 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 518
|
 Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: The Story of the "Listed" Dogs... |
  |
|
Taken from "The American Staffordshire Terrier" by Jacqueline Fraser:
Ike Stinson served as a Board member and was STCA Delegate to the AKC during a crucial point in the breed's modern history. When the AKC opened their books to Staffordshires in 1936, many breeders of good dogs did not register them. Some fanciers feared that showing in the breed ring would eventually ruin the dogs because it would lead to breeding for appearance at the expense of temperament. Other fanciers resented the name "Staffordshire," preferring the UKC's "American (Pit) Bull Terrier" designation for their dogs. Until 1963, pure bred dogs that had not been registered with the AKC were allowed to be shown at AKC breed shows. The owner was simply required to fill in the show entry and check "Listed" instead of writing in an AKC registration number. After the exhibitor had shown his dog three times in this manner, and if he wished to continue showing, he requested permission from AKC. However, even though the Listed dog could win a championship, his progeny were not eligible for registration. By the mid-1950s, one-third to one-half of the Stafs that were entered at major shows and National Specialties were Listed dogs. Some of the top winners with desirable bloodlines did not have AKC registration numbers and consequently could not be used to produce AKC puppies.
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.
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peeds13
Hunters
Joined: 03 Mar 2009
Posts: 873
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting read. I learn more and more everyday on this forum. Good post Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
k84
Elders
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 2046
Location: Transylvania, EU
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for posting this  |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opaxse
Puppy
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 39
Location: Southern Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Very interesting, thanks for sharing. You have much knowledge of the breed. Beautiful bitch pictured as well! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 518
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Opaxse wrote: |
| Very interesting, thanks for sharing. You have much knowledge of the breed. |
It's more that I have many sources and am just passing on what has already been written down. I have chosen articles and information that one does not often see and that I thought would be interesting, in one way or another!
I encourage everyone to obtain as many different sources of information about the breed as they can.
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Shamans
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 562
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what was "unknown" for? im struggling to understand it lol..  |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ckramer
Alpha Dog
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 2933
Location: Kennesaw, Ga USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skylar wrote: |
| what was "unknown" for? im struggling to understand it lol.. |
Thats there because they do not know who the parents were of that particular dog I believe |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bruce71
Puppy
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks very interesting
Marco |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Shamans
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 562
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
thought so @ ckramer...
But would that mean one of the parent could be different breed? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ckramer
Alpha Dog
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 2933
Location: Kennesaw, Ga USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess its possible |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 518
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you go back far enough into the pedigrees of most purebred dogs, you run into "holes". It doesn't necessarily mean some other breed was used, although if there was, it's not altogether surprising and shouldn't be cause for concern (especially with a bitch like THIS one!)"Purebred" had to start somewhere. The whole concept of "purebred" is relatively new and artificial when you consider the history of man and dogs.
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 518
|
| Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One might be able to do some research and fill in some of the holes -- I haven't looked through all available resources....
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Shamans
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 562
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hmm.. i did look at one ped while ago and trace further back and found pic of one bitch that did look to be SBT instead of AST.. but then it is a picture.. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 518
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skylar wrote: |
| hmm.. i did look at one ped while ago and trace further back and found pic of one bitch that did look to be SBT instead of AST.. but then it is a picture.. |
The SBT was first recognized in England by The Kennel Club in 1935, just a year before the AST was recognized by the AKC. The original SBT standard called for a dog that was 15" to 18" tall and weighed 28 to 38 pounds. I have a little book on SBTs that was written in 1943 and has several pictures. You cannot tell these early SBTs from the good smaller APBTs of today...I'll try to get these scanned.
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Shamans
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 562
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that would be interesting to see...
i dont want to name a name of the dog that i felt may be closer to or looked SBT (avioding offending)... i think the generation was in the late 70's / early 80's |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
