UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=)
-- Dual-registering AKC AmStaffs as UKC APBTs (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=338780)

Dual-registering AKC AmStaffs as UKC APBTs

I am not starting this thread to pick a fight or alienate anybody personally. But as there are always people who take things personally and get upset, I'm asking that you... well... don't.

I was wondering if there has ever been a concerted effort to put an end to dual-registering AKC American Staffordshire Terriers as UKC American Pit Bull Terriers. Obviously if there has been, it was not successful. I may be repeating history, but I think we're at a point where these questions need to be asked (even re-asked).

First and foremost is why? Why are AmStaffs allowed to single-register as an APBT? Why should this practice continue? Here are the reasons I've heard given:

* Most people can't tell the difference between an AmStaff and an APBT. The argument is usually made that since both came from the same root stock, they are the same.
* AKC competitors want to be able to compete in different venues against different dogs and this in turn makes the UKC more money.
* AKC competitors want to be able to do weight pull and other sports which are not offered in their own registry at this time.

Then I guess we should ask why not? Why should this practice be discontinued? Here are some reasons given for the other side:

* There are differences in the AKC and UKC standards. The AKC dogs split off over 70 years ago and have been largely a closed gene pool since that time.
* You cannot take a UKC-only dog and register it with the AKC, so why should the process work in reverse? Additionally, the AKC has language which discourages dual-registration (wording against dogs who are registered with another registry as a different breed on their PAL/ILP forms, for example).
* APBT owners with standard dogs have shied away from the UKC because they get discouraged with the prevalence of the AKC dog in the breed ring, as well as AKC judges judging the breed.

For myself since this is my breed, I also ask if the APBT stands to gain from having AmStaff blood continually re-introduced? The AmStaff surely does not gain since any offspring of the breeding of a UKC dog to an AKC dog can only be registered as UKC APBTs. There are some outstanding Amstaffs out there -- dogs from Hartagold and Kayo Kennels spring to mind -- but I don't understand why they can't be just that and not also APBTs. What positive traits do AmStaffs bring to the APBT gene pool which could not be obtained by selective breeding of what we have already?

My dogs are rednose dogs. On a message board long long ago in a land far far away, someone proposed making the rednose coloration a variety in the APBT so that they could stand a chance against the AmStaffs and Pit-or-Staffs which are largely what's winning in the UKC today. It was an interesting thought, sure, but what sense does it make to suggest isolating a color inherent to the APBT when dogs of another breed altogether are considered the norm?

I am shamelessly biased against AKC/UKC dual-registration. There are AKC dogs in my pedigrees, yes, so some might think me hypocritical on this topic. But I am of the opinion that even if it bothers the status quo, change can be a good thing. I would like to see the UKC APBT return to a more athletic type as is seen more readily in the ADBA dogs than the UKC dogs at this time. I believe that the ideal AmStaff is not necessarily representative of the ideal APBT.

My suggestion: Recognize the AmStaff for what it is. Create an AmStaff breed ring in the UKC. That way AKC folks can get their dose of alternate venues and alternate sports, and so we are not depriving them of anything they enjoy already, nor are we depriving the UKC of their entry and registration fees. Let the two breeds diverge as they are going to naturally, without continuing to muddy the waters with dual-registration.

Please, civilly and intelligently share your thoughts with me, even if you disagree.

__________________
Lindsay D.
--
Gravity APBTs

This is not my breed. But I have understood that they are two totally different breeds. The amstaff being larger and thicker. The apbt being smaller. I am probably wrong on that. But that is how I understood. If the amstaff is registered with AKC then it should stay as that breed and that breed should be a recognized breed with UKC. But the same should be said for the apbt. As it is a recognized breed with UKC then those registered as such should be registered as such with AKC. I am still learning on this breed and get a bit confused. Do these also count as the bully dogs that you hear about? That really confuses me other than they are shorter and more bulky than the typical apbt. I hope this will be educational in a nice way. I enjoy learning about other breeds and being able to get answers from those who specialize in them. If we dont ask question, we will never learn. Good topic. I hope we all can learn something from it.

I understand your comments and the question in general. In theory, I even agree with a lot of what you posted.

However, as a breeder of strictly UKC registered APBT's (meaning they are not dual registered), I prefer to be able to select from both. There are just some issues within the breed in UKC that I, myself, would like to correct, without losing what I already have (specifically a more standard size, very athletic and agile dog). If I am forced to stay with strictly UKC dogs, I may limit the areas what I can improve what I am producing. I want to put dogs together that best compliment each other, and if I can get what I need from an Am Staff, then that is where I will go.

But it wouldn't surprise me if one day I am not able to do so, and even if Am Staff's become a separate breed in UKC.

I agree with you.

I have been told by several judges that I needed to put weight on my female APBT and if she were thicker, she'd have taken 1st. She is a very lean and athletic girl and many people have suggested I try her in ADBA (even though she's a dreaded blue tri pitstaff *York on top/Nevada on bottom*) because she'd actually have a chance. I've literally had to fatten her up to finally start getting some 1st place ribbons and it's really quite a shame because currently I think she's overweight. That is honestly the only thing I have done differently. There are definitely pro's and con's to her but the fact that I put almost 10lbs on her (pushing 55lbs when the standard suggests *Desirable weight for a mature female in good condition is between 30 and 50 pounds*) and then she starts winning is very disheartening.

I personally like a terrier looking APBT (but do appreciate the qualities of a good quality thicker APBT/AST) and I find you have to search out certain judges in order to finish a dog who isn't more closely an Amstaff. I know for a fact someone with a stunning male who was having trouble because his titled STANDARD sized APBT wasn't as tall and thick as all the other dogs who were all over the desired UKC standard height/weight.

When I think of an APBT I think of the ADBA dogs in this chart many of you may have seen floating around the internet, when I see UKC/AKC I think more AST. I think the two look different enough to either separate them at least as a variety or hopefully as an entire breed.

http://i49.tinypic.com/a0gdy1.jpg

I may not know a lot and am learning new things daily, this is just my opinion on the matter.

__________________
URO1 UWP CH 'PR' Ohanas Battle Royale Timebomb CGC, TDI *Tokyo*
Hip prelim-good
OFA thyroid normal,
OFA cardiac normal by board cert cardiologist,
OFA patellas normal by board certified surgeon.

CH 'PR' Ohanas Harajuku Girl *Kawaii*
OFA Good, Elbows Normal
OFA cardiac normal by board cert cardiologist
OFA patellas normal by board cert surgeon

quote:

---

Originally posted by KYASHI
This is not my breed. But I have understood that they are two totally different breeds. The amstaff being larger and thicker. The apbt being smaller. I am probably wrong on that. But that is how I understood. If the amstaff is registered with AKC then it should stay as that breed and that breed should be a recognized breed with UKC. But the same should be said for the apbt. As it is a recognized breed with UKC then those registered as such should be registered as such with AKC. I am still learning on this breed and get a bit confused. Do these also count as the bully dogs that you hear about? That really confuses me other than they are shorter and more bulky than the typical apbt. I hope this will be educational in a nice way. I enjoy learning about other breeds and being able to get answers from those who specialize in them. If we dont ask question, we will never learn. Good topic. I hope we all can learn something from it.

---

__________________
Serena Galloway
www.ankhu.com

Home of Multi-BIS U-GrCh, Multi Group Winning/Placing AKC Bronze GCh, MBIS/MRBIS Int'l Ch, CKC Ch. Pineridge-Anji's St. Cecilia

Home of BIS/MRBIS U-GrCh., MBPIG CKC Ch., Int'l Ch, AKC GCh. Ankhu's Steamy Windows

No part of this message may be forwarded without permission

While I have worked with and have a fondness for the APBT, it is still not a breed I have personally owned. I do, however, understand that there are differences (some of which I know, and some I'm sure I don't) between the APBT and AST. So, not to derail the thread or anything, but would someone mind pointing out the specific conformational differences for myself and others who may also be curious?

__________________
Snowbank's Gift PN, CD, GN, AGN, CDX, PUD, JSC, JSCX, BA, IA, 7xAA, CGC, TDI, multi HIT; "Kip"
Black Water's Thin Ice PN, CD, GN, AGN, JSCX, BA, IA, 9xAA, CGC, TDI, TD, PAWDcert., P1, CL1-3-H, CL1-3-F, CL1-3-S, CL1-3-R, SAR K-9, UANx12, NJ, multi HIT; "Ice"
UAGI, UCD, URO2, UGWPC1, UWPV, UWPO, UWPS, UJJ, USJ, USUVCH, CA Aragorn vom Moorweg 4xCGC, TDI, BA, IA, 10xAA, PN, CD, CL1-3-H, CL1-2-S, CL1-3-F, CL1-3-R, SAR K-9, UANx6, UAJx13, UASx10, SUVx8, RUVx5, SDJ, BE-Adv., FS-Expert, DD, multi HIT, multi MWP, multi MWPP, Ultra Dog, All Star; "Aro"
UGWPC1, UWPV, UWPO, UWPS EBC's Flying Scot multi MWP, multi MWPP; "Scot"
UJJ, USJCH, UGWPC1, UWPV, UWPO, UWPS, CAX Queen Anne's Revenge SDJ, UANx5, UAJx10, UASx10, WDS-W, SL-Adv., BE-Basic, FS-Expert, SAR K-9 IT, multi MWP, multi MWPP, All Star; "Jack Tar"
UAGI, UGWPC1, UWPV, UWPO, UWPS, CA, UNJ, GRCH Bakchos vom Moorweg CGC, WDS-Wx2, SL-Adv., BE-Expert, FS-Expert, UAN, SAR K-9 IT, multi Total Dog, multi RBIMBS, multi MWP, multi MWPP, All Star, Top 10; "Baako"

I agree with Lindsay on everything she wrote I also was very against having my reds ans a variety because the color is just that. Most of them but not all are the more Terrier type performance dogs. My female has been called everything from a beagle to a whippet mix and my male a pointer mix because he is a white with red spots. Neither is accurate and if I wanted to I could get shots of my female that totally look like a Bully style dog 3/4 or front. Still not accurate in perception.

For a few years now I have asked why UKC can't take a few months and go through the pedigrees etc and find the AKC only dogs and designate them as AST. Then the ADBA dogs should still be able to be single registered as APBT because they are APBT. Then the cross introduction with AKC dogs is stopped with a cut off date announced six months out to give folks the chance to wrap up litters that are baking and registrations processed etc.

However effective immediately all AKC dogs will be registered as AST and if they show in a pedigree an asterisk appears like they do on ADBA pedigrees.

Then the dogs in our now closed gene pool with the AST in them can choose between what is already there for breeding. Face it folks, our UKC gene pool is not homogeneous at all and the registration numbers are high enough that if you want pitterstaff throw a rock and hit 10. If you want no AST you'll be still looking a year later with no luck. There are very nice dogs that are almost all AST so the excuse that you need to keep going to another pond to fish doesn't hold water.

Another thing is the fact that I know a LOT of good AST folks that truly want to come play on our jungle gym but won't because the breeds aren't split. Some feel it unfair to the dogs like mine and others just don't want pit bull hung on their dogs no matter what.

Or it could be easier to split the breed by name and make the true Terrier type a different breed all together. At least it would be a split.

__________________
Karen Frenette & Lilac Hill American Pit Bull Terriers
CH UWPCH PR Arkay's Pink Cadillac
CH UWP PR Arkay's Rawhide Rowdy Yates
PR Lilac Hill's Hello Darlin
PR Lilac Hill's Big Iron
PR Lilac Hill's A White Sport Coat
PR Lilac Hills walk The Line
Still with one nutty Ibizan
UWP CH Special Acres Just a Figment
Now a Rattie
PR Arkay's Double Deck Pinochle

I see Amstaffs/ POS's that are closer to the standard then A LOT of the UKC APBT'S. The standard has changed that much over the decades ...

I have 100's of pictures dating back to the 1890's, 1910's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's etc ... and they are all pretty much the same looking dog. UKC has always allowed the acceptance of UKC. I think some people are also blind to what's in their kennel, and believe that it's turn to the standard, just a tad lean or little....


This is a debate that has gone on for years ... yet, the end result is ... ?


However at the same time ... some might say a Rednose isn't a true APBT ... and they have various types just as the other "types" of apbts out there...

__________________
Michael Davis
www.luckyrockapbts.com



Home to:
UWP, URO3, GRCH LUCKY ROCK'S LITTLE WARRIOR, CGC ~ ACHILLES

UWPV, URO1, USJCH, UWPCH, GRCH Lucky Rock's Lil' Orphan Annie

CH Blu Prints Found a Lucky Rock

Also ..there are a lot of judges who' will put up a NICE rednose in a heartbeat ..

I've seen quite a few win ... I know Cathy at Blessing's won quite a few BIMBS/RBIMBS with 3 different rednoses ...

Capone/Leri won at Premier Best of Breed a few times ...

The number 2 dog in TT right now is a rednose ...

__________________
Michael Davis
www.luckyrockapbts.com



Home to:
UWP, URO3, GRCH LUCKY ROCK'S LITTLE WARRIOR, CGC ~ ACHILLES

UWPV, URO1, USJCH, UWPCH, GRCH Lucky Rock's Lil' Orphan Annie

CH Blu Prints Found a Lucky Rock

As I said in my post red nose is a color and I was against splitting the breed into varieties right along. A red nose can occur in AST as well which you know Mike so your post proves what? As to TT dogs I don't follow the TT because to me it's pretty pointless to because we don't show seriously enough to be interested. What I said was splitting the breed by TYPE.

And as for the AST fitting the UKC standard better, according to who? Think about it. s for standard changes, Roll them back to the one prior to the 2000whatever the year change and I'm all for that too. Who petitioned for the changes and why is something that you need to take into consideration as well.

Lindsay asked for opinions and I gave mine without pointing fingers, blaming judges, naming specific dogs other than what I own etc. Why did you? As for me being kennel blind, uh, yeah. That's why I have 2 neutered CH and 1 spayed CH who is related to TT dogs and the daughter of a year end #1 dog who we never bred. Kennel blind, nope but if the blinders fit go ahead and wear them.

__________________
Karen Frenette & Lilac Hill American Pit Bull Terriers
CH UWPCH PR Arkay's Pink Cadillac
CH UWP PR Arkay's Rawhide Rowdy Yates
PR Lilac Hill's Hello Darlin
PR Lilac Hill's Big Iron
PR Lilac Hill's A White Sport Coat
PR Lilac Hills walk The Line
Still with one nutty Ibizan
UWP CH Special Acres Just a Figment
Now a Rattie
PR Arkay's Double Deck Pinochle

I mentioned some NICE rednoses ... didn't bash ANYONE's dog, rather gave a compliment to some that I've seen personally. I asked if one might be kennel blind, didn't ask you if you were. I didn't blast any judges...

As for why I posted:
Because you get on the boards blasting AST's, and Pit/Staff's. In the past you post how it's hard to find nice ones, true pit's, one's that can win. Yet people continuous show you ladies, that's a false statement. If you have issue with it, then take it up with the UKC, however if you look at the standard they are doing what they can to keep out the Bully's

We all want our dogs to be what the standard is in OUR eyes. The problem is, IT's how we see the standard, vs. how the judge(s) see the standard. However if I kept losing with my dog(s) under several different judges over the years, and were told things about how it didn't look to the standard, then I might want to look at my program again ... Not saying if it's just 1 judge but several. Maybe I'm seeing it differently than everyone else.

I know my dogs faults and work to improve them. I've started introducing smaller sized APBT's into my breeding program ... why because I like the smaller dog ..smaller meaning 18-19 inches.

Also if you look at the AKC standard on their site (still from 1936) it has heights and that too ...18-19 inches for a male, 15-17 for a female PREFERRED, black nose...


However instead of taking it to the UKC board, why not go to the National Club (believe the President and VP are both Rednose people) ..and talk to them about seeing if this can happen...

M

__________________
Michael Davis
www.luckyrockapbts.com



Home to:
UWP, URO3, GRCH LUCKY ROCK'S LITTLE WARRIOR, CGC ~ ACHILLES

UWPV, URO1, USJCH, UWPCH, GRCH Lucky Rock's Lil' Orphan Annie

CH Blu Prints Found a Lucky Rock

Btw .. I own POS's ..so this does affect me ..

One more question:

Do you guys register ADBA? or ARBA?


Since they have different types and styles as well...

Also to add:

From the 1936 APBT STANDARD: nose, black preferred.

Also head brick like with square muzzle

__________________
Michael Davis
www.luckyrockapbts.com



Home to:
UWP, URO3, GRCH LUCKY ROCK'S LITTLE WARRIOR, CGC ~ ACHILLES

UWPV, URO1, USJCH, UWPCH, GRCH Lucky Rock's Lil' Orphan Annie

CH Blu Prints Found a Lucky Rock

I would have to agree with Lindsay. And also with Lucky Rock. I would like to see them seperated, but what would happen to the ones already out there?
At least if the Ukc did seperate it would be better I think. But then, would that bring more folks out to shows? As it is now, you are lucky to have 10 dogs show up.

__________________
"Lets close the circle folks, these dogs aren't for everybody."

Oh yeah and I do register Adba. They are very active in fighting BSL which means a lot to me.

__________________
"Lets close the circle folks, these dogs aren't for everybody."

hmmmm I do have an AKC reg Am Staff that is also UKC.
I started in UKC and when I got my AST figured I would keep doing UKC as he came to me duel reg. But I have also single reg. an AST into UKC too.
I liked UKC better so stayed with them.

I did show in Conf as well as WP with my guy.

I however would not allow him to be used in any UKC breeding programs Unless a Superb female came along of course.
as I do feel they are differant breeds.

I would have no issue with having the breed split.
But do not know what would happen to the POS out there.

If I do get another AST I will show UKC and do WP, OB, RO, AND AG. with it in UKC

Brat pak I think it would make show #s less.
As your AST dogs would not be able to compete with your APBT.

Why split the APBT's and Amstaffs. Why not the Rednose?

Since people are upset about AKC being put in the UKC dogs ..

Here are 2 things to think about :

MARTINS CAESAR OF TUFFTOWN .. AND HIS AMSTAFF LINE ..

Archers, to be exact: ARCHER'S CHICO V. III who produced Topsey Turvery, who then produced Martin's Caesar of Tufftown, who is in 90% or more of the rednose bloodlines out there. Actually Martin's Caesar of Tufftown is in most of the showing UKC bloodlines today ...


Some pictures of the Archer's in the line

http://www.amstaffs.net/pedigreephotos.htm

http://www.apbtpedigrees.com/printp...?recordID=14419


Where would most of the Rednose fall now?

Again, the orginal standard even shy'd away from rednoses, saying BLACK noses preferred.

2)

Some notes about UKC/AKC:

American Kennel Club for recognition of the Pit Bull so that it would be eligible for dog shows and other performance events. The AKC conceded in 1936 but only under the stipulation that the dogs registered with them be called "Staffordshire Terriers", the name of the province in England the breed supposedly originated in. Upon acceptance of the breed, many people dual-registered their dogs with both the AKC and the UKC. Lucenay's Peter (the dog that starred in the Our Gang series) was the first dual-registered Pit Bull/Staffordshire Terrier.


The AKC eventually closed it's studbooks to American Pit Bull Terriers. They allowed registration only to those dogs with parents registered as Staffordshire Terriers. For a short period in the 1970's, the AKC reopened its studbooks to American Pit Bull Terriers.


So some 30-40 years ago, the APBT was again allowed into the AKC. Meaning they were shown and bred, and now most likely in the bloodlines of those amstaffs showing in UKC today.

M

__________________
Michael Davis
www.luckyrockapbts.com



Home to:
UWP, URO3, GRCH LUCKY ROCK'S LITTLE WARRIOR, CGC ~ ACHILLES

UWPV, URO1, USJCH, UWPCH, GRCH Lucky Rock's Lil' Orphan Annie

CH Blu Prints Found a Lucky Rock

None of those dogs you listed are in my dogs pedigrees. I even have one with a black nose that still has none of those dogs.

__________________
"Lets close the circle folks, these dogs aren't for everybody."

Brat Pack,

I'm sure they aren't in ALL of them, that's why I posted
90%.

M

__________________
Michael Davis
www.luckyrockapbts.com



Home to:
UWP, URO3, GRCH LUCKY ROCK'S LITTLE WARRIOR, CGC ~ ACHILLES

UWPV, URO1, USJCH, UWPCH, GRCH Lucky Rock's Lil' Orphan Annie

CH Blu Prints Found a Lucky Rock

Ohana, its funny that you should use that chart. That's my work. At least it's reaching people.

AnkhuIGs, I have heard the argument about there already being such an AmStaff saturation in the UKC, why bother? Whenever I pitch this question, there are always some people who think I want to go through and gut out all the Pit-or-Staff dogs already in there, and disqualify certain dogs showing. I think that would be an exercise in futility. My thought is that while these dogs are already in, there's no real reason to continue allowing in more. I think that without the continued AmStaff infusion, we might see the UKC dogs looking differently with time. I would also hope to encourage people with athletic, fit, old-school-type dogs to come and compete alongside us, which many of them wont do because they find it discouraging to lose to a straight AKC dog in their own breed ring. They also don't like the adding of empty fat as others have stated.

Kel, you asked about the differences between the standards. I will work on getting that posted as soon as I can. The picture chart that Ohana posted gives a decent visual, within the limitations of the project.

Karen, that is interesting. I didn't know there were AmStaff people who want to do UKC but don't want to call their dogs APBTs. I did know an AmStaff person in Tulsa who supposedly wouldn't allow her dogs to be single-registered as APBTs. That does make sense if you think about it. A lot of work has gone into making both breeds what they are, and there have got to be people that don't like the blurring of the lines.

Lucky Rock, I don't understand suggesting that rednose aren't true APBTs. They've been in the breed all along. You can get a rednose dog with a lot of AmStaff type, but its hard to win with one that looks like it just walked over from winning in the ADBA ring. LOL! I don't understand the desire to isolate a color. If we're going to do that, isolate blue fawn since that's the most highly represented color. Hopefully that sounds as ludicrous to you as it does to me. As for AmStaffs being closer to the standard than UKC APBTs, that just means that we have a lot of work to do. I don't see using another breed to fix our problems as a true fix.

As for discussing it on the UKC board, why not? Maybe we can get some people together to petition the NAPBTA, that way its not just one person asking and looking like a fool. If this is going to be done, the more to speak up on it the better.

Me, my dogs are UKC/ADBA. I've only had one conformation dog, but I've shown her in both. She plods along in UKC, and we'll see how she does in ADBA this year. My goal is for her to be a dual CH, but I got her more to try and superdog her than to worry about extensive conformation.

Beth, thanks for your contribution. You've always got something level-headed to say.

Okay, new question.

So we talk a lot about liking a certain look -- terrier vs bully, etc. A lot of APBT people will tell you one of the reason we don't have the uniformity is because this is a performance breed. So taking that into consideration, what does the addition of AmStaff blood add to the performance abilities of the APBT?

Also, for the 13 that voted that they agree with UKC/AKC dual-registration, I haven't seen a lot of posts to explain why. (Rottgrl, I read yours.) I can't help but wonder if the primary reason for many people is because that's what wins.

__________________
Lindsay D.
--
Gravity APBTs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucky Rock APBT
I mentioned some NICE rednoses ... didn't bash ANYONE's dog, rather gave a compliment to some that I've seen personally. I asked if one might be kennel blind, didn't ask you if you were. I didn't blast any judges...

As for why I posted:
Because you get on the boards blasting AST's, and Pit/Staff's. In the past you post how it's hard to find nice ones, true pit's, one's that can win. Yet people continuous show you ladies, that's a false statement. If you have issue with it, then take it up with the UKC, however if you look at the standard they are doing what they can to keep out the Bully's

We all want our dogs to be what the standard is in OUR eyes. The problem is, IT's how we see the standard, vs. how the judge(s) see the standard. However if I kept losing with my dog(s) under several different judges over the years, and were told things about how it didn't look to the standard, then I might want to look at my program again ... Not saying if it's just 1 judge but several. Maybe I'm seeing it differently than everyone else.

I know my dogs faults and work to improve them. I've started introducing smaller sized APBT's into my breeding program ... why because I like the smaller dog ..smaller meaning 18-19 inches.

Also if you look at the AKC standard on their site (still from 1936) it has heights and that too ...18-19 inches for a male, 15-17 for a female PREFERRED, black nose...


However instead of taking it to the UKC board, why not go to the National Club (believe the President and VP are both Rednose people) ..and talk to them about seeing if this can happen...

M

---

__________________
Karen Frenette & Lilac Hill American Pit Bull Terriers
CH UWPCH PR Arkay's Pink Cadillac
CH UWP PR Arkay's Rawhide Rowdy Yates
PR Lilac Hill's Hello Darlin
PR Lilac Hill's Big Iron
PR Lilac Hill's A White Sport Coat
PR Lilac Hills walk The Line
Still with one nutty Ibizan
UWP CH Special Acres Just a Figment
Now a Rattie
PR Arkay's Double Deck Pinochle

Ok, again I'm confused...why go after the Amstaffs. Why not break the Rednoses away?

Since 1936, people have been Dual registerings APBT's... ever since AKC allowed them in. This isn't something new ...

I've shown that 90% of the Rednoses in UKC have Amstaff in their bloodlines.

I've shown that the AKC books opened in the early 70's to allow APBT"s into the stud book again to help the gene pool.

I've shown that UKC preferred BLACK noses in the beginning as did AKC ...they both have very similiar standards.

In my opinion, you keep your dogs conditioned to ADBA standards ..which is very lean and showing muscle. Yet that's not what the UKC standard is about, nor the AKC. So judges tend not to see that matching the standard.

I've given links to dozens of pictures of APBT's and Amstaff's of the past ... and they stil look the dogs of today.

So why should the Amstaff's or the POS's, be the ones to change?I'm all of you guys and the rednoses to form your own breed or separate, but the APBT and Amstaffs have been like this for 70 plus years ...


As for the 21 inch 80lbs.. that's not completely true either...
look at the dogs of the past on the NAPBTA ...

While you are there, look at all the NGRCH's, most are POS's. As are various other winners. Look at the Top Producing Sires and Dams, it's a mixture of APBT's, Rednoses and POS's/Amstaffs....

Lets look at the lil chart of yours ... I was once including in it ....

You can see a HUGE different from the ADBA ...to the UKC/AKC type. I see AKC/UKC looking more similiar then the ADBA to the others. Again for those that didn't see the link here you go:

http://i49.tinypic.com/a0gdy1.jpg


I'm all for a separating, and would lend a hand if needed ..but it would be to separate the rednose from the APBT/AST.

__________________
Michael Davis
www.luckyrockapbts.com



Home to:
UWP, URO3, GRCH LUCKY ROCK'S LITTLE WARRIOR, CGC ~ ACHILLES

UWPV, URO1, USJCH, UWPCH, GRCH Lucky Rock's Lil' Orphan Annie

CH Blu Prints Found a Lucky Rock

Trying to understand about this rednose thing. Is it just a color issue? As the standard states that black nose is preferred than it is a color thing. But what I do not understand is if the dog itself is of red coloring than the nose is of the same. Which does happen. It isnt an actual different breed. Just a color. So why would anyone want to make it another breed. It still is an APBT. Still learning about this remarkable breed.

Technically, a red dog should have a black nose. The dogs they refer to as rednose do not - the nose and eyerims are red. However, the real issue here is not the color, but the fact that the rednose dogs tends to be (not always, but usually), a very different type - more what they are calling the ADBA type.
If you go to the link to the chart that is in several earlier posts, you will see the difference.
Laurie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Soutar
Technically, a red dog should have a black nose. The dogs they refer to as rednose do not - the nose and eyerims are red. However, the real issue here is not the color, but the fact that the rednose dogs tends to be (not always, but usually), a very different type - more what they are calling the ADBA type.
If you go to the link to the chart that is in several earlier posts, you will see the difference.
Laurie

---

__________________
Kim