Каква е разликата между американски стафордшир териер и питбул
#243
Публикувано: 10 March 2014 - 06:58 PM
gabi__123, в 13 December 2012 - 07:50 AM, написа:
Ще покажеш ли снимка

Не всеки човек знае как да обича куче, но всяко куче знае как да обича човек!
#244
Публикувано: 24 March 2014 - 10:28 PM
#245
Публикувано: 11 April 2014 - 07:07 PM
The quality of the Listed Stafs of that time may best be understood by taking a look at some Specialty results. At the 1958 National Specialty in Atlanta, Ch. Knight Crusader was Best of Breed, Tacoma Cherokee Rose was Best of Opposite Sex, and Knight Patroller was Winners Dog. All three were Listed. At the National Specialty in Detroit in 1959, Best of Breed was Ch. Knight Crusader and Winners Bitch/Best of Opposite Sex was Jones G-a-y One Goldie. Both of these dogs were Listed. Best of Winners that year was Ch. Rip Rock Irish Mike, the only registered dog in two years to obtain a major win at a National Specialty.
A full-page ad in the 1959 Specialty catalog advertising Betty Tregoning's Lylane Kennel, showed a picture of Ch. Lylane Princess Amber, CD, the 1956 Specialty winner and top producing bitch. She was Listed, as were her eight champion get, including Ch. Lylane Bucky-T and Ch. Archer's Diablo Bandino. It was obvious ther was a real need for this fine stock to outcross with the registered dogs and, consequently, the STCA voted to correct this situation. In 1956 Ike Stinson was appointed Chairman of the Registration Committee.
For the next several years, at his own expense, Mr. Stinson made trips to the AKC offices in New York, wrote countless letters, and compiled the necessary statistics to present to the AKC with the hope that it would open it's registration books to the Listed dogs. The AKC turned down the request in 1958 but that didn't stop Mr. Stinson -- nor Howard Hadley, who also was working on the project. Finally, on February 18, 1960, John Neff, a Vice President of the American Kennel Club, sent the historic letter to Mr. Stinson informing him that as of February 18, 1960, and until February 18, 1963, AKC registrations would be accepted for qualifying litters but not for individual dogs. This was acceptable to STCA since it served the purpose of enabling breeders to use the quality Listed dogs to produce AKC registerable litters. To be certain that the Listed dog was a worthy sire or dam, the AKC stipulated that the three generation pedigree submitted must include at least one registered dog and that the Listed dog must have at least one major win at the time that notice of intention to breed was filed with AKC."
Jackie Fraser's
#247
Публикувано: 17 April 2014 - 03:03 PM
"Ike Stinson беше член на борда и представител на STCA в AKC по време на един критичен период в съвременната история на породата.Когато AKC стартира регистъра си за Стафордшири през 1936 година, много развъдчици с добри кучета не ги регистрираха там.Някои от любителите се страхуваха, че показването в изложбения ринг може да съсипе кучетата, защото ще доведе до развъждане по външност за сметка на развъждането по темперамент. Други не харесваха името "Staffordshire," , предпочитайки използваното от UKC's название за техните кучета - "American (Pit) Bull Terrier" . Преди1963, чистокръвните кучета, които нямаха родословия от AKC, бяха допускани до изложби на AKC . От собствениците просто се изискваше да попълнят заявление за участие и да отбележат "Listed" вместо да изписват номера от племенната книга на AKC. След като изложителят покажеше кучето си на три изложби по този начин, ако искаше да продължи, то той следваше да иска разрешение от AKC. Дори някое от тези „ Listed” кучета да станеше шампион, неговото потомство не можеше да получи родословие от АКС. В средата на на петдесетте години на 20-ти век, 30 до 50 процента от стафовете, които участваха в големите изложби и в Националната клубна / National Specialties/ , бяха „ Listed” – без АКС родословия. Някои от топ победителите с желана кръв нямаха AKC родословия и съответно не можеше да бъдат използвани да произведат кученца с родословия от AKC.
Качеството на тези „ Listed” стафове от онова време може най-добре да бъде разбрано аоко погледнем резултатите от клебните специалки. През 1958 на National Specialty в Atlanta, победител на породата стана Ch. Knight Crusader , Tacoma Cherokee Rose беше Best of Opposite Sex, а Knight Patroller беше Winners Dog. И тримата бяха „ Listed”.
На National Specialty в Detroit през 1959, Best of Breed стана Ch. Knight Crusader, а Winners Bitch/Best of Opposite Sex стана Jones G-a-y One Goldie. И двете кучета бяха „Listed” . Best of Winners tтази година беше Ch. Rip Rock Irish Mike, единственото куче с родословие от АКС което две години достигна класиране на предна позиция в National Specialty.
В каталога за националната специалка през 1959 година на цяла страница беше разположена реклама на Lylane Kennel - развъдника на Betty Tregoning' , показвайки снимка на Ch. Lylane Princess Amber, CD, която през 1956 стана победител на специалката, top producing кучка. Тя беше „Listed” , както и родените от нея 8 шампиона, включително Ch. Lylane Bucky-T и Ch. Archer's Diablo Bandino.
Очевидна беше реалната нужда от outcross между тези великолепни животни и кучетата с АКС родословия , поради което клубът /STCA/ гласува за промяна на ситуацията. През 1956 Ike Stinson беше назначен за Председател на Registration Committee / комисия по родословията/
През следващите няколко години, въз основа на собствения си опит, Stinson посещава управлението на AKC в New York, пише безброй писма, и прилага необходимата статистика, с надеждата, че племенната книга ще бъде отворена за „Listed” кучета. AKC отхвърла исканията му през 1958, но това не спира Mr. Stinson и Howard Hadley, който също работи за тази идея Накрая , на 18.02.1960 John Neff – Вицепрезидент на American Kennel Club, изпраща историческо писмо до Mr. Stinson,информирайки го, че от 18.02.1960 до 18.02.1963, AKC родословия ще се издават на определени кучила, но не и на възрастни кучета. Това беше приемливо за STCA, защото то позволяваше на развъдчиците да използвата качествени Listed кучета, за да произведат кученца , които да имат АКС родословия. За да бъде ясно, че едно Listed куче е достойно да бъде баща или майка , AKC постави условието, че три генерации назад в родословието трябва да има поне едно куче с АКС родословие, и че Listed кучето трябва да има поне една победа с major докато се подаде заявлението за заплождане. "
Jackie Fraser's
#248
Публикувано: 17 April 2014 - 03:42 PM
Аман от специалисти и идеалисти! :( Такива ги е имало винаги и ги има и сега, както в Щатите - така и в България...
#249
Публикувано: 07 May 2014 - 07:29 AM
AKC Gr.Ch.
UKC Gr.Ch.
Junior World Winner 2010
Junior European Winner 2010
Alpine's Ring Of Fire a.k.a. Phoenix
Pedigree: http://www.pedigreed...es-ring-of-fire
А бе спецовете, тоз пес Американски Стаф ли е или Американски Пит Бул?
Гледам че е млад световен и европейски шампион, сега станал гранд шампион в америката и
при стафовете и при питбулите. Аджеба, това АПБТ или АСТ е че напълно се обърквам и незнам на къде да хвана?
#250
Публикувано: 07 May 2014 - 06:39 PM

Тия американци нещо май не им разбират на тия работи!

#251
Публикувано: 08 May 2014 - 03:20 PM
#252
Публикувано: 09 May 2014 - 04:36 PM
Нещо, което Sara Nugent написана преди няколко дни :
Just for history, the first Am Staffs I got from Clif Ormsby were dual registered as "PR" American Pit Bull Terriers in UKC and as Staffordshire Terriers (before American was added to the name) in AKC. Clif Ormsby had kept his dogs dual registration since 1936. He was, as most know, one of the founding members of the Staffordshire Terrier Club of America and one of the original breeders. The people who originally asked AKC to recognize the breed wanted them to be registered as American Pit Bull Terriers or American Bull Terriers. This the AKC refused to do - (with lobbying by the Bull Terrier Club) The name of this breed (Staffordshire Terrier) was a compromise and not the first name choice. From what I have read from the original breeders, there was never an intent to make the AKC registered dogs a different breed. The people wanted to show their dogs and to be able to sell their puppies for more money as show dogs rather than fighting dogs. Therefore my old X-Pert dogs carried many generations of dual registered dogs behind them. Many of the old breeders did the same. So I ask you, were my dogs pit bull terriers or Staffordshire terriers? How about if I had kept the UKC registrations up? They could still be "Purple Ribbon" UKC registered if I had kept sending in the forms. As far as selection, many breeders select dogs for different reasons - eventually some will probably look and act different, but if no other breeds or mixed breeds have been bred in, won't they still be the same dog? It's more complicated history than you think. We are not the only breed like this - Black and tan coonhounds have a similar history. Some were AKC, some were UKC - they looked definitely different and had many years of separate registration - then AKC accepted all the UKC black & tan coonhounds who wanted to join AKC. Many owners were not happy about that and wanted to call them separate breeds because they had been bred separately for many years.
#253
Публикувано: 12 May 2014 - 02:33 PM
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.