Read on Twitter
Often #pitbulladvocate try to claim “they’re all very different breeds”, but that’s just the shell game with breed names and shows that they don’t know shit about these dogs or their history. It’s a tactic to obscure the breed. Here’s a thread on why they aren’t “different dogs”.
In 1835, bull baiting was banned and old English bull dogs were mixed with white terriers to make bloodsport dogs better suited to fighting each other. The strength and the bravery of the bulldog mixed with the tenacity of the terrier made them unstoppable fighting dogs.
A few decades later is when we see the first “split” between pit-types. As some of the dogs were brought to America, some remained in England and continued to be bred for fighting. Those that remained in England became staffordshire bull terriers.
Staffordshire bull terriers or staffies we’re bred for the same purpose as American pits, using the same baseline dogs. The two differences are a slightly shorter stature and which side of the pond they were bred on. But essentially, there’s not much difference between them.
They literally started with the same dogs as the American versions and were continually bred for the same purpose. To claim they are “very different” is a farce. There’s more difference between hound type dogs than there is between these pit type dogs.
As for the American versions, this is where the name game gets insane and anyone who claims these dogs are “very different” is either ignorant or lying. The best place to start is with the history of the UKC.
The UKC was founded originally to keep the pedigrees of fighting dogs. Founded in 1898, they first registered APBTs in the same year. Dogs had to win 3 fights before they could be registered and bred. And the entire reason they formed was because the AKC wouldn’t register APBTs.
It took a few decades but the AKC finally started registering these dogs but under the name “Staffordshire terriers”. About 50 UKC registered APBTs were added to the stud book and registered as staffordshires, including Colby’s Primo. These dogs were dual registered as purebreds.
They called them “staffordshires” and later amstaffs specifically to distance themselves away from dogfighting, but make no mistake, it was literally the same dog they used as breeding pool and to set the standard.
To this day, the UKC accepts AKC registered Amstaffs to be dual registered as APBTs. A single dog can be considered both a purebred amstaff and a purebred APBTs. They’re literally the same dog.
But just to add to the name game mess, breeders created a “new breed” called the American bully by “combining” Amstaffs and APBTs. “Combining” two breeds that can be dual registered as purebreds. Please tell me how it’s a “mix” when you’re mixing dogs that can be dual registered?
For added fun, you can transfer your registered APBT to an American bully for the price of $30. If they really were “different breeds”, registrations would be able to be transferred or dual registered like they still currently are.
As far as American bulldogs, both were revived using pits. Johnson added English bulldogs to give them the classical bulldog face while Scott did not. That’s why the Scott type looks a lot like a pit, because it’s heavily mixed with one. Olde English Bulldogs are also pit mixed.
The name game is a tactic to shuffle around these dogs and try to obscure breeds and breed history. Even to the day, shelters try to rename pits to get them out. “St Frances Terriers”, “New Yorkies”, “Chicago dogs” have all been used to try to rename pits.
One of the common practice now is to call them just “terrier mixes” or label them as other breed mixes. Like this “unknown terrier lab mix”, it’s done purposely to push these dog onto people and try to obscure the breed.
But the fact remains, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can tell what a pit is. No matter what you call it, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.