[RotsLoado]

I know theyre not the same but when I look at pictures they sure do LOOK the same. Is the only difference the size? can you guys tell the diference just by looking?

[E4qC1qQ5]

I can see the difference but to me its very obvious which is which.

AmStaff



American Pit Bull Terrier

[isogeople]

Excellent question !!!

Using the PBC Forum search function, here are 12 Thousand 8 Hundred and Thirty Five (12,835) results concerning the same or similar question, just to give you some reading material while waiting for the arguments to commence.
Maybe the horse isn't dead yet after all

Link: Search Results - Pit Bull Chat Forum

[Misiotoagodia]

Oh god, please don't turn this into ANOTHER debate thread LOL.

I've always liked this post, for comparison pictures: Visual comparison of top winning UKC, AKC and ADBA dogs

[Soolfelpecelf]

I know theyre not the same but when I look at pictures they sure do LOOK the same. Is the only difference the size?

No.

can you guys tell the diference just by looking?

After 30+ years in the breed, I'm pretty good at telling the difference, but I have been wrong a few times.
To the general public and law-makers, they are both "pit bulls" and having an Am Staf in a BSL area will not save you. (In many places in Europe, it WILL -- they make more of a distinction than we do here).

To understand the whole controversy better, it DOES take some time in both breeds; and also a good understanding of the history (which IS the most important thing to understand).

Basically, if you want to play in AKC and ALSO do working activities, you will have to acquire a good Am Staf.
If you want to play more in UKC, you'll have to get a UKC-registerd dog (American Pit Bull Terrier).
Playing in ADBA mostly will require a different STYLE of the breed and definitely get an ADBA registered dog for that.
Visit all 3 kinds of shows and see lots of examples FOR YOURSELF.

Carla

[RotsLoado]

I wish I could go see a show! Problems with my husband's visa have us currently living in Mexico (im american, hes mexican) and I dont think they have shows here

[E4qC1qQ5]

There are shows in Mexico. You just have to look for them.

[Soolfelpecelf]

There are shows in Mexico. You just have to look for them.

Yes, the FCI Mexican Kennel Club would have shows with the AST. Might look on their website for listing of shows....
And look on UKC and ADBA websites for up-coming shows, although I do not THINK you find them very often in Mexico....does anyone know IF there are UKC and ADBA-sanctioned clubs in Mexico?
I know there is (or was) a UKC-sanctioned club in Japan....

If you are close to Texas, you can find all kinds of shows there. Check out the websites for upcoming shows in Texas.

Carla

[E4qC1qQ5]

There are ADBA shows in mexico but I don't think that the ADBA posts them up, I have seen pictures from a few of them.

[WaicurtaitfuT]

Carla, it wasn't long ago you where arguing that they where the same. now you are saying they are different How funny is that.

[Soolfelpecelf]

I've always said I'm on the fence.

[WaicurtaitfuT]

w/e

[Soolfelpecelf]

w/e

On the fence, but aware of how they are treated in the pure-bred dog registries. And it's important to understand that!

Carla

[Misiotoagodia]

Carla, it wasn't long ago you where arguing that they where the same. now you are saying they are different How funny is that.

I requested that this not turn into another debate since we already have 4563459 threads about it, so let's not start yet another one, k?

[cyslespitocop]

I requested that this not turn into another debate since we already have 4563459 threads about it, so let's not start yet another one, k?

I can see this getting interesting

[Mynameishappy]

My biggest problem with "visually" picking out one or the other is buried in the past history of these dogs. If you look at the dogs of old when they were still doing what they were bred to do...they did not all look like show dogs of either UKC, AKC or ADBA. Not every winner from the past was a neat package of discernalbe traits. Some were a bit bowed, some were built wideset, some were well tucked while others had roached backs and loose lips. When we humans start trying to assign physical attributes to define a breed...we more often than not lose something along the way.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the dogmen of the past judged a dog by it's performance. They did not worry about build/color/ect... When they found a "good dog", that was all they needed. Secondly, they wanted dogs in general that were within certain weight limits. There was no sense to breed a 90 pound "winner" if there were too few challengers at that weight. That is not to say that the larger dogs of today are any less "good dogs"...just that the majority of "good dogs" of the past were in the 25-50 pound range.

[ZX3URrBH]

My biggest problem with "visually" picking out one or the other is buried in the past history of these dogs. If you look at the dogs of old when they were still doing what they were bred to do...they did not all look like show dogs of either UKC, AKC or ADBA. Not every winner from the past was a neat package of discernalbe traits. Some were a bit bowed, some were built wideset, some were well tucked while others had roached backs and loose lips. When we humans start trying to assign physical attributes to define a breed...we more often than not lose something along the way.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the dogmen of the past judged a dog by it's performance. They did not worry about build/color/ect... When they found a "good dog", that was all they needed. Secondly, they wanted dogs in general that were within certain weight limits. There was no sense to breed a 90 pound "winner" if there were too few challengers at that weight. That is not to say that the larger dogs of today are any less "good dogs"...just that the majority of "good dogs" of the past were in the 25-50 pound range.

Excellent post.

[Poowssnople]

My biggest problem with "visually" picking out one or the other is buried in the past history of these dogs. If you look at the dogs of old when they were still doing what they were bred to do...they did not all look like show dogs of either UKC, AKC or ADBA. Not every winner from the past was a neat package of discernalbe traits. Some were a bit bowed, some were built wideset, some were well tucked while others had roached backs and loose lips. When we humans start trying to assign physical attributes to define a breed...we more often than not lose something along the way.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the dogmen of the past judged a dog by it's performance. They did not worry about build/color/ect... When they found a "good dog", that was all they needed. Secondly, they wanted dogs in general that were within certain weight limits. There was no sense to breed a 90 pound "winner" if there were too few challengers at that weight. That is not to say that the larger dogs of today are any less "good dogs"...just that the majority of "good dogs" of the past were in the 25-50 pound range.

Great post!
With the APBT, it's more about the inside of the dog.
In the AmStaff/UKC "APBT" it's all about conformation, in the APBT, conformation means little to nothing.

[Soolfelpecelf]

My biggest problem with "visually" picking out one or the other is buried in the past history of these dogs. If you look at the dogs of old when they were still doing what they were bred to do...they did not all look like show dogs of either UKC, AKC or ADBA. Not every winner from the past was a neat package of discernalbe traits. Some were a bit bowed, some were built wideset, some were well tucked while others had roached backs and loose lips. When we humans start trying to assign physical attributes to define a breed...we more often than not lose something along the way.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the dogmen of the past judged a dog by it's performance. They did not worry about build/color/ect... When they found a "good dog", that was all they needed. Secondly, they wanted dogs in general that were within certain weight limits. There was no sense to breed a 90 pound "winner" if there were too few challengers at that weight. That is not to say that the larger dogs of today are any less "good dogs"...just that the majority of "good dogs" of the past were in the 25-50 pound range.

You could say this for any breed that was bred for performance in the past.

Conformation showing and "pet" dogs (and the concept of the purebred dog for THAT matter), with all it's faults and detriments to dogs, was just another step in the evolution of stuff man did with dogs. One can participate or not.

Breeding "purebred dogs" and showing them has been abused no doubt; but it's still just another thing man does with dogs. It is what it is and like anything else, needs to be kept in perspective.
It's not like I can't find a good working Chessie, Border Collie, English Setter, etc, etc if that is what I want. Thank GOD they aren't EVERYWHERE!

Carla

[isogeople]

You have registry breed names and standards and within the registries there is a distinction in both name and "purpose" between the two breeds, APBT and AST. One registry is nothing BUT conformation and the other has working events along with conformation events, while a third registry just muddies the waters by recognizing both breeds under one name.

... and then you have bulldawgs. Bulldogs and their owners don't necessarily comply with, condone or recognize any registry but they MIGHT at times, refer to their dogs by a registry made up name of American Pit Bull Terrier ... seldom if ever will they call their dog(s) an American Staffordshire Terrier.

Oh and there are also people with mutts and they will use historical perspective to benefit a perceived mystique concerning their dogs and their appearance ... dogs which will likely never be worked, matched, rolled or tested. They too will most often refer to their dogs as American Pit Bull Terriers. I once had a dog like this and just called him a bulldog or bull and terrier mix, but never a pit bull or APBT. Rowdy was the best dog I ever owned.