I know there have been a few comments already regarding the changing shape of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and how some people think we are moving away from the breed Standard - but there is a very interesting letter in Our Dogs this week from a Staffy owner/exhibitor ( Page 21).
Must say I agree with quite a few of the comments made and I am glad that I am not the only Staffy owner/exhibitor to feel this way. :o
Has anyone else read it and if so , what do you think ???
Lel

odear, they may go like boxers did/have, totally change:(

When a breed starts to move away from the original standard is it due to the breeders or is it due to the judges ? Surely judges have the "influence" to shape the breed.
( Me and Stu had an interesting discussion on this one last night) :rolleyes:

LOL Lel! you are brave! good luck on this one!!!! ;).

In a ideal world you would hope its the breeders/exhibitors who have the most influence. Sure a judge can keep putting up his prefered type, but people can simply stop showing under that judge... snowball effect? Good thing about the Stafford is the huge and healthy gene pool outside the show world, saying that even the top sires/dams regularly produce leaner, leggier types in the litters, always have done and hopefully always will, well bred (?) terrier types are about, I have two of them ;) just most people would not get to see them.

Lel do not get the dog papers anymore, what was the point the owner was making?

The letter writer called himself a relative newcomer to showing , having exhibited for only 6 years but felt that he would be unable to carry on showing this year and possibly future years due to some of the concerns" he felt.
One being the treatment of "some" dogs. He had seen a dog half strangled in the ring and this dog went on to win third place at a champ show and no one batted an eyelid at the treatment.
Another was concerns over some breeders talking about breeding the "fire" back into the breed. The writer was concerned over these fiery dogs going to inexperienced owners, pet homes and also the poor publicty that the media already has regarding staffies without creating aggressive dogs but the main point was that unless you have a black brindle, short muzzled, big headed dog that has poor movement there is little point in showing your own dog as these seem to be constantly placed.
Well , one or two of these comments has already been mentioned by owners on this board  :rolleyes:
Does anyone agree/disagree with the letter writer ??

Do not know about the half strangled dog, was it being restrained or wound up for the Judges benefit, doubt we will ever know but I would think the onus would be on the ring stewards to bring it to the attention of the Judge who should be willing to make examples of exhibitors/dogs so people learn what is and what is not acceptible? I do not see exhibitors complaining themselves for fear of being seen as poor losers?

Firey dogs. Just things like that are so secretive. Is it the dog that is being very vocal and trying to get at the dogs either side... funny thing that but a lot of people do not trust those dogs, a fiery dog would have to be proven fiery. :(  I remember when asking questions about a CH as stud dog I was thinking of using, everyone gave the positives, no one had a bad word to say about him.
It was only afterwards that same people mentioned he had tried to bite the Judge in the ring (think it was Crufts!) Too late we had used him! People then mentioned he could be a "handful"...
is that the same as fiery... Problem is what people perceive to be a fiery dog? Just dodgey temprements in my eyes, puppy we kept was not bred from and spayed!

Even when I was looking to mate my bitch the second and final time, in the show world that option of putting in more "fire" was there! Think it always has been an option for some and used by some.
Those inexperienced owners will always be there, some good, some bad, some with docile dogs some with firey dogs, do not think that has changed over the years. Do not see it getting worse. Finger crossed.

Agree totally with the "black brindle, short muzzled, big headed dog that has poor movement ..." Hopefully things will go full circle?

I hope Happystaffy is right and things will go full circle. Maybe it's a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
I must say though it the last couple of years I have heard more people "commenting" about the short muzzled big headed Staff and the Staffs with poor movement than I ever have done, the question arrises then IF a Stafford doesn't move well then is it a Staffie. We are also lucky in the large gene pool of Staffs out there. There are some compensations in having a numerically large breed.

I agree "firey" is somewhat kept under wraps, and people's opinions differ in what "firey" means. The average Stafford dog can be a handful already. If people start breeding for "fire" then a lot of these dogs will just become accidents waiting to happen. As the larger percentage of Staffies breed go into "pet" homes.
In the days gone by a few "Stafford-lines" were known for there "fire" and you used/brought them with that knowledge. Which is fine as long as you are aware of what you are buying/getting.

I myself like a little fire but you have to be a "proactive" owner to have one.

An interesting post Lel.

Karen
 

Well I am pleased to say I haven't seen mistreatment of dogs at any of the shows I have been present at - although I have seen a dog literally dragged up the mat and given a second place and when I say dragged I don't mean by gentle persuasion- how it still had skin left on its feet I dont know :( ( So I suppose I have seen it then :o )
As for fiestiness - well, different people determine the word differently . I have read different critiques with regards to this . One judge calling a dog "fiesty as associated with the breed" ( take that how you will) and another calling a dog aggressive and saying there is no room for that in the ring. If it had had a better temperament then it would have been placed higher ( the judges view, not mine)
As regard the statement to the type of dog winning ...... well its been mentioned before on the Board.
If it doesnt conform to the standard the WHY is it being placed ?
I suppose there's a hundred reasons why ... human nature being one. :rolleyes:

I have tried to edit my post but cannot so here goes -
is it right that some handlers have to CARRY their dog into the ring because it wants to attack anything within the vicinity ?
And given that alot of judges in this breed are also breeders and exhibitors still - how do we eliminate any bias ???

hiya

about the chaging shape my old boy was born in 1990 and was of the larger end of the scale weighed in around 60lbs this did not alter his speed or grace and he was from good stock after he passed away i went looking for another staffy and every litter i looked at were bred from tiny dog's with pointy noses when i got mine these noses were classed as a fault

still today when i see a staffy in the street i can't help notice they still seem to bred like this no substance and heads that just don't befit a true stafford

it has taken me 3yrs to find what i class as a real staff please note i'd don't show so i don't care what judges think being a staffy owner for over 18yrs i know what i like and love in the breed

but there are alot of breeders that do they breed for prizes more than what the dog should look like, behave like so on

as for fire staffords as a breed have it as part and parcel but a well trained dog knows when it's master say's no he means no i never had a problem despite being harassed by strays and careless owners letting there dog's run loose

over the years there are a lot of breeders that change the standard they breed there dogs to in the name of refining the breed which to me can cause more harm than good imo

thought i'd put my pennys worth in to the hat

all the best

david

<<<when i see a staffy in the street i can't help notice they still seem to bred like this no substance and heads that just don't befit a true stafford>>>

But do you think a lot of street staffys are bred with the standard in mind - or is it simply a case of putting any male and female together for the purpose of breeding and with money in mind , not a good looking pup ??
Just a thought...

hiya

i'd love to think that but by street i don't just mean local i'm mean all over and i travel up and down the country quite regular

i did watch crufts a fews years back can't remember the year sorry and took one look at the best in breed and thought my god that explains a few things

a friend of mine who is a actor he and his old staffy were in the film shooting fish when she died he went looking and after quite a while he settled on a red bitch with a good pedigree and she is a pretty little thing but little is the word with the same pointy looking head don't get me wrong she is a cracking dog but a far cry from the staffs of even 10yrs ago with this in mind how must the breed have chaged in the last say 50yrs that makes me wonder

all the best

david

Alot of the photos I have seen from Joe Mallen and the likes era all seem to have been snouty terrier dogs.
I suppose there will always be those who prefer the bull dominant type and those who prefer the athletic terrier type but admittedly there are some nice dogs at the moment showing a good mix of the two. Because big headed dogs are being seen to win in the ring I dont think breeders should  then breed to this look all for the sake of a piece of card :rolleyes:
I just think personally we shouldnt let one excess dominate and become the norm. Breeding for short muzzles and big heads will bring health problems to the breed and at the end of the day every breeder should be beeding for health as well as looks :)

that i do agree with health should be the forefront of a breeders mating i don't go for short noses myself but then again i don't like noses that are exaggerated either

there is a fine line i like the roughly 1/3rd ratio with a slightly wider nose which as far as i know incurrs no health problems as i said before untill quite recent i have been out of the stafford loop so if i'm wrong please let me know of any recent health info

i just had a look at stafford.co and at the winners page now the pics did not enlarge but of the 2002 crufts pics the dog's in a couple of the pics look quite pointy but as i could not enlarge to get a better look i will reserve my judgement untill i see better pics

i have seen of recent the trend to have dog's so highly worked they carry little to no body fat now i don't know if it's my upbringing or not but these dog's look more than half starved to my untrained eyes if i'm wrong fine but is this good for the dog ???

all the best

david

As I have said before, I too prefer the more bully staff to the terrier type though I know the breed standard state a good blend of the two. People will always have their own preference as in anything even down to picking your own partner - what rocks your boat turns someone elses stomach :-).
Though I like my dog with more substance and stronger head than some of you on here I do like to see a dog that moves well! :D
We also have Dogue de Bordeaux and they too have different types, some shorter muzzled others with a longer nose and hardly any wrinkle - so I suppose alot of breeds, all written to the same breed standard, have extreemes to either side but still within the standard. Sooooo on judging day if they are all to standard, regardless of to which extreme of that standard, it will be the judges OWN personal preference on that day that wins. After all he is the judge :D

Ann-Marie
have you read the article in Our dogs ?? I seem to be the only one who has seen it so far :o
I think one of the main concerns by the writer was the worry of the short muzzled and unfit dogs seeming to become the norm. It would be a pity to create breathing problems into the  breed if indeed there is any truth in short muzzles becoming the norm.
As for unfitness, I suppose there are unfit dogs in every breed.
I dont think we need to breed extra "fire" into the breed either. Some have quite enough already!

Hi Lel,

I read the article and considered posting about it....But I ain't that brave ;)

          I do wonder though if there is any truth to the "whisperings" that short muzzles are becoming the norm? Or if this is like chinnese whipers...with no real foundation.
Although I do think more Staffords are unfit with poor movement than (the two go hand in hand) years ago although there are considerably more Staffords about now than before.
           I wonder how many owners today have the time..never mind the inclination...to do roadwork with their dogs?...free running in Staffords is all well and good but..you need controlled steady walking on a lead, preferably on hard ground, to strength his pasterns and harden his pads, and to tone.

But as Ann-Marie says...whatever rocks your boat...she prefers more substance to her Staffords and they are nice dogs...one's I would be more than pleased to  own...But my preference is...to the lighter side of hers :) and I think my Sal is as good an example of a Stafford as hers :)

At the end of the day the judges are the ones who decide which dogs win..therefore the way the breed is percieved in the show ring will be down to them.

Karen    

But given that a lot of judges also breed and exhibit too ??
They are the influence on the breed - as long as we still have those who dont opt for over emphasis ( On ANY feature) then the breed should remain ok but there are a few mutterings lately ...whether due to truth, jealousy, genuine concern for the breed I dont know .
Although I love the Staffy very much I dont have enough experience within the show world as yet - which at the end of the day dictates how the breed looks...

Hi Lel,
lol sticking my head in here breifly! but the show scene only dictates what THEY think a stafford should look like, not nec what it SHOULD look like!
You know me devils advocate!
once again, I think a stafford should look like old Gentleman Jim, Battling Dutchess, Game Laddie,The Great Bomber, Constones Owzat, Rellim fairyvale Victor (I am bias there as my boy is the spit of him lol!), ahh those where the days!

Exactly Karen.
In a show under one judge one week your Sal could win then the next week under a different judge one of or ours win. It is all down to personal preference of owner, judge and breeder. If the really older type Staff - like Staffmads - no offense just using as example - is not going to win at any shows (conformation shows) then that is because that style of staff is no longer desirable in the show ring. That is current opinion and no matter how much discussion of what is right or wrong it will not change what is desired in the dogs of today.

Hi Lel
We do not have Our Dogs only Dog World so have not read the article myself.
Though I like the bigger head and shortER muzzle I am not to the extreme as "some" of the short muzzles that are out there as I think things can be overdone. Like I say short but not non-existant muzzles is what I lke :-)

<<<but the show scene only dictates what THEY think a stafford should look like, not nec what it SHOULD look like>>>

But if the breed really is going to turn into shortmuzzled unfit dogs then anyone looking for a KC registered dog from show lines will be buying these types , influencing the look even more ?
(hope that makes sense)
In other words -the show world has the over all influence whether its right or wrong

Ideally whether from show stock or not they should all look similar in the ideal world :)

There like ant eaters today!!
I have a dog with a strong head a short muzzle and he is far from being unfit infact he is very athletic!!

Brodie
there is a short muzzle and a TOO short  muzzle and I think this is what the original letter writer was concerned about.
I personally hardly ever see ant eater looking dogs at any shows . Do you mean at shows or in general?
There is an article knocking about somewhere that exlains the head-to-muzzle ratio written by Alec Waters.
Will see if I can find it.
Lel

Lel
I mean in general they all look so different and if bred correctly they should all look fairly the same.

im not entirely sure the show ring holds a lot of influence over the look of the stafford. I was pondering today, At work we rarley see the very squat extreme types we often see taking the top prizes in the ring. More they are like the old time dogs, leggier, less broad and with a less exaggerated forface.  So are they actually much smaller in number than the more averegely built dog? If this is the case can they be a true representaion of the breed.
We had a very typy show bred dog in a while back, and my boss commented that it didnt really look like what he considered a stafford. As he mostly see's the pet stock dogs joe public has.
So have the real hard core show people created their own "type" of stafford? Prehaps so, only really shared amongst those who are serious in the show ring? I dont think very many stafford owners show, in the larger scale of things, and probably look at the pet types in the street as what they are looking for, and for the most part as a real novice in the breed would get a 1st dog from the local paper etc..
Im thinking, is the more exaggerated look we are seeing more of these days a case of breeding in "unnatural" traits. whereas the average pet breeder, ( not nec a backstreet peddler) is breeding stafford to stafford, widening a gene pool, and creating scatter bred dogs, that are more uniform to the older type, where, back then,  looks were less important than working ability?
Taking this school of thought further still, there are people in the field of breeding their idea of what the old time dogs looked like, and some are breeding dogs equally untypical, too rangy, no substance,, too tall or too big in general? It works both ways I think. These people too are breeding in exaggerations to the other extreme.
I like to see powerm substance and athletism all in one package in my ideal stafford. A good strong head, and powerful muzzle, not too long, as that would be a weakness, but definatly not short as some show lines today! roughly a third skull length should be about right And I know I am bias, but I feel I  have my idea in my male! My bitch although very athletic doesnt really have quite the substance Id like in a perfect world. She is a little fine boned if I am totally honest with myself. But to my evergrowing chagrin, I speyed her young, and I know she would have made a cracking match for my male. live and learn!

Show breeders breed for a certain type most definitley - whether they like heavy or light they breed to how they think their idea of what the  standard should be and as a result all their breeding is consistant ( in general) . What ever type they like then thats what they breed for . Thats fair enough and how it should be . Not swapping and changing looks to fit in with the current fashion. And any decent breeder will stick by their guns whether they are winning rosettes or not and keep on breeding their ideal.
Pet Staffs is a hard one -there are pets who come from show winning lines and are never shown themselves -and there are those who are bred simply to provide a bit of money for someone.
Maybe its a regional thing on why everyone seems to have different views on what they have seen close to home and why they do or dont like what they have seen.
Where I live in Wirral there is a very large Staffordshire population . Evey other dog seems to be a Staffy but I would have to say that no thought whatsover seems to have gone into the majority other than putting a male and female together no matter what either looks like and  making some money . The fatter the better it seems but on the whole they are pure crap- yes you do get some decent ones .But ask alot of these so called breeders ( or should I merely call them puppy makers) what a true Staffy is meant to look like and they wouldnt have a clue about what the standard says.

I would tend to think that Staffords (along with other popular breeds) bred by non show or working breed enthusiasts are bred with no real consideration for what the results will look or act like.  With luck they may be selected for a good temperament.  Most of these Pet pup breeders may never have seen the breed standard, let alone have formed an opinion of what their interpretaion of the ideal of their breed is.

Hence you get Yorkies which are the size of Jack russels, with toally wrong coliur and proportions.  Vabaliers which could pass for small Welsh Springers etc etc.

In my own breed type does vary to the aficionado, but to the outside onlooker they arte actually pretty uniform and there are not the variation I see on the US rescue pages, where sadly they are quite c0ommonly puppy farmed, where many can look like GSD, Keeshonds, or Hyskies, or just curly tailed mongrels, dome are even untypical in colur and coat pattern.  In the main our breed is only bred by those who show, or very occasionally by a bitch owner wh0o has taken advice for suitable stud from the bitches breeder, and bred with their support an help.  There are sadly a few being bred by Puppy farmers, but as thesse are only 1 or two generations from show stick, are still pretty typical.

My Mums cousi8n bought a Samoyed dog, that had so say been run on by the breeder for show and stud, but was being sold due to being monorchid.  He payed rather a lot for a 10 month old dog.  When he showed me the pedigree, well the names for four generations were all with out affices, things like Ice Princess, Snowy Lad etc.  There was one well known affix on the top of the fifth generation on sires side.  This dog was about as untypical as you could get, looking more like one of the white GSDs that are bred now, he was tway too big, had a very poor tailst, which barely curled, and his proportions were very oblong and not square.  He was also very quiet (not typical).

No luckily enough his owners were quite ahppy and ignorant of his vast shortcomings re breed standard.  So it would seem not to matter.  Well duppose they decide that he is so nice they would like another, and this time they get a typical one, they may well be very upset that he doesn't look like their belovced dog at all, barks a lot, and is more lively and wilful than the dog they had.  Conversely if they were unhappy with the odg becuse it was nervous or aggresive, they would judge the whole breed against this one and tell everyone that asks that Samms are nervous and bite!!!  This is exactly what has ruined many a breeds reputation.

Another aspect is advice about a breed.  On 0one of the breed lists I am on a pet owner was seeking advice about behaviour issues, which semed very untypical of the breed.  We have a sublist that allows the sharing of pictures which she joined, and remarked at how different other members dog were to hers, but all seemed like each other.  When she posted her dogs picture it looked something between a Border Collie x Keeshond, but yet it had papers!!!

there certainly was a difference in regional types way back in the early days, some were more terrier like, some heavier, so maybe that too has an influence. Certanily the dogs chosen for the original breed standard were of the heavier type, compared to others about at the time.
Although I say the average pet staff I see is less exaggerated than the ones bred purposely for showing, Id not want to own a dog bred as such(scatterbred). I got my ideal type from researching bloodlines and history. Scatter breeding does not impress me in the slightest. But I find it interesting that there are 2 relativley uniform types in the long run, the average built pet type, and the "stockier" show type.
Iss this why we see "old time type" dogs cropping up with some heavy show blood behind them. where they rejected as show prospects and sold as pet quality? Both my 2 have some show breeding behind them, my bitch has some Eastaff blood, my male is down from Ch Silver Bomber on his sires side, also going back to show winning Yankeestaff dogs. Both have a lot of rapparee blood in them, and some of those dogs were pretty heavily built, but they are behind many a show dog, and old time type!
Seems just careful picking in a litter can influence a line of dogs appearance.

Just wanted to post this as a matter of interest
although the original standard was set in 1935 there were minor amendments in 1948 and 1987

1935 standard :
The following is a description of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as adopted by the Clubs at a General Meeting held on June 15th, 1935, at the Cross Guns Hotel, Cradley Heath, Staffs. This description is mainly an amplification of the Standard as laid down by the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club. It is considered that this description, which has been drawn up and approved by many of the leading owners, who have bred Staffordshire Bull Terriers all their lifetime, will be of material assistance to the smaller owners and to the novice breeder.

General Appearance. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a smooth coated dog, standing about 15 to 18 inches high at the shoulder. He should give the impression of great strength for his size, and although muscular should be active and agile.

1948 Standard
Characteristics - From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws his character of indomitable courage, high intelligence and tenacity. This coupled with his affection for his friends, and children in particular, his off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes him the foremost all-purpose dog.

General Appearance - The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a smooth-coated dog. He should be of great strength for his size and although muscular, should be active and agile.

1987 Standard
General Appearance - Smooth Coated, Well Balanced, of great strength for his size. Muscular, active and agile.

Characteristics - traditionally of indomitable courage and tenacity. Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children.

Temperament - Bold, Fearless and totally reliable.

POINTS TO NOTE:

(1) In the original Standard (1935) the heights were included under the "General Appearance" and not under their own clause.

(2) No mention was made about the SBTs temperament in the original Standard.

(3) The words "Bold, Fearless and totally reliable" only appeared in the recent 1987 version of the Standard.

(4) The words "active", "agile", "great strength for his size", "muscular" and "smooth coated" have never been changed.

(5) The word"balanced" only appeared in 1987.

Couldn't edit or delete my post when correcting spelling, so hopefully admin may remove first one???

I would tend to think that Staffords (along with other popular breeds) bred by non show or working breed enthusiasts are bred with no real consideration for what the results will look or act like.  With luck they may be selected for a good temperament.  Most of these Pet pup breeders may never have seen the breed standard, let alone have formed an opinion of what their interpretaion of the ideal of their breed is.

Hence you get Yorkies which are the size of Jack russels, with toally wrong colour and proportions.  Cavaliers which could pass for small Welsh Springers etc etc.

In my own breed type does vary to the aficionado, but to the outside onlooker they are actually pretty uniform and there are not the variation I see on the US rescue pages, where sadly they are quite commonly puppy farmed, where many can look like GSD, Keeshonds, or Huskies, or just curly tailed mongrels, some are even untypical in colour and coat pattern. 

In the main our breed in the UK is only bred by those who show, or very occasionally by a bitch owner who has taken advice for suitable stud from the bitches breeder, and bred with their support and help.  There are sadly a few being bred by Puppy farmers, but as these are only 1 or two generations from show stock, are still pretty typical.

My Mums cousin bought a Samoyed dog, that had so say been run on by the breeder for show and stud, but was being sold due to being monorchid.  He payed rather a lot for a 10 month old dog.  When he showed me the pedigree, well the names for four generations were all with out affives, things like Ice Princess, Snowy Lad etc.  There was one well known affix on the top of the fifth generation on sires side. 

This dog was about as untypical as you could get, looking more like one of the white GSDs that are bred now, he was way too big, had a very poor tailset, which barely curled, and his proportions were very oblong and not square.  He was also very quiet (not typical).

Luckily enough his owners were quite happy and ignorant of his vast shortcomings re breed standard.  So it would seem not to matter.  Well suppose they decide that he is so nice they would like another, and this time they get a typical one, they may well be very upset that he doesn't look like their beloved dog at all, barks a lot, and is more lively and wilful than the dog they had.  Conversely if they were unhappy with the dog becuse it was nervous or aggresive, they would judge the whole breed against this one and tell everyone that asks that Samms are nervous and bite!!!  This is exactly what has ruined many a breeds reputation.

Another aspect is advice about a breed.  On one of the breed lists I am on a pet owner was seeking advice about behaviour issues, which seemed very untypical of the breed.  We have a sublist that allows the sharing of pictures which she joined, and remarked at how different other members dogs were to hers, but all seemed like each other.  When she posted her dogs picture it looked something between a Border Collie x Keeshond, but yet it had papers!!!

phew! thought my title of typo queen was in danger then!

No chance, don't know why they allow so little time to edit on the new look board :(

:D