SBT & APBT History

caryll: i did say,..............

Floyd1138 wrote:And yeah there is a difference between pedigree terminology and purebred. You can have a purebred staffy with no pedigree, the later just means history and provable blood line

Assuming its a cross coz its no paperwork is a very political and lawful stance,.. very politically correct. very post 'DDA 1991' !! In the eyes of the law, if your full bred/ pure bred staff doesnt have paperwork, technically it can be seen as a pitbull type cross. If your unregistered staff is suspected of being a pit cross then a dog expert from police or local authority will be appointed by the court to 'judge' your dog.
Is there a massive question mark over every staffy you see, on the street, in a photo, or when at the park? Do you think to yourself.. hmm it looks like a staffy but i cant be sure since there is no paperwork dangling from it?

There are many many many staffs out there which are crossed with pits, but yet still have KC reg paperwork. Whilst most would argue about staffs and pits being same breed, only a bigger chunkier american bred bloodline,.. the bare facts are pits were here before the ban, and were bred into untraceable lines here.
Not every 'breeder' has a plush farm with custom built spotless kennels,.. a large amount of breeders are regular people who dont do it as a living.
KC paperwork is just that, a piece of paper. It was and is all to easy to say any dog you wish (within reason) sired your litter.

Ethics, morals and breed integrity are not high up on the chav council estate breeders list that want a bigger meaner staff. Just look at what goes on in usa with certain lines, bulldogs and the such have been re bred into certain lines to achieve a desired look and i believe pits aint kc reg in usa but amstaffs are? anyone? This doesnt stop unscurpulous back street breeders who are trying to make a quick buck.

The truth is any of our lovely sbt's with full pedigree and kc reg, large old family trees etc can be crossed with irish or apbt's. You will never know!

If we were all purists and assumed every staff without a kc bit of paper is crossed without even seeing it, then perhaps we should look at our lovely wee smiling friend laying on the floor next to you and put that question mark on their head also.

IF hunni was sired by a jack russell, the pup may show nothing of the JR, genes can skip generations, be overpowered or rendered dormant or switched off or triggered.

I dont judge a dog on how it looks or what pedigree it has that someone wrote on a bit of paper. Unless theres clearly a visable other breed trait to the staff then i would never assume its a cross!!!!

Floyd1138 wrote: Whilst most would argue about staffs and pits being same breed, only a bigger chunkier american bred bloodline,.. the bare facts are pits were here before the ban, and were bred into untraceable lines here.
Not every 'breeder' has a plush farm with custom built spotless kennels,.. a large amount of breeders are regular people who dont do it as a living.
KC paperwork is just that, a piece of paper. It was and is all to easy to say any dog you wish (within reason) sired your litter.

I'm sorry, but that really isn't at all true! Staffs and pitbulls are not the same breed, with the APBT being 'chunkier'! Pits were developed seperately from the stafford & many years before the stafford was actually established.

And to be honest, very few good breeders have a farm with kennels! Most have normal homes & the pups are born indoors. The best breeders are those who don't do it for a living - the ones that do are generally puppy farmers whom I detest! Breeding dogs properly is not a profit-making exercise.

All I'm saying is that, unless you have the paperwork to prove it, you cannot guarantee that your dog is pure stafford. It may look it, but you can't prove it.

I couldn't care less, though, whether it does or doesn't - the really important thing is always the temperament.

[/quote] All I'm saying is that, unless you have the paperwork to prove it, you cannot guarantee that your dog is pure stafford. It may look it, but you can't prove it.[/quote]

You cannot 'guarantee' your staff with paperwork is legit pedigree !


In response to you saying ..I'm sorry, but that really isn't at all true! Staffs and pitbulls are not the same breed, with the APBT being 'chunkier'! Pits were developed seperately from the stafford & many years before the stafford was actually established." Isn't it common knowledge that the American Pit Bull Terrier is the "American version" of the game bred Stafford or the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of the United Kingdom.

Oh dear. Let's face it, unless you can do a paternity test nothing is definite, is it? We have to trust that the paperwork is correct, just as we trust that paperwork from a car dealer is correct about the car we've just bought!

If you buy from a reputable breeder (and no, I don't mean a 'big' breeder) then you will get what you pay for - a legally registered dog of guaranteed parentage.

pitbull came from bull and terriers not from staffies

I'm guessing you have not read the entire thread, choosing only small snippets to pick from.

in laymans terms................ chav john from the estate with staffy bitch kc reg, wants big chunky pups, pays peter 50 quid or a bag of grass to sire his bitch with his pitbull,... he then asks stevie from the other end of the estate with his kc reg staff male to say his dog done the deed. Job done!

You can go on all day about reputable breeders and quality lines, it means nothing to unscrupulous breeders who dont give a * about breeds integrity,.. but again im going over what i have already mentioned several times.

Steve wrote:pitbull came from bull and terriers not from staffies

Staffs were a recognised breed when irish and british immigrants went to the usa with their staffords. Simple maths really lol

the staffy come from a lines from the bull and terrier like the pitbull, bull terrier and the bosten terrier

Yes mate im aware of the breeds history and the controversy surrounding it.

Floyd1138 wrote:

Steve wrote:pitbull came from bull and terriers not from staffies

Staffs were a recognised breed when irish and british immigrants went to the use with their staffs. Simple maths really lol

the irish and english people who went to american with their bull and terrrier not staffys becasue their wasn't enough stock over there they had to crossbreed with other terrier to make the american pitbull terrier

forgot to say when they crossbreed their bull and terriers after to many year they call it yankee terrier and change its name to the american pitbul terrier

English and the Irish immigrants carried their beloved game bred Staffords to the United States. In time the gene pool of the original Staffordshire Bull Terriers became more distant to the Pit Bulls we see today, with specific changes in size as a major factor.

just found thisPRE-RELEASE :: CONFIDENTIAL (To go to The Stafford magazine) (Rough draft)
Response Requested (Responses and/or excerpts to go to The Stafford magazine)
THE GAMENESS ISSUE
(The Nature of the Breed)
By Steve Stone
An article by Editor Lillian Rant in the December, 1970, quarterly issue of the California SET magazine made a number of questionable statements in a very authoritive tone concerning the modern Stafford's lack
This question comes up in Stafford circles rather often as it indeed deserves to, being so important and involving as it does the essential nature of the Breed. Now, however, I believe that the particular conditions existing in the USA would make this issue once again worthy of world-wide dissemination and discussion, and I would particularly like to solict the opinions of experienced persons in the Breed and particularly those of the "old stagers II , the men who founded the modern Breed, men like Joe Mallen, Reuben Timmons, Bill Boylan, and others---men who know something of gamesness and something of the show ring. of gamesness and fighting ability. It drew response from Joe Orday, printed in the March, 1971, quarterly issue and this received a sharp counter-response from the Editor. Reid Randall also responded but another part of his letter was printed. In a letter to Joe Orday, the Editor said that she merely wanted to stir up comment while simultaneously telling Reid Randall that she was tired of hearing that Staffords are not really game because (she says) they are not really supposed to be.
Editor Rant in the September, 1970, quarterly issue of the same magazine
set the stage for her appearance as an authority on the Breed (p. 10) by stating that she had been in the Breed for 29 years. Surely a person with nearly as much time in the Breed as John Gordon must know it well. In actual fact, however, Editor Rant simply owned an all-white un-registered Stafford bitch in England from about 1941 to about 1951. The bitch was never bred from, never shown. It was left in England when the Rants emigrated to Canada, and it eventually died from heart break. From roughly 1951 to August, 1967, a period of sixteen years, the Rants owned no Staffords whatever, either in Canada or, later, the USA. In August, 1967, they bought Bearcats Bellamour from my third litter, and thus "Charliegirl” became their foundation bitch and their first registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier. In brief, this means that Editor Rant at the time of writing had been in the organized SBT movement three years and one month. During this time, by her own statement, she had never attended or participated in a dog fight and had shown in two unbenched, unsanctioned, unpointed show. (Further, to the best of my knowledge, she has never
In her article on the Stafford's lack of fighting ability and gameness, Editor Rant says: “…if I see an American Pit Bull within two miles of me, I gather up my brood (of four Staffords) and beat a very hasty retreat - this is not being yellow - just smart since I know there isn't another canine in the world as magnificent and as well trained and capable in the art of dog fighting as the American Pit Bull and I believe one fighting APB is more than a match for my four Staffords even with all of them working together…we do not have a game breed to match the one that already exists in this country - The American Pit Bull. No self-respecting Pit Bull man would consider the Stafford to be in any way in the same class, or remotely near the same class…” There is a great deal more in this same vein, but the essential message seems to be on p. 6 where she states flatly: "... you cannot have both a fighting dog and a show dog.” This means that the two areas are mutually incompatible. In other words, a fighting dog is a brutal, savage, unreliable beast which should be locked up and attended a Stafford show of any kind in her native country, England.) This, then, is the basis for her authoritave statements regarding the abilities and character of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
not allowed near man or animal.
All this, and more, Editor Rant pontificated on the basis of her three years and a month in the organized Staffordshire Bull Terrier movement, admitting at the same time that she had never seen a fair fight from scratch or anything resembling one. Nevertheless, there were and are a number of Stafford owners in the USA having genuinely extensive experience with fighting dogs, Pit Bulls and Staffords alike, over a number of years, men whose word carries weight. Pete Sparks, for example, edits a Pit magazine and raises both breeds although nowadays he fights neither. Al Brown has had both breeds since 1907, prefers the smaller Stafford to the larger Pit Bull, and is very probably the only living person in the USA who has actually pitted a Stafford for money. (He won.) Joe Orday owns a bitch which was BIS at a Stafford speciality show in another country where she also won three pit matches. Jim Wesley owns a game Stafford and a couple of Pit Bulls. Frank McNolty once owned Pit Bulls and edited a magazine about that breed, and he now owns an imported Stafford. And there are others with similar backgrounds.
Yet with all this wealth of genuine, broad experience to rely upon, Editor Rant chose not to consult any of these persons, giving simply her own rather restricted observations.
Why?
The answer, an amalgam of previously uncorrelated facts, was revleaed to me inadvertantly during the recent visit at my home by Stan and Irma Rosenfield when they told me about "Sherri”, their brindle foundation bitch which they had bought as an adult from a man who had “tested” her. On a visit to the Rosenfields' Boston home in August, 1970, Editor Rant told them that they should never have had Sherri because she had been tested and because they had four children! Not surprisingly, the Rosenfields never quite digested that particular remark, Sherri being a singularly sweet-tempered bitch. But that remark, coupled with the line about you cannot have both a fighting dog and a show
dog put a lot of things in focus for me.
You see, while Editor Rant does not have anything like 29 years in Staffords she must have very nearly that amount in another breed of dog, a breed that her father kept and showed, a breed she has known since early childhood: GERMAN SHEPERHDS. It is her a acquaintanceship with German Shepherds, I believe, that has led Editor Rant astray, for she has simply made a psychological transposition of German Shepherd character onto Staffordshire Bull Terrier character, coming up with what I honestly believe to be profoundly inccorect results.
The German Shepherd is a fine breed, extremely useful in many ways, but it is not
I claim this is not so. I have only been in the Breed seven years, since April, 1964, but my own limited experience and that of the "old stagers" I know indicates quite the opposite. A true fighting dog is not savage or ferocious, but cool, calm, and collected, and he does not carry his "work" home with him. A a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. A Shepherd, once trained to attack or kill, is a dangerous animal forever after and must be treated as such, for it will often fail thereafter to distinguished between friend and foe, hearth and arena. This is what Editor Rant knows, and knows well, and this is how she expects our Staffords to be.
real
# Stafford will fare equally well in the pit, in the show ring, and at home with the baby. If I am incorrect, may all the acknowledged experts rise in a chorus and tell both me and the Stafford world about it, for I am no expert, acknowledged or otherwise. 1et the experts, both American and English, give us the benefit of their years and knowledge. I call on all Stafford folk of insight and experience to make their own views public so that we may obtain an unimpassioned, enlightened, and experienced consensus on the nature of gameness in the Stafford so that the bulk of eager but new Stafford owners in this and other countries may know the truth.

dont know if this is good or bad x

Try telling a pit purist that, according to them, no terrier blood is in the line, in their opinion the dog is a continuation of the pure Bulldog of "Elizabethan days".

Floyd1138 wrote:

Steve wrote:pitbull came from bull and terriers not from staffies

Staffs were a recognised breed when irish and british immigrants went to the usa with their staffs. Simple maths really lol

The immigrants we are talking about here were in the 1800s! The stafford wasn't formalised until the 1930s. Simple maths.

The dogs you are talking about were Bull & terriers, not Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Floyd1138 wrote:English and the Irish immigrants carried their beloved game bred Staffords to the United States. In time the gene pool of the original Staffordshire Bull Terriers became more distant to the Pit Bulls we see today, with specific changes in size as a major factor.

no it was a bull and terrier

Caryll wrote:

Floyd1138 wrote:

Steve wrote:pitbull came from bull and terriers not from staffies

Staffs were a recognised breed when irish and british immigrants went to the usa with their staffs. Simple maths really lol

The immigrants we are talking about here were in the 1800s! The stafford wasn't formalised until the 1930s. Simple maths.

The dogs you are talking about were Bull & terriers, not Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Formalised just means the setting of a breed standard. staffs didnt just appear in 1930 out the blue

kenny d wrote:dont know if this is good or bad x

It's an old, old argument. There are those who say that show staffords are 'soft' because they don't snap & snarl at every dog in sight. That they are not 'game' - despite the fact that a dog cannot be confirmed as 'game' without fighting (or pitting) it, which is obviously illegal in the UK. However, anyone who has ever owned a staff will know that's its courage knows no bounds, even though it might happily play with other dogs! One (courage/bravery) has very little to do with the other (fighting ability).

Floyd1138 wrote:Try telling a pit purist that, according to them, no terrier blood is in the line, in their opinion the dog is a continuation of the pure Bulldog of "Elizabethan days".

But you said that it was from the staffordshire bull terriers that went to the USA? make up your mind.

Whether they like it or not, there is terrier in the line because the breed was created through crossing with Bull & Terriers from the UK, but these were not Staffords.

'The stafford wasn't formalised until the 1930s. ' ........ actually,.. 'stafford' was the name of the mix of bulldogs and terriers pre SBT standardisation, thats what immigrants tooks to the usa, they didnt take a terrier and bulls and breed them over there to make a pit.

you talking about the bull and terrier staffy come from a bull and terrier line like bull terrier, pitbulls and boston terrier

Floyd1138 wrote:'The stafford wasn't formalised until the 1930s. ' ........ actually,.. 'stafford' was the name of the mix of bulldogs and terriers pre SBT standardisation, thats what immigrants tooks to the usa, they didnt take a terrier and bulls and breed them over there to make a pit.

No they weren't. They actually wanted to call the breed a Bull Terrier, but couldn't because Hinks had already claimed the name. They chose to put Staffordshire in front because that's where most of the people involved in recognising the breed came from. The dogs that went to the USA with english & irish imigrants were Bull & Terriers.

I know they didn't take Bulldogs & terriers over with them, they took dogs that were termed 'Bull & Terrier' over. If you are going to quote stafford history, please make sure you get it right. You only have to look in a couple of breed history books to get that.

Anyhow, I'm sure Sue didn't start this thread to get a history lesson!

Its a debate no one can win as nothing can be proved. But game bred staffords went to the usa. if u honestly think that staffords (not sbts) werent bred, werent crossed in, and werent added to the gene pool then its a lost cause lol Did all the pioneers and immigrant farmers and hunters and fighters all stick to the guide lines of a not yet formed KC.
So your saying the staffords in olde usa were there and seperately a boston terrier and bull mixed and then came a pit? lol and the staffords had no part in it or even in the gene pool?

The boston terrier is an american dog! the clue is in its name. that its self came from bull and terriers /aka 'STAFFORDS'

i give up you clearly don't know the history of the bull and terrier (it wasn't the staffordshire bull terrier)

Floyd1138 wrote:

The boston terrier is an american dog! the clue is in its name.

from a line from the bull & terrier for god sake

Oh, for pity's sake.

The dogs that went to the USA were Bull & Terrier. After that, the Stafford in thsi country & the Pit in the USA were developed seperately, although along the same lines. The Boston Terrier was created from a cross with the Bull & Terrier & other smaller breeds (can't remember which ones) in the USA.

This is well known fact, and has been recorded in many books about the breed, as far back as the early 1900s. Are you saying that all the previous experts are wrong?

history of the boston terrier

The Boston Terrier breed originated around 1870, when Robert C. Hooper of Boston purchased a dog known as Hooper's Judge, who was of a Bull and Terrier type lineage. Judge's specific lineage is unknown; however, Hooper's Judge is either directly related to the original Bull and Terrier breeds of the 18th and early 19th centuries, or Judge is the result of modern English Bulldogs being crossed into terriers created in the 1860s for show purposes, like the White English Terrier.[7]

Floyd1138 wrote:
There are many many many staffs out there which are crossed with pits, but yet still have KC reg paperwork. KC paperwork is just that, a piece of paper. It was and is all to easy to say any dog you wish (within reason) sired your litter.

The truth is any of our lovely sbt's with full pedigree and kc reg, large old family trees etc can be crossed with irish or apbt's. You will never know!

Sorry to butt in here but are you serious? I can trace my dogs ancestry back to the 1950's! I know for a fact the breeders who we got her off, who were just an average family and did actually reside on a council estate were legitimate, caring people. To suggest that a KC registered dog COULD be crossed with a pitt or Irish staff (which to the best of my knowledge isn't a breed anyway!!) is ludicrous

no one is saying its an sbt, .......... a STAFFORD!!!! not SBT ! staffords are the proto bull and terrier mix.
the bull and terrier breed known as a stafford later became an sbt !


its a highly controversial subject that none of you can or ever prove, there is many different opinions, not one solid correct answer.

irish is just a made up name for crossbreeds

Floyd1138 wrote:no one is saying its an sbt, .......... a STAFFORD!!!! not SBT ! staffords are the proto bull and terrier mix.
the bull and terrier breed known as a stafford later became an sbt !


its a highly controversial subject that none of you can or ever prove, there is many different opinions, not one solid correct answer.

Early Bull and Terriers were not bred for the companion animals of today, but for the characteristic known as gameness, with the pitting of dogs against bear or bull and exotic animals testing this attribute along with the strength and skill of the dog. provided the ancestral foundation stock for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier. This common ancestor was known as the "Bull and Terrier".

Steve wrote:irish is just a made up name for crossbreeds

I thought as much!
I can't believe that this person cannot accept what is being put across to them, in black and white! I've given myself a headache shaking it in disbelief so much! Jeez...

Skye86 wrote:

Floyd1138 wrote:
There are many many many staffs out there which are crossed with pits, but yet still have KC reg paperwork. KC paperwork is just that, a piece of paper. It was and is all to easy to say any dog you wish (within reason) sired your litter.

The truth is any of our lovely sbt's with full pedigree and kc reg, large old family trees etc can be crossed with irish or apbt's. You will never know!

Sorry to butt in here but are you serious? I can trace my dogs ancestry back to the 1950's! I know for a fact the breeders who we got her off, who were just an average family and did actually reside on a council estate were legitimate, caring people. To suggest that a KC registered dog COULD be crossed with a pitt or Irish staff (which to the best of my knowledge isn't a breed anyway!!) is ludicrous

wtf!?!?!? mate seriously? wtf u clearly misunderstand, re read the entire thread! Not only are u assuming im classing all people on council estates in same catergory, u actually think a bit of paper stops 'chavs' being a little naughty on kc reg paperwork? come on now, its a big bad world out there and bad breeders do all sorts to make money

pits and irish are classed as pit bull type breed and banned list in the country u live in. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Floyd1138 wrote:no one is saying its an sbt, .......... a STAFFORD!!!! not SBT ! staffords are the proto bull and terrier mix.
the bull and terrier breed known as a stafford later became an sbt !


its a highly controversial subject that none of you can or ever prove, there is many different opinions, not one solid correct answer.

That is absolute rubbish! The word 'Stafford' wasn't even used until the breed came to be registered with the KC. The dogs that the staff came from were Bull & Terrier. It isn't a matter of proving it - it's fact. I ask you again, are you saying that all the great stafford historians are liars? I'd love to know which history book you have taken your 'facts' from, because it is glaringly wrong!

I'm afraid in this, there is one solid correct answer - the origins of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier came from the old Bull & Terrier, which is the breed that was taken to the USA with the english & irish immigrants back in the 1800s.

Oh I read the thread fully, and I can't believe you're so cynical! Yes, I do believe there is people who are in it for the money but who is going to seriously put all the time and effort, not to mention money registering these puppies with the KC? It's not free! so for the sake of an extra £100+ are they REALLY going to go to all that hassle?

Floyd1138 wrote:

Skye86 wrote:

Floyd1138 wrote:
There are many many many staffs out there which are crossed with pits, but yet still have KC reg paperwork. KC paperwork is just that, a piece of paper. It was and is all to easy to say any dog you wish (within reason) sired your litter.

The truth is any of our lovely sbt's with full pedigree and kc reg, large old family trees etc can be crossed with irish or apbt's. You will never know!

Sorry to butt in here but are you serious? I can trace my dogs ancestry back to the 1950's! I know for a fact the breeders who we got her off, who were just an average family and did actually reside on a council estate were legitimate, caring people. To suggest that a KC registered dog COULD be crossed with a pitt or Irish staff (which to the best of my knowledge isn't a breed anyway!!) is ludicrous

wtf!?!?!? mate seriously? wtf u clearly misunderstand, re read the entire thread! Not only are u assuming im classing all people on council estates in same catergory, u actually think a bit of paper stops 'chavs' being a little naughty on kc reg paperwork? come on now, its a big bad world out there and bad breeders do all sorts to make money

pits and irish are classed as pit bull type breed and banned list in the country u live in. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no such breed as an Irish Stafford. It's just a name that was thought up to get around the anti-pitbull laws.

And we all know that some disreputable people falsify documents, but that isn't what we're talking about here. If you go to a reputable breeder you will get what it says on the pedigree form.

Skye86 wrote:

Steve wrote:irish is just a made up name for crossbreeds

I thought as much!
I can't believe that this person cannot accept what is being put across to them, in black and white! I've given myself a headache shaking it in disbelief so much! Jeez...

so a made up name is now being used as official terminology in the dangerous dogs act?

You cant accept that on several responses you have misunderstood the entire thread and points being made. in a vain attempt to prove urself right and indulge your fantasy of being a expert in the field ur now saying a its a made up name ,.. if it was made up it wouldnt be allowed to be used as official terminology on the dangerous dogs act 91

Floyd1138 wrote:

Skye86 wrote:

Floyd1138 wrote:
There are many many many staffs out there which are crossed with pits, but yet still have KC reg paperwork. KC paperwork is just that, a piece of paper. It was and is all to easy to say any dog you wish (within reason) sired your litter.

The truth is any of our lovely sbt's with full pedigree and kc reg, large old family trees etc can be crossed with irish or apbt's. You will never know!

Sorry to butt in here but are you serious? I can trace my dogs ancestry back to the 1950's! I know for a fact the breeders who we got her off, who were just an average family and did actually reside on a council estate were legitimate, caring people. To suggest that a KC registered dog COULD be crossed with a pitt or Irish staff (which to the best of my knowledge isn't a breed anyway!!) is ludicrous

wtf!?!?!? mate seriously? wtf u clearly misunderstand, re read the entire thread! Not only are u assuming im classing all people on council estates in same catergory, u actually think a bit of paper stops 'chavs' being a little naughty on kc reg paperwork? come on now, its a big bad world out there and bad breeders do all sorts to make money

pits and irish are classed as pit bull type breed and banned list in the country u live in. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

first thing how can they be naughty with kc papers you mean make up paper which are not real paper so if the police come knocking you going get your dog siezed for being a type?

second thing pits and Irish are classed as pitbull type? sorry that doesn't make any sense what so ever!!

Irish is just a made up name to rip people off yes some maybe pitbull type like most crossbreed will, pit are pits so they banned and only a select few will have the real thing because if chavs or wannabe get their hands on their line of pitbull they will soon lose their top dogs.

Think its starting to get a little personal now and should be toned down, you both have your beliefs and your reference material , I am not even going to make a comment on it because it's just going on way way too much Call this one a day ???

Floyd1138 wrote:

Skye86 wrote:

Steve wrote:irish is just a made up name for crossbreeds

I thought as much!
I can't believe that this person cannot accept what is being put across to them, in black and white! I've given myself a headache shaking it in disbelief so much! Jeez...

so a made up name is now being used as official terminology in the dangerous dogs act?

You cant accept that on several responses you have misunderstood the entire thread and points being made. in a vain attempt to prove urself right and indulge your fantasy of being a expert in the field ur now saying a its a made up name ,.. if it was made up it wouldnt be allowed to be used as official terminology on the dangerous dogs act 91

HAHAHAHA! A vain attempt and a fantasy of being an expert? Who is misunderstanding the messages now? Read back, I have used terms such as "As far as I'm aware" Yes, that would SCREAM out that I'm an expert!

He/she/it may get as personal as they wish, if not hypocritial! Haha. I was merely stating what I though, but then again I'm no expert

wtf ???????????? what "And we all know that some disreputable people falsify documents, but that isn't what we're talking about here. If you go to a reputable breeder you will get what it says on the pedigree form.'


that is exactly the point and topic of this debate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


i think that grave misunderstanding of the basic concept of this debate is enough to end this thread, !!!!!!!!!!!

there is no point in having a 'debate' when people simply cant understand or be bothered to read the entire thread and all topics covered.

Floyd1138 wrote:

Skye86 wrote:

Steve wrote:irish is just a made up name for crossbreeds

I thought as much!
I can't believe that this person cannot accept what is being put across to them, in black and white! I've given myself a headache shaking it in disbelief so much! Jeez...

so a made up name is now being used as official terminology in the dangerous dogs act?

You cant accept that on several responses you have misunderstood the entire thread and points being made. in a vain attempt to prove urself right and indulge your fantasy of being a expert in the field ur now saying a its a made up name ,.. if it was made up it wouldnt be allowed to be used as official terminology on the dangerous dogs act 91

The Irish Staffordshire Terrier is named under 'types'. They included that name because people were calling pits this to get around the law.

And I think the portion I highlighted is rude in the extreme. Nobody is saying that you are indulging fantasies about being an expert, so please don't accuse others of doing so.

I agree with dave, this is getting out of hand and should either calm down or be locked

Sorry, i posted wrong document x

I agree. I'm going to remove all the non-relevant posts into another section. Then maybe it can be left to RIP.

Pedigree or cross, does it matter. I'd love kenny if he was half cat half dog

My point is only this... Someone who buys a KC registered bitch spends that little extra than a 'Stafford' from a BYB and in doing so, has done some research into the breeding. Now, say this person who has bought this KC bitch wants to breed her, they are going to do their homework and find a suitable KC registered stud.

I can honestly say that I highly doubt these BYB's are willing to register puppies (which does cost, PER PUP) are willing to part with money in order to make money. If you disagree with that, then fine but sit and think about all that has been wrote in reply to you, does any of it sink in at all?