Do we know what we own? Discussions

Then roll on the DDA and farewell our beloved Staffords-lets not dress it up folks, whilst 'agression' is tolerated, accepted and thought of as part of the breed by some people means there will be more attacks-each attack brings staffords that step closer to the DDA. Then there will be no choice about changing dog agression and everyone will be babbling about how out of order the DDA is, and how ridiculous it is-when in the truth, these people have freely allowed staffords to end up on the DDA by freely accepting/and allowing dog agression.
Harsh words i know

Ahh come on now I'm not saying 'let' them but the breed originated for dog fighting so you risk the fact you may have aggressive one's...

Does the fact that a dog is aggressive mean that it is allowed to carry out it's aggressiveness?...Responsible ownership should see to that shouldn't it?

But if anything other than a 100% dog friendly dog will do why not look elsewhere to a breed known for it's dog friendliness. And if you do go for a Staffie why whine when you realise the breed does sometimes show certain characteristics true to it's origins, instead why can't they be controlled by the owner just as any guarding breed is not allowed to attack everyone you walk by? The characteristics needed for guarding are all still there but through training and responsible ownership the dog should be reliable.

This debate isn't about people acknowledging the Staffy history (as I'm sure most people do) this is about people wanting to reintroduce/retain that charcteristic over trying to breed it out.

There is no place for activley encouraging dog to dog aggression in this day and age. Which is what the original thread starter has more or less said.

Mistaking small dogs for rodents is not the same as dog on dog aggression.

But it's irresponsible owners not the dogs. In the wrong hands my dog friendly dogs could be brought up to attack other dogs.

Rather than having to change possible traits with in breeds...maybe we should just ban all neds and chavs?

No it is not I agree, but if a person with dogs of very high prey drive did not control their dogs and they ate someones JRT I'm sure they could care less what the reason was, just that they ate it

Many breeds have 'fighting history' some of the dogs I own included

If I were to breed from those dogs I would not be looking to retain any aggressive tendancies that lay deep within the heart of my stock. Sorry but I wouldnt, that would not be fair to the breed I owned or the integrity of it.

and this is where I totally agree. With any breed I think you have to accept what is there in general and take on all possible traits, not activly change it either way, just accept what is there.

But no I wouldn't actively seek out to breed from dog aggressive dogs the same as I wouldn't actively seek to change a breed in anyway, unless I was admitting that what we have was something new and different to what was originally intended.

How about breeders wishing to activley change the possibilty of certain traits indicate that in part of the name, an addition or change to the name with recognition of that?...Is that a possibility?

Luke we know that isn't going to happen, not unless every Staffy breeder regresses to the level of Hayley SBT.

The vast majority of breeders do right by the Staff, but there are still some, even mixing in pitbull lines and such breeders do the breed no justice at all.

I have lived with Staffs, and met hundreds, but I have only ever seen a handful of dog aggressive staffs. Now these compared to the non aggressive, had no less staffy spirit! They were exactly the same in a controlled environment. Bold, fearless, clownish, great sense of humour! But the latter had one thing the aggressives did not, reliability.

I apologise for the sarcasm in my earlier post.

Exactly my point Mys, they WERE used for fighting. In today society this is not acceptable, so why hold on to such traits. If they can be bred out, they should be bred out. The dog remaining will be no less a stafford! In the eyes of many true staffy lovers, who love the breed for what it is now, it will be a better dog.

It is true, you should take into consideration it's previous orentation. But if the stafford could be bred, so in the future, aggressive tendencies are a distant memory, then surely this is better for the future of the Stafford?

After all, if they had no aggressive traits, 'chavs and neds' would not wish for such a dog in the first place.

Sorry myschievous I'm not picking on you really

The SBT was originally bred for bull baiting not dog fighting (that came later when the breed was "changed"). Now a lot of breeds are bred to bring down, hunt, flush out, point etc a wide variety of animals from rats right through to lions. However most of these dogs have been able to do their job without being bred to be dog aggressive.

Why can't we breed the fighter out and bring back the original bull baiter? Few here would say that a bull baiting dog could lack "spirit".

well said, the dog agression instincts can be controlled by good owners so there is no need to breed it out! ban idoits who dont understand thier breed or use the instinct to fight other dogs and cause trouble
change the owners not the breed

Excellent post Sammy, hit the nail right on the head! I was just going to mention what a Staffy was BEFORE it was a dog fighter.

as you lot are equally as horrified by my views im just as equally if not more horrified that some stafford owners want to change thier breed and not understand what they own and also cannot be bothered to control it!

Molosser breeds are powerful animals with strong instincts, guarding, baiting, fighting etc and why is that you cannot expect that the breed is not a fluffy animal and you are discrediting the breed by thinking they are

Im deeply disapointed by alot of people today, you would rather change the breed to suit your needs, if you could just control the instinct then fine, why do you need to banish it for good!

Sad state of affairs and i know see that many really dont love the breed as much as they say they do

id rather keep the trait and control it and make sure that my dogs dont attack anyone elses dog

Your not even willing to listen or understand so therefor this makes you worse!

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.

Hayley

The SBT was originally bred for bull baiting not dog fighting (that came later when the breed was "changed"). Now a lot of breeds are bred to bring down, hunt, flush out, point etc a wide variety of animals from rats right through to lions. However most of these dogs have been able to do their job without being bred to be dog aggressive.

Why can't we breed the fighter out and bring back the original bull baiter? Surely you Hayley wouldn't say that a bull baiting dog could lack "spirit".

It's ok I don't feel picked on, I'm not like that.

To be honest I don't actually feel strongly either way so I can easily keep my calm.

I'm just offering ideas really and seeing things from all perspectives.

I just can't help wonder how it would be received if I approached people with the idea that maybe we should take away the instinct to run over long distances so that Northern breeds were easier to own because teaching recal would be more possible.

Or breeding out the prey drive of certain breeds so that they are reliable near farmland.

When do you stop altering a breed before it becomes something else only possibly retaining it's appearance?

I believed that the SBT was out of dogs originally bred for bull baiting, not that it was used for bull baiting? I thought after the sport was banned and people decided to turn to dog fighting as an option the SBT originated from these earlier dogs when something different was produced to more aptly fit what they wanted for dog fighting, so that they kept the traits of the original dogs but bred in the agility of the terrier?

If you want to return to the bull baiting dogs are you not reverting to something different to the SBT?

I agree that it would seem the character of both would be similar seeing as they wanted the character to stay the same and just breed in agility...But once a breed is recognised it is what it is isn't it?...If you take it back to dogs that it originated from it wouldn't be the same would it?

I'm not arguing here...but learning

noone mention dog fighting azz, dog aggression doesnt mean dog fighting..............

I suppose I'm coming from the angle that the human dog relationship has been so successful over thousands of years because we have met each others' needs. Dogs work for us, guard our property and provide companionship while we provide food and shelter and hopefully a companionship they enjoy.

To achieve this successful relationship we've spent thousands of years breeding dogs to suit our needs and we've changed those breeds as our human needs have changed. It is no longer acceptable in most parts of human society to have dog aggressive dogs and so why not change the breed again to reflect this and maintain the harmony of the dog human relationship. Elsewhere on this forum we are hearing terrible stories of the abuse dog owners have been receiving this week because of the dog attacks. This is clearly a sign that the relationship is breaking down. We genetically engineered these animals. It is completely our responsibility to look after and care for them. Why should we not continue changing them for their sakes. We force them to live in this confusing human world. Why shouldn't we make it easier for them to live joyful and fulfilling lives by our sides?

Or did our ancestors who continually changed these breeds have more wisdom and compassion than we now do?

I think you said the same thing somewhere in the middle of all these pages and I replied.

Replying again, once a breed is established surely that is how the breeds stay, or at least that is the ultimate goal of breeders?...So shouldn't a particular breed of dog now be pretty much the same as when it was either first recognised or established to type (if not KC recognised)

...If it is changed I think it must be written in it's history so that people understand that it is something different than it's original type...and then it depends on the degree of change as to if it should be classed as the same thing?

Yep most dogs this day and age do not carry out any of the work they were bred for but still retain the traits needed to.

And people from most breeds would get up in arms if people started changing them for the sake of the modern day pet owner?

Having seen many arguments over the NI (my breed) I know only to well peoples opinions on changing dogs to evolve with the times

I wouldn't want to set a breed standard in stone if it meant the animal was going to suffer because it found it harder to live in the modern world we force it to live in. Isn't that just cruel?

But it shouldn't be there! Yes its an instinct, yes its been in their blood for years-but so what?
Otterhounds were used to hunt otters for centuries, no longer do they-does that mean they aren't the same breed?!?!-NO!
Not one person has said anything about training out/breeding out dog agression as being an easy fixy. The easy fix is when people accept/overlook/allow it to be there-so as to have an excuse for a dog with a serve behaviour problem (thats what it is at the end of the day!!).
Now i think many have felt like saying it but refrained from doing so, and i bet this is going to get me into grave trouble-however, this is getting ridiculous!
Your sitting there on your highorse saying your dissapointed by people, that these people don't love the breed etc-it is people like yourself, who hold a view that its fine to let dogs be agressive, and fine to allow it to carry on being bred into the breed generation after generation that are the ones who do not love the breed truly, cause if you did you would be in full support of anything that could help the breed for the better. It is people who hold views like you do, who encourage such inflated rabble about staffords that attracts yobs n fools too owning them as a 'he-man' dog, it is when word of mouth is spread about dogs being agressive, about it being a breed trait, about it being acceptable-that encourages yobs and fools to go after the stafford as a status breed.
So i would be very careful for who exactly you accuse, and would maybe think a little closer to home with your accusations. Anyone who deems dog agression as acceptable, who does not wish to take the agression from a breed to make their lives and future so much happier and more secure, in my eyes does not care about the breed-in my eyes they hold such a view for the reason that they se the stafford as a status dog for the fact they can be dog agressive.
Sorry for offence, i can't say it wasn't intended. This thread has made me feel sick, sick that people are happy for staffords to be dog agressive-sick that these people claim to love the breed.
And i know i'm now going to be slated, thought of in low esteem for posting this post in such a manner-but you know what? I don't care anymore, we've tried discussing this-and the idiots out there who are happy for staffords to continue not to be trained out/bred out of dog agression and eventually wind up on the DDA, are just making me feel sick!