History, APBT/AmStaff/Staffie

Ok first let me say I am not trying to start an argument here or make ripples in the water. Im just curious what others think based on facts. I constantly see on forums people tell others they have AmStaff in there peds so Im curious as to the TRUE origin of the APBT. The reason I pose a question asked so many times is this seems like a very good site where intelligent and meaninful debate can be found.

I believe today the two are very different breeds but what about in the past? Has the APBT always been its own breed or was there a time in history when the two dogs were the same and then split, one for show and one for working? When you state your side if you have factual refrences please include it. Id like to get to the bottom of this question we see so much of.

 

i have no "facts", but growing up in boston it went something like this:
the APBT and AmStaff were at one time the same dog.
JPColby started the AmStaff line off Colby's Primo ( i want to say around the 1920'S)
this was more for confirmational standard and not bred for gameness.
the dogs were not game tested or matched so the trait was greatly watered down/nearly lost.

~this is the way the story unfolds in the north, im not claiming that its right or wrong. just a little yankee perspective for you~

 

J.P. did not create the AST nor were any of his dogs bred for show. Primo was used as a standard for AST conformation when the APBT was finally recconized by the AKC. Being newly accepted into the AKC they had no standard as to which to base the dog off of so the AKC went to a man who would know a thing or two about APBT's, and that would be J.P.

As for the AST at one point in time yes they were still bred down from true game dogs and the owners of those dogs introduced thier dogs into the world of the AKC show ring. Throughout the years of being bred for show and no go IMHO that DID change the AST into its own breed. Although they share the same blood they have been bred for different traits for over 70 years, that kind of new breeding program would alter the dogs in some way.

Today there are very few AST that are bred to APBT standards the rest of them have morfed into a different dog altogether. So me personally I do see them as two different breeds.

 

IMO and from what I have read and heard, Colby is one of the purest lines in APBT history. I believe it was said that Colby only outcrossed one time in his breeding history.

 

Dog fanciers developed "standards of perfection" for breeds, and subdivided types of dogs into more and more separate breeds. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The vast majority of pit bull breeders fought to keep their dogs away from the show ring, and succeeded for several decades. Then, like now, breeder of true performance dogs knew that the show ring spelled ruination for their animals. It wasn't until the 1930's that a very small group of individuals made an attempt to bring the pit bull into the show dog world. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Using several dogs (including Colby's Primo) as the "standard of perfection", a physical standard was drawn up for the pit bull. The name "pit bull" was a problem for these show dog folks - they felt it would scare people off. They tried several names, including Yankee Terrier which was a foolish choice for a bulldog from the United Kingdom! They finally settled on "Staffordshire Terrier". To this day, the debate about whether or not the pit bull should be grouped with terriers (small dogs which go into tunnels for vermin) rages[/FONT]

 

The way I see it, sometimes it's just a difference in title, others it's a whole different dog. The AKC registers pitbulls as amstaffs. Many folks think if a dog is UKC bred then it is an amstaff. The way I see it, there are two seperate but overlapping breeds, and you can't tell which is which just by what their papers say. For example a dog like Killen's Cid http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=3501 who was clearly a game bred, game tested dog, was also registered by the UKC. He sired pups that were also UKC dog's with UKC and AKC parents. Now, some of those pups were kept true and tested and were indeed in my opinion still apbt's some of them were then bred to other show dogs and not tested and as a result you now have show dog's with Killen's Cid five gens back that are cold as ice and are just a shadow of an apbt and thus only amstaffs. On the other hand, you have some that continued to be bred for working qualities, to other working quality animals, and as a result you have dog's now that could be registered as amstaffs but be all the apbt you can handle. The test of what makes an apbt is not what it is called but if it can work. APBT breeders breed for ability first and conformation second. Amstaffers are the other way around. Which is why you can have an apbt that could be an amstaff (look like a staff and could be registered as one), but you couldn't have an amstaff that was also an apbt... make sense. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a working bred amstaff, working bred amstaffs are apbt's by another name, because they came from the same dogs, and if they weren't bred for show like most amstaffs were, then they would have continued to be apbt's, they would have just been registered with a different title. That said, I've never come across such a dog now days, but I know that back in the 60's Hume's Texas Jack who was an x-pert line working as well as matched amstaff was bred by some reputable dogmen to gamebred females and those pups were tested and used in breeding programs, so once upon a time such dogs existed. Whether they exist today is quite another question.

 

This is good. So do you think that at one point intime, the APBT and Staff were indeed the same dog. However at some point in history they took seperate roads and through selective breeding on both parties are now 2 different dogs.

As far as registries go Ripper, I think we all know what a dog is registered with doesn't hold much value as to what it really is. Alot of times its all about the money with them. I mean look at the ADBA with its Whopper/Dagger/Edington dogs, all claiming to be ABPT!!! So if you have a dog registered with the UKC I wouldn't necesarily deem it to be AmStaff on that pricipal alone. I believe this is what you were also saying. JMO

 

Up into the 1960's, the AKC still opened at various times it's stud books to dogs registered as the American pit Bull Terrier as long as they met certain criteria. If you note, the AKC finds nose color other than black a fault and dogs cannot be over a certain precentage of white.



And true, just because a dog is ukc pr bred does not dictacte that it is an "am staff". If you take notice, why was the UKc founded? And to this day it has been the only registry to have it's own pit rules.. something which the AKC, ADBA and the AADR has never ever had.

 

Great example. I agree 100%

 

german shepard, malinois, would anyone say that working lines and show lines are diferent breeds?

apbt/ast
some say diferent breeds due to selection, i say same breed, diferent selection
amstaff is no diferent to ukc apbts...unless they too are another breed