What does ADBA really think of UKC dogs

i think if people would just call their dogs what they were it would save everyone alot of grief. what would be even better would be if we dropped the term pitbull all together. call each dog exactly what it is, and let each breed stand on its own 4

 

They're not? Really! I better go out back and tell them they're not.

What can I do? Mine don't know how to read their pedigrees!:eek:

Purple Ribbon? You mean dogs who have been registered UKC for at least three generations so I can get a 6 generation pedigree?:confused:

I didn't know they were AmStaffs because of that?

And after they are dual registered AKC to UKC, then they can be registered ADBA, correct?

Now I am really confused! I thought it was about the [] not the O.:confused:

hmmmmm, welllllll, shoot..............I had these dogs here for over 40 years UKC registered and now I just found out the have AmStaff in them!:eek:

When I look at their pedigree, I don't see any breaks in the pedigree to AKC, all I can see is dogs that are UKC registered for over a hundred years........:cool:

Oh well, I guess you can learn something new everyday.:o

 

what makes and APBT is what is was made for you breed an APBT for what it was bred for if your are not breeding for what it was bred for...then its something else...AMSTAFF...sorry to break the news to ya...n yea you learn something new everyday....

 

oh and by the way my UKC dogs too have no registered AKC dogs in them but me looking at their pedigree and learning about the dogs in the family they are amstaff they are def not bred for gameness. I got a lil lucky and found family dog in UKC that has great drive...but compared to my game bred dog although registered as APBT i know the reality they are amstaffs....

 

then 99.9% of the world has AmStaffs according to your theory.


the UKC started out as an APBT registry...in 1898. they were the originals. those who think that a dog is of a different breed simply because of the registry used are crazy, plain and simple

 

not because of registry you are missing the point. Most ukc dogs were bred not for what APBTwas bred for so no they are not APBT they are amstaff you are mis informed about the breed.

 

no, im not misinformed about either breed.
and still ,by your reasoning, the 99.9% of APBT's that are not bred for their original purpose- does this make them AmStaffs? of course not.

 

I like this thread shows YEARS of what UKC APBT went...You breed outside ofwhatthe breed was bred for you get a seperate result...a seperate gene of dog...
http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31155

I just feel its time for UKC to recognize what in general the dogs that win in UKC truly are Amstaff's...and most that are in top ten are actually AKC registered amstaff.
Some in UKC get upset when I refer my dogs of UKC which are somewhat related to their dogs as amstaff but hey its the reality. They are still great dogs they can do great things but they are not game. They are not APBTs.

 

Rally Racer any breed of dog owner who knows about breedign and truly that's their passion they will tell you you dont' breed for what the dog was bred for you are breeding another breed. That goes for any breed not just APBT. you breed for game its APBT you breed for conformation and beauty only its AMSTAFF there is not middle line.

 

I think you are correct there. Although being UKC registered doesn't mean it's not an APBT(there are certainly some nice ones that are still UKC papered), it definitely doesn't mean that it is. The majority of UKC dogs that I have seen do not warrant the name APBT.

 

If you statement holds true then this dog is a true APBT


This dog had no AKC registered dog in its pedigree but this ain't no apbt my friend.
When you breed a dog for what its bred for its true conformation shows. Hence why ADBA dogs are so different then the UKC amstaffs registered APBT.
Now you might have few in UKC who look more according to what a bulldog should look like but in general the ones that place and win all the time and are trophied as the Best of the Breed in UKC is not close to the true APBT conformation and def the core of APBT gameness

 

but that is a nice american bully aint it people? i think its a cute dog.

 

and let me take a step foward too because this happens in ADBA also there are dogs registered only with ADBA but when you look at their pedigree look at them you know they aren't real APBT... them chevy dogs...Great pullers still but not an apbt but that dog would not place in and ADBA ring might place in UKC ring....

 

The pedigree of the dog and the dog itself both shoujld reflect each other to reflect a true APBT...the dog should show in pedigree and in form its a true bulldog.

 

you guys just dont get it at all. you pick and chose what is going to be the barometer.
peds matter, peds DONT matter
looks matter, looks DONT matter-its what they were bred for

folks need to make up their mind

if the dog ~looks~ the part ( like Leslie's dogs for example) but doesnt have the ped to match ( according to YOUR standards) then its not an APBT? you have GOT to be kidding me?!?!


i dont think you are going to find many people who are going to jump up and down saying "according toYOUR stadards, i DO have APBT's, not AmStaffs"


- i guess my dogs are staffs

 

Like the man said, good dogs are where you find them. The UKC has every right to register AKC dogs as Pit Bulls, after all, their registry is where the original AmStaff peds begin, and unless someone has been adding chipmunk blood to AmStaffs, a lot of similar blood is running trough the whole bully breed dog diaspora whether we wish to admit it or not. I try not to get too snobbish on the issue because almost everybody has a good point and a good reason for running the blood they do. Breeding just for "gameness" is as near-sighted and unsuccessful long-term as breeding for big heads is. The key to just about everything is balance, balance and more balance. A lot of dead-game dogs end up that way having been out-pulled by much less "game" dogs that just had better stifles pushing them, better hocks holding them, better angulation balancing them, shorter backs tranferring power more efficiently and a better head-piece with proper teeth getting the job done deeper each hold. There's a reason for standards and common sense-long term. After all, that double tailed, three legged phreaknomenon may win you a few; but, how are his offspring going to stand up. In the end, keep what you keep for your own reasons and don't worry about what anyone else is running unless its consistently out-pulling yours...and you care.

 

You know some dogs do make up their pedigree but you are missing the point those are very few and let me tell you something else I will bet you them dogs might make the pedigree themselves but will they produce better no the chances are most likely no. Your dog is not bred for gameness you are losing on the APBT health, dogs in the past were in better health then dogs now and that's cause we have all this technology health test this health test that..but the fact that overall working dogs have stopped beign bred for what they were bred for but instead for what peopel generally think they should look like they lack all the inside that makes the dogs conformation of the outside. This lil dilemma we talk here honestly is in other breeds too were the people who are breeding the breed for what is bred for is getting upset that peopel who are just taking the shell and breeding for the shell and calling it that breed wlel its not true...a breed is a completion of different things. Lack on or another you are not breeding to perfection but dilutting the breed.

I mean breeding for color just color will change the look and health and conformation of a dog. why wouldn't not breeding for gameness not change when its the core of the breed we love? You dont breed for that core you just have a shell the shell is the amstaff...again there is not in between...only in our heads but the reality of it is there is only apbt or amstaff.
But i'm not sure why you either are taking this so personal. Amstaff's are still great dogs I own them also.

 

I think to stop confusion we should just change UKC to amstaff's. and most UKC people actually would not mind.

 

lol...i love this argument.

what is an apbt? a breed of dog

what is a jack russel terrier? a breed of dog

what makes an apbt? all of his ancestors have been true apbts and he can still do work.

what makes a jack russell terrier? all of his ancestors were jack russells
( unfortunately everyone thinks when they chose a dog they are just choosing what size, what fur, and so on. its important to take into account what the dog was originally bred for)

i'm sure there are that 1% or less of jack owners who still work with their dogs....

the same goes for the apbt.

and on this board its full of people that still work their dogs...and everyone that comes here has this argument. amstaff lovers...theres nothing wrong with your dogs, i have an amstaff, hes a great dog. but he pales in comparison to the work ability of the original apbt. which although most dog owners dont appreciate or need this...these owners on this board give everything for it.

a lot of people think they have an apbt... what they dont understand is that they have a ferrrari with a honda civic engine in it. so it a ferrari? hell no... so what do we do, we think of a new name for it...

ferrari= apbt
ferrari w/ honda engine= amstaff

about as simple as it can be said by a person that doesnt have FULL understanding.

*BULLY OWNERS- your dogs are the exception...you cant even breed for proper conformation and health, let alone drive or work ability.

 

I agree...I think only when you have the two you can truly appreciate the differences and understand the differences. And truly see what they are two seperate breeds. And people need to realize what makes them two seperate breeds.