuff who was an amstaff cross by the way of Archer blood. (Kind of wierd about that, when they had tons of real, quality pit bull blood back then, they could of used, and still used amstaff.)
> 
> ...


 To your very first postulation * no you can't* , to the second item , don't even bother talking to me about the 'bullies' , it's no secret that I don't like 'em , folks breeding 'em should stop calling them APBTs , they aren't and those folks are breeding away from the original phenotype , be it ADBA ,UKC or AKC.

And I hope you weren't posting info about the LarSan dogs aimed at *me* , I *knew* Sandy , furthermore if you think Martins Caesar was never at anytime bred into any gamebred bloodlines the you need to do a bit more pedigree research. And I believe I've already cited the crossover between the UKC and AKC dogs , there's much , much less of it in the ADBA dogs though examples like Indian Sonny's first dog can be found , but then again said dog was off Altiere's "Tim".

And the word 'pitterstaff' is a completely useless made-up term. It's a nonsense word.

In closing , if you think that what's winning in the AKC ring in this era would win in the ADBA ring then you need to attend a few more ADBA shows.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> Also, If I understand you correctly, the dogs already mixxed in with the gene pool would be OK(yes, the PITTERSTAFFS), so it would not really solve anything, as 95% of the dogs showing already have the staff blood in there.


It would allow the UKC APBT to go where it is going naturally without continued AmStaff influence. Hopefully over time it return a bit more to its roots and begin to favor the athletic dog again. Maybe we'll see more dogs like Dual GRCH Persephone being favored in the top numbers, not so much dogs bred straight off AKC stock.

Olddog, the Lar-San comment was probably directed at me since that's the line I favor. I already acknowledged that there is AmStaff in my dogs' pedigrees. Its not what was done in past generations that I'm worried about. Its making a positive change for the _future_ of the breed. I don't believe that some exceptional AmStaffs out there equals a universal endorsement for continually putting new AmStaff blood into the APBT gene pool.


----------



## Howardsperformancek9 (Feb 11, 2009)

Hello Old dog,
My post was in response to a couple of Bahamutts' posts. I also do not like the AmBullies(greyline, gotti RE, ect), and would worry more about them being in the UKC genepool, rather than a little amstaff blood. 
Referring to Ceaser, I am sure he was bred to gamedogs as well as show dogs, but if you look at the Oscar's ped, it has a lot of amstaff influence in it. Many people do not realize that this foundation Larsan dog was bred this way. I am sure you did. 

I have been to a lot of ADBA shows, and there are many amstaff crosses winning. If an AKC amstaff is conditioned right, they can clean up ADBA, and do. 

I like the Larsan dogs, I like the amstaffs and I love the gamedogs. I did not coin the phrase Pitterstaff, but use it. I just get a little tired of people(this is not talking about you old dog) who own non-gamebred 10 generation UKC showdogs dogs, cutting down the pit staff crosses. 

Also, I have attended numerous adba shows for about 18 years now, and have seen a lot. I do show ADBA(many pointed dogs, one with 85 points), but am not willing to drive state to state to champion a dog out, with only one show here a year.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> Hello Old dog,
> My post was in response to a couple of Bahamutts' posts. I also do not like the AmBullies(greyline, gotti RE, ect), and would worry more about them being in the UKC genepool, rather than a little amstaff blood.
> Referring to Ceaser, I am sure he was bred to gamedogs as well as show dogs, but if you look at the Oscar's ped, it has a lot of amstaff influence in it. Many people do not realize that this foundation Larsan dog was bred this way. I am sure you did.
> 
> ...


 Howard , all due respect , but I've been showing ADBA for a lot longer than 18 years , have had a lot of champion dogs and a smattering of Grand champions and won the Nationals ( with a bitch , double Gr.Ch. Andy Capp), and I completely and totally disagree with your comment that an AST properly conditioned could clean up at an ADBA show , right off the bat most of them are way outsized for ADBA conformation competition , again I ask you how many 35-45 lb ASTs you've seen lately. And I will point out yet again that while yes there have been ASTs bred into ADBA stock ( as a for instance Indian Sonny's first dog was an AST out of Altiere's Tim ,making it a fairly solid Corvino dog , and Irish Jerry once bred into Sertoma's Firecracker) those dogs were all *performance* dogs.

And yes you're preaching to the choir on the 'gamebred' thing , though I'm a bit more hardcore than you are about it ,I'm sick of hearing it from people regardless of registry , and even more thoroughly sick of hearing it from idiots like the clown that 'Gamer' cited who made a claim of having a 109 lb 'Chinaman' dog , and since I've been around long to have actually laid eyes and hands on Ch.Chinaman and that blood has often been a major component of what I've bred , shown and kept over the years , along with Gr.Ch.Spike and certain permutations of Patricks blood and Boyle's blood. The theoretical 109 lb 'Chinaman' dog doesn't exist , it's never walked the face of this earth , and in point of basic FACT the breed(s) were never intended to weigh a 100 plus lbs in the first place and such specimens didn't exist until this modern era and folks breeding strictly for *size* , keep in mind that such specimens as Plumber's Alligator and Tombstone were considered quite large for their time and they didn't even approach 75 lbs on the chain hogfat.And folks who have a dog in whose pedigree the first 'gamebred' dog is 10 or better generations back don't have a gamebred dog , why they can't just be happy with their dog instead of misrepresenting what it is , well it's beyond me.

As goes the UKC/AKC controversy , you'll never separate the two , they've had too much influence on each other and there's too much interplay still to do so , keep in mind that there have been periods when the AKC book has been open to it and there's quite a few dual registered dogs around. They aren't really crosses , as an example: you'd have to call the Tacoma dogs 'crosses' ( leaving bloodlines descended from the Tacoma dogs out of it for the moment) since of course *all* the base dogs behind them were performance bred APBTs.

And at this juncture personally I'm rather sick and tired of the intra-registry carping and moaning since the legislative and sociopolitical juggernaut is bearing down on us *all*.

I'm infinitely more concerned about unscrupulous breeders that are breeding for size , specific color ( a ridiculous criteria for breeding if there ever was one) , outsized heads ,lowrider dogs ( as I said elsewhere five dogs wide ,eight dogs long , half a dog tall with the legs of a dandy dinmont and a basketball head) and assorted other chicanery that goes on , and don't ever get me started on the 'merle' dogs , which never existed in these dogs until the last decade or so and first appeared where? Why right in the middle of Catahoula country of course.

The breed is quite likely to be gone within the next 2 -3 decades.Sad to say.

OldDog1


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

I don't see how suggesting that its time to end dual-registration is "cutting down" the pitterstaffs. They're out there and many are doing good, so good for them. I still don't have a satisfactory answer to just what the APBT gains by the _continued adding_ of AmStaff blood. What does the AmStaff bring that is not already in the APBT just waiting to be brought out by selective breeding?

ETA: Bothering with the UKC/AKC nonsense doesn't mean that you can't also worry about unscrupulous breeders, merle dogs, BSL, human-aggro temperaments, lack of health-testing, and many other problems that are facing the breed. If you're going to tackle one problem, I don't see why you can't pay attention to several.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

bahamutt99 said:


> I don't see how suggesting that its time to end dual-registration is "cutting down" the pitterstaffs. They're out there and many are doing good, so good for them. I still don't have a satisfactory answer to just what the APBT gains by the _continued adding_ of AmStaff blood. What does the AmStaff bring that is not already in the APBT just waiting to be brought out by selective breeding?
> 
> ETA: Bothering with the UKC/AKC nonsense doesn't mean that you can't also worry about unscrupulous breeders, merle dogs, BSL, human-aggro temperaments, lack of health-testing, and many other problems that are facing the breed. If you're going to tackle one problem, I don't see why you can't pay attention to several.


 SIggghhhhh. Do I have to explain this *again* , and by the way I said *nothing* whatsoever as to 'cutting down the pitterstaffs' , and said term is a nonsense term that is a complete misnomer.

So once again , the AKC/UKC dogs are completely and in extricably linked , go do your research and look behind Tacoma , Expert , Sertoma , Ruffian etc bloodlines and then tell me what you find.

And insofar far as it goes , folks breeding back and forth across UKC/AKC lines isn't even *remotely* a problem compared to the items you cite within the above.

Start disqualifying ASTs based upon having APBT blood and vice versa , go ahead. You'll inevitably have very ,very few dogs if *any* ( since ALL ASTs go back to APBTs) left.

As to 'what does it bring?' , what does French Vanilla ice cream bring to thr party? What does vanilla ice cream bring to the party.

You're complaining about what is essentially a non-issue.


----------



## Howardsperformancek9 (Feb 11, 2009)

Hi Lindsay,
I don't think that the amstaffs are so wonderful that they are going to "add" something to the UKC showdogs, I just think dual registration is not hurting the pitbulls as much as the people breeding muttbulls. The damage is already done. UKC is a show registry, the dogs showing there are not gamebred anyway, so I don't feel that the amstaffs are "hurting" anything. Regarding healthtesting...If you check the OFA database on a monthly basis there are way more amstaffs testing than apbts, and there are way more apbt breeders. I check this monthly so, I know. 

To Old dog,
I am glad you have many years into the breed and show ADBA, I do too, but with all the other events I compete in I can enter an event a week and stay in my home state, Even with a perfect ADBA specimen, I would have to show a dog for 5 years to finish it, without leaving my state, and that if it won first place each time. I have traveled to pull dogs with ADBA at one time, and it was not a lot of fun, I would not travel just to finish a conformation dog. 
I have some very wellbred gamedogs, and that is what I started out with. I still have them, but because of personal beliefs I raely breed them or sell them to the public. I do plan on titling one of them, this summer/fall. My family has been into them for way more than 30 years. 
Just so you may know who my family is, my uncle bred Garner's CH Dolly, just to name one of them. I have got to see some wonderful gamedogs, and have my hands on them, such as GRCH Roadblocks Joey, GRCH Solution, ect. My family if from the Carolinas(the heart of bulldog country)
A lot of people know who I am, my name is Howard Burgess from MI, and I hate to argue with someone who won't use their real name. So, who are you again?

I KNOW WHAT A REAL PIT BULL IS, AND IS DOES NOT TAKE SOMEONE WITH SUPPOSED 30 YEARS INTO THE BREED, WHO WON'T USE THEIR OWN NAME, TO TELL ME. 

p.s. About the amstaffs in the ADBA showring: Actually the Falin dogs are cleaning up in the showring ADBA and on the WP track. Those dogs are a little bit of pitbull with a lot of amstaff. They have ruined many a gamedog's weekend at the ADBA shows. By the way....Traditional amstaffs, are about 17-19 inches, and under 65 pounds hogfat.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> Hi Lindsay,
> I don't think that the amstaffs are so wonderful that they are going to "add" something to the UKC showdogs, I just think dual registration is not hurting the pitbulls as much as the people breeding muttbulls. The damage is already done. UKC is a show registry, the dogs showing there are not gamebred anyway, so I don't feel that the amstaffs are "hurting" anything. Regarding healthtesting...If you check the OFA database on a monthly basis there are way more amstaffs testing than apbts, and there are way more apbt breeders. I check this monthly so, I know.
> 
> To Old dog,
> ...


 What you think you're going to impress me with the above there Howard? And frankly I'm not about to put out my name on *any* APBT forum and if you don't like it I really don't much give a hoot. As far as N.C. and the southeast goes , spare me puuulllleeeaase. You're not the only one to have spent extensive time in the region , and said region isn't remotely the be-all end-all of the dogs.

And no the 'Falin' dogs aren't "cleaning up" , seen an AmStaff win the nationals have you? You're going to tell me all this and yet you won't travel out of your own state and clearly state that you make what? One show a year? Furthermore I *really* don't need you to tell me what size a "traditional" AST is. Seems I must have hit a nerve with you , not that I much care. Think you're the only one to 'have your hands on some wonderful gamedogs' do you? Think you're going to impress me with the dropping of names?

Rather seems that you have an overinflated sense of your own importance and the attendant expectation that your little screed in the above is going to make me roll over and submit to you , t'ain't about to happen.

By the way ,I'd already pretty much sussed out who you were prior to your little missive above. And here's some news for you , you're not even remotely the only one here with some wellbred dogs.

Now me? I WILL travel to show a dog.

Now what's your point? Is it that you want to be the 'big dog'? Because I'm going to say what I'm going to say and state my opinion based upon my experience , and once again , if you don't like it I really don't much care.

OldDog1


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

OldDog said:


> SIggghhhhh. Do I have to explain this *again*


No, you just need to explain why it is a good thing to my satisfaction. The defeatest attitude I've seen displayed -- _we will never get it to stop_ -- is not enough for me. A Pit Bull doesn't quit, right?

Again, who really cares what kind of breeding went on in the past? I'm asking why it needs to continue. AGAIN, I'm not saying anything about "disqualifying" dogs based on what is in their pedigrees. I'm talking about stopping the practice of taking a straight AKC dog and putting UKC papers on it so it can be an APBT.



> You're complaining about what is essentially a non-issue.


I can see where it would be a non-issue to someone who doesn't put much stock in the UKC ring. However, just because it doesn't matter to you, I resent the implication that it shouldn't matter to me. I want to see Pit Bulls win in both of the Pit Bull registries. Giving up the ghost and going over to show exclusively ADBA is not an answer I'm willing to accept. If people can get the standard changed to discriminate against a certain eye shape and other little fluff, I think people can get it changed to disallow dumping new AmStaff blood into the APBT from now until infinity.



> Regarding healthtesting...If you check the OFA database on a monthly basis there are way more amstaffs testing than apbts, and there are way more apbt breeders.


Howard, I have used the argument that the AmStaff people use health-testing way more than the APBT people before. I actually used it on a gamedog board to see if I could rile some people up. "Those AmStaff folks are putting us to shame!" (The response was basically that only people with unhealthy breeds need to health test. :hammer I like what they are doing with regard to testing, and kudos to them. Seriously. That said, I think its tacitly acknowledged that AmStaffs have more heart abnormalities than APBTs, which in turn supports the argument against allowing new AmStaff blood into the APBT gene pool.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

I'm a fairly mellow mod when it comes to handing out warnings, but let this stop right now. And that includes the cheerleaders who aren't doing anything but fanning the flames. (Those of you with deleted posts, hopefully you understand why and I don't have to explain it.) We have an interesting discussion going on here, so let's not ruin it with personal bickering.


----------



## Howardsperformancek9 (Feb 11, 2009)

OH, my last two post to OC were deleted...That's OK, I guess. Here is something else i wanted to say about another post.

Linsay stated:" That said, I think its tacitly acknowledged that AmStaffs have more heart abnormalities than APBTs, which in turn supports the argument against allowing new AmStaff blood into the APBT gene pool."

I say: How many APBTs are getting their hearts checked to know it that is not a problem with them? The same people that do not check hips, are not checking hearts. Again ,overall, very few pitbull people UKC or ADBA are doing any health testing. For instance most amstaff people now are testing for Ataxia with DNA thru Optigen, but none of the apbt people are testing for vWd, even with the rednoses, which seem to carry it. Especially having heard it runs in the tufftown dogs. 

Can you show me five gamebred ADBA dogs with (documented) hips, and hearts? Since you are all for allowing them dual registration, but not the AKC dogs. You won't. Plus a lot of questionable ADBA lines are getting dual registered with UKC, such as the Whopper, Dagger, L.O.G. ect. How will you screen them out? My point is screening out the amstaff from UKC makes less sense than breaking down on all dual registration. If you want to make a real difference, push for higher quality single registration overall. Right now any amstaff or ADBA dogcan be single registered: with UKC, they do not have to fit any standard, or be a certain size and even temperament does not seem to matter. 

BTW;I personally do not see the point of mixxing a pure amstaff with a pure gamebred ADBA dog. I want to make that clear, that was never my intention.


----------



## redog (Oct 14, 2005)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> BTW;I personally do not see the point of mixxing a pure amstaff with a pure gamebred ADBA dog. I want to make that clear, that was never my intention.


Howard you made it perfectly clear. its just that some folks have to read things twice to let it sink in


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

Howard, the situation with the APBT and health testing is lame as anything. And you will find people saying that because their dogs are off straight gamebred stock, they are guaranteed healthy. Do I agree with it? Not in the least bit. Given a choice between an untested gamebred dog and an untested AmStaff, I'd take the former. But I am glad to hear the tiniest trickle of ADBA folks starting to health-test their dogs. (And then there are the reputable dual UKC/ADBA people who take their ethics wherever they go.) It does have to start somewhere, and I'm glad for the 2 or 3 people that I know of who are doing it. I actually feel for them because I know some of their "peers" deride them for "questioning" the superiority of the gamebred dog by daring to do that.

The Whopper mutts are another can of worms, as are the mystery merles that started popping up not that long ago. I am not in favor of them being in the gene pool any more than the AKC dogs, and every time the topic has come up I have said as much. However, I think the majority of the ADBA dogs out there competing add more to the UKC APBT than the majority of the AmStaffs competing. Yes, there are faults on both sides. Like I wish we could get those purty AmStaff feet on more of the ADBA dogs. 

Ending all dual registration wouldn't make much sense because the UKC and ADBA dogs are both APBTs. If there wasn't the AmStaff influence on the UKC ring, I suspect we would see more similarity between them and the average ADBA dog. Which brings me back to ground zero. You don't see the point of breeding an AmStaff to a gamebred dog. I don't see the point of taking an AmStaff, calling it an APBT and then putting it in the ring to beat the UKC dogs. And a lot of the time they do win because they've been bred to that rigid show standard for so long, they've got a lot of the finer showy points (like the feet I mentioned, and the straighter shoulder for a nice showy gait). Maybe the APBT doesn't have that consistency, but does that mean the AmStaff should beat him in his own breed ring? And then of course because he has won there will be UKC people wanting to breed to him. And the cycle continues.


----------



## 9361 (Jun 25, 2009)

I would consider the APBT and the Amstaff as like.... fraternal twins... They came from the same place but they may have different personalities and looks.


----------



## OldDog (Mar 4, 2010)

Howardsperformancek9 said:


> OH, my last two post to OC were deleted...That's OK, I guess. Here is something else i wanted to say about another post.
> 
> .


 Well Howard , unless you want to see this start all over again then dispense with the sideways shots across my bows i.e. the O.C. within the above.

And you never saw me say anything whatsoever about breeding gamebred lines into UKC lines , I don't , never have and never will.

Furthermore if you think that they aren't ADBA folks doing the requisite health checks then you're mistaken , many of the folks doing said checks won't have their dogs end up in the OFA and other databases , with what has gone on in the last decade there's a lot of folks that have an innate distrust of said databases.

And if your entire assessment of *me* or any other individual is based solely upon the fact that they're not about to put their given name out on a public forum then you're extremely shortsighted and judgemental. You do say much that I agree with , the rest of your personally oriented carping I have no use and no time for and continuation of such tactics will just inevitably relegate you to the eminently ignorable file.

Your tendency to denigrate an individuals information based upon such shortsighted criteria speaks volumes as to your stance and your ego.

If you wish to talk dogs , then talk dogs and leave the personal assaults out of it. If you wish to do the other then I have no use for any sort of discourse with you.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

I would much rather see people incorporating ADBA/gamebred dogs into a UKC program than AmStaffs. I own the product of one such breeding and have been very happy with her. She's a little conformationally different, but doing conformation was just one reason that I got her. Sensible reintroduction of old-school blood can help the UKC dogs and still stay within the same breed.


----------



## redog (Oct 14, 2005)

OK we'll take a break here to clean up the bantor and nonsence. I promise we can resume this discussion soon


----------

