Do we know what we own? Discussions

No, I see what you are getting at Moobli. And can also sort of see the point Hayley is trying to make.

I wanted a Sibe or Malamute but didn't get one as they are not good off lead because they don't do recall and will run and run (what they were bred to do) and most breeders and owners will tell you it is highly irresponsible to let them off lead unless the area is fully enclosed...

I decided that for the dogs that were going to be mine I would feel bad not seeing them run free out and about on walks...and I don't have any land of my own to run them on...

So as much as I wanted one I didn't have one.

I'm using this as a scenario because they are breeds I would love to own but decided against it because of one trait only....I think you have to accept all the possible traits of your chosen breed. Being one of the biggest parts of why those dogs were bred originally in the first place, to run and keep going over long distances, I do wonder how it would be conceived if I put across the idea that this trait should be bred out?...

It would surely make for happier dogs if they could run and play in the park off lead like other dogs?

It would make them a heck of alot easier to own and far more accessible to the general public as a result, but is it right?

Should we not own dogs that fit our circumstances?

I remember when people debate 'show dogs' that the argument is that there are alot starting to be bred just to suit the show ring...That could not handle doing the work they were bred for...Is this not the same?...

I guess like it or not you can't deny what the Staffie was bred for and after doing your research you either have to accept it or not...at very least be prepared...and if you can't accept all of the possibilities stear clear.

People that own Huskies and Mals respect the history of their dogs and understand it doesn't make them an easy dog to own...They are not for the average owner. I guess what I am saying is with owning any breed you have to take the good with the bad and understand what you are dealing with and take full responsibility of what traits could come out strongest in your dog....and I can see how some people think if you start changing the character of the breed which enabled it to do what it was originally bred for, then surely you are creating something different?

Saying that I understand the times that we live in. (As you can tell I am on the fence with this one! and just offering my thoughts)

I guess I will end with...if it is ok to change this trait within the Staffie, would it be acceptable to start changing other traits in other breeds so that they fit more appropriately in modern living, because surely they then would no longer be the same as originally intended?

Who says? A small minority? Ask the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of responsible Staff owners who luckily, don't have to live with an aggressive dog on a daily basis. I'm sure they will tell you that it's not an integral part of their breed, the breed they live with, and if/when dog aggression did ever did ever rear it's ugly head - it's those times they feel least happy with their breed. In other words, to them it's the least preffered trait, and they would much prefer a non-aggressive dog.

I find comments like these very worrying. In addition people who think a staff is not a staff unless it has the thirst for 'fight/blood/kill' and are purposely trying to breed/retain this trait, are the ones who are going to add to it being placed on the DDA.

The REAL dogs are the thousands living happily as pets at home in a family enviroment. Dog fighting has been outlawed, there is NO need for animals bred to (or with the trait to) fight to the death.

It wouldn't surpirse me if this debate got very heated, many Staff owners who do not want to see their dogs on the DDA will be outraged at such attitudes. (Which thankfully only a minority hold).

I do agree mini that no one wants to see the Staffie on the DDA. But also know that it is irresponsible owners that would cause that to happen not the breed it's self.

These other traits that Moobli mentions may well not get the breeds on the DDA but what about amount of dogs in shelter because owners took on something they did not make themselves aware of. What about the fatalities of dogs from northern breeds because an owner thought their dog would be different and have good recal? People living in flats getting dogs that are too big for their living accomodation...Getting a breed that loves to dig when you have a manacured lawn.

Should we start changing breeds in general to fit in with our own lives?

For the happiness of any individual dog from any breed I think you must have the right circumstances and the correct leval of understanding the breed and complete acceptance as to anything that may come with it or be kind to the breed and not have one at all.

I have to say though I have never met an aggressive Staffie yet

Hayley, dogs are pack animals, it's not normal for them to not have sociable interactions with other dogs. We aren't trying to make them human-like, we're trying to let them be dogs!

And I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm bowing-out: If you aren't going to let your dogs express their dog-aggression, then what difference does it make to you whether it's bred-out or not? Irish terriers and Kerry blues have retained every bit of their alertness and terrier instinct, even while their tendency to have a go at other dogs is diminished, why should staffies be different?

I was thinking of the controlled aggression required for police/prison/army dogs really Mini. There are certain types of GSD bred specifically for police/prison work as well as for Schutzhund enthusiasts etc, and they certainly need to have top obedience and intelligence, but also to show an amount of aggression (controlled by the handler). These types of GSD are rarely seen in pet homes and the show ring but do hark back to GSDs of days gone by and some would say, show the true character of the GSD and that this character has been diluted by show and pet breeders.

I would hate to see my breed on the DDA and there is alot of work going on behind the scenes to try and prevent this from happening.
It is through thoughtless idiots breeding any two dogs together and those which aquire them for an image status why the breed has such an uncertain future.
I have owned to dog aggressive dogs,did i enjoy it,NO,it was a complete nightmare.It was hard to keep them seperated from each other and walking was kept to when there were no other dogs around.
I am happy to say that Tyler hasn't and i really hope won't show any aggression towards other dogs,as for meg well she's still a baby so time will tell.
Dog fighting is in the past where it should be,should staffords retain spirit?This means something different to everybody.I love the spirit of the stafford,how he is so loving towards children and people constantly on his toes,alert,intelligent,his character etc.

Mys - I think you have understood what I mean perfectly Thanks.

I lived with (and absolutely loved) a dog aggressive staffie for 12 years. I learned a lot about managing his aggression to keep him and other dogs safe. For me it was hard work and took some of the joy out of owning a dog.

I now have a new staffie puppy. She is KC reg and has a good pedigree although, if you've read my intro message, you'll know that physically she's a throw-back :smt002 to say the least (but a gorgeous one at that). However she fits the staffie characteristics for the UK Kennel Club breed standard.

"Characteristics
Traditionally of indomitable courage and tenacity. Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children.

Temperament
Bold, fearless and totally reliable."

So far she's proving herself to be courageous, tenacious, bold, fearless, intelligent and quite reliable and she loves kids. I note that nowhere in the breed standard does it say she needs to be dog aggressive.

She's growing into a big strong staffie, just like they should be and she's being kept well socialised and has good manners with other dogs. And that suits me just fine.

The only wish I want to see is that staffords DO NOT end up on the DDA which from what i'm getting from you both is exactly what you want

You seem to think that unless it's dog aggressive you don;t own a 'true' stafford

If this is your attempt at promoting the breed your doing a pretty shabby job of it.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean

this is getting a bit ridiculous to be honest - I cannot fathom why stafford owners on this board are effectively condoning dog aggression as a desired trait in the staffie.

With respect do any of those own a dog aggressive staffie who day in day out would happily fight with every dog it meets on walk - yet is actually a big woos - and is reacting purely out of fear and lack of socialisation.

Have any of you taken on a rescue with these traits - given up by its previous 2 owners by the age of 2 because it was too much to handle.

Do any of you see how many staffie and staff crosses are in rescue and cannot be rehomed with other dogs due to their dog issues and wait patiently for someone to take them on warts and all and be willing to realise what is at the end of their lead????

I cannot understand why you wish to add to this list of dogs requiring homes that simply arent their to give them.

Everyone who is arguing for keeping dog aggressiveness in staffies is effectively deeply punishing the staffie.

Its a well known fact that staffies go into the wrong hands - day in day out and if we keep actively encouraging the dog aggression in them by continuing to breed from dogs who are particularly dog aggressive in temperament you are just fuelling the fire for the potential future awful owners that these pups will head to.

You should be ashamed of yourself for wishing that on the staffie.

For me the staffie is a fantastic breed, I adore Bruno but it would be so much easier if he didnt have the dog issues he has - for me and for him. He didnt come into this world wanting to kill everything he met he was nurtured that way by previous owners who then gave up on him when they realised what a handful he was turning into.

Get sensible people - do you really want to see the staffie on the DDA List through no fault of its own?

See I know that if I went for my favorite breeds as I mentioned earlier, Husky and Mal...It would take some of the enjoyment off owning one for me if I couldn't let them offlead and that is the only reason that stopped me having one. If dog aggression in the Staffie is a possibility I guess you have to be prepared to take that on as part of owning the dog and know how to control it and deal with it as you did and you either accept that or go for a breed that does fit 100% in with the traits that you do want.

Surely the dog is a "work in progress". Humans have been genetically engineering dogs who live with them to suit their needs for many thousands of years. Every breed we have has been created by humans to do something that humans wanted or needed at the time. They're not "natural" but what we made. Surely we still have the right to keep on engineering them to suit our current needs and not outdated historical ones. Isn't it better to have an animal suited for 21st century human life rather than mistreated and abused animals in shelters all over the country. Would you live in an 18th century house now? Why should the same rules not apply to dogs now as they always have?

Dogs and humans have a symbiotic relationship which is incredibly successful because we meet each other's needs. Change that and the relationship breaks down. JMHO

Is that what is being suggested though?..Or just to accept what is already there and not to change it?

it may be already there in existing dogs but the suggestion at the start of this 14 pages of talk was that by actively encouraging the breeding OUT of aggression its ruining the breed.

Hayley posted that she wanted the aggressiveness kept IN to keep the Stafford Spirit....

thats how i hear it anyway

I think that counts as encouraging it, albeit passively.

Sure I do get you...But then arn't you creating something different if you are not sticking to the same formula?

Isn't it what breeders strive for, to keep dogs in their breed as close as possible to what was originally intended?

I still think you have to get what's right for your circumstances...If you are in doubt of any aspect in a breed opt for a different breed, what's wrong with that?

Getting back to the aggression...any idiot wanting a dog to be aggressive can make any breed that way even breeds that arn't typically known for any aggressive behaviour...So surely it's more about education and responsible dog ownership than it is about changing breeds just so they may possibly be less dangerous in the wrong hands cuz the wrong hands can make a mess of anything?

Hopefully she will clarify

The way I saw it was not to change what is already there. Which I saw as being different to activley seek out aggressive dogs to breed from for the future. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Just wanted to add...the 'dog' as an entire race in general I supposse you could say that?...But I thought once a breed had been established that is what it will stay? Or no breed would stay the same?

Maybe we should look at whether or not breeds should remain the same. Surely a successful relationship with dogs is more likely to occur if the dogs are better suited to our needs. Dog aggression is no longer desired, why should it stay in the breed if it's going to harm the human dog relationship.

Breeding, and changing, of dogs (including breed standards) has been been ongoing for centuries. Why should it stop now?

Totally agree. Regardless of the breeding issue, it all comes back to responsible ownership .