Why did the KC alter staffies

First topic message reminder :

I asked this question before,Why has the kc reduced the size of staffies ,originaly staffies were 18 " at the shoulder and over 20 Kilos .

yet again another bad breeder

http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm

I think you will always get the breeder who for whatever reason does not breed to standard.

So Caryll, like you said it may be best to leave things as they are, we can still appreciate a dog slightly over standard.

That's the thing. I look at a dog like Max & I can appreciate his beauty & symmetry, but if he was much bigger he just wouldn't look like a stafford.

Steve wrote:americna staffy are 17 to 19"

Am Staffs standard states ''preferable'' height is 19''
there really is no definite height/weight parameters as long as the dog fits the general description with correct proportions. same as the apbt.

people seem to forget a ''standard'' is actually a description of a breed. the specifications if you like.
every pure breed has it's own specifications.
if the specifications don't suit ones style why doesn't one simply find a breed whose specifications do?
once one has modified the specifications one has voided the warranty.

pedro wrote:Am Staffs standard states ''preferable'' height is 19''
there really is no definite height/weight parameters as long as the dog fits the general description with correct proportions. same as the apbt.

I think you'll find that's not quite right......

http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm#breedstd

Size
Height and weight should be in proportion. A height of about 18 to 19 inches at shoulders for the male and 17 to 18 inches for the female is to be considered preferable.

Caryll wrote: but if he was much bigger he just wouldn't look like a stafford.

Once again I agree (Cazza your on a roll with me tonite )

I do realise that puttin a pic of my own dog up as an example is a little pretentious, but I cant use a pic off the net as an example and be sure it's one of a pure bred KC stafford like Max is .. which kinda brings us back to why I totally agree with you Caryll .. over a certain size (again, I refer to Max as my personnal limit) even an "expert" has to look twice to notice the subtle differance's! = "type" =

Harley wrote:

Steve wrote:

Harley wrote:

Steve wrote:americna staffy are 17 to 19"

I have never seen a 17 inch Amstaff. Most males I have seen have been 20inch plus and way over 30kg. Perhaps their heights and weights are creeping up just like staffs.

that over standard for amstaffy

Check out this Aussie Amstaff breeder. Boasting they have big dogs,

http://www.diamondcrosskennels.com/Males/index.html

There dogs are all way over 23 inches and around 40kg. I think this is the way Amstaffs are headed (here in oz at least). I don't think you would readily find a 17 inch 25kg Amstaff in Aus. On the other hand most staffys are around this size, 16-17 inches and 20-25kg.

am i the only who thinks those dogs and weights do not match? none of them look like the weight it says.....

you could be right ella look liek a bad breeder to me 22" amstaffy FFS that a seize of american bull dog

Agree Ella!

Jazz 42kg!

My 11 month old tomorrow baby has just been measured as 18" to the shoulder. He is leggy and lean and to be honest I prefer that look.

His dad is a tank, but his mum is leggier and leaner, and I always suspected that Kuchar isn't 100% Staff.

Not that THAT bothers me and I would love it if he matures into a lean leggy individual without an enormous head.

OMG Diamondcross Kennels They probably are lying about the size of the dogs They are shonks, not trying to better any breed just trying to breed em bigger... Their slogan is even "Breeding the largest Amstaffs"

Oh and if you go onto their webpage and look at the females they have for sale They all have just had recent litters and are all still carrying milk.. They are just a puppy farm with a pretty face!

Steve wrote:you could be right ella look liek a bad breeder to me 22" amstaffy FFS that a seize of american bull dog

definitely a bad breeder! none of them look over 30kg to me! some are apparently nearly the size/weight of Chance

Kat75 wrote:Oh and if you go onto their webpage and look at the females they have for sale They all have just had recent litters and are all still carrying milk.. They are just a puppy farm with a pretty face!

A guy a work bought one of their used up females as he just felt so sorry for her Just because they don't have cages stacked on top of each other and filthy doesn't make them any less of a puppy farm.. If a bitch can't produce massive pups she is no good

And not only are they bad breeders but they are breeding for the wrong type of owner. By this I mean the ones that want big tough looking dogs and who look at their dog as a status symbol.

Caryll wrote:

Harley wrote:I totally understand your point. Increasing the standard height would def see heights creeping up. But does this really matter? Responsible breeders will always breed to standard and anything outside the standard will be deemed so. I just don't like the fact that a balanced 15inch dog is considered superior to a balanced 17 inch dog.

An example. A litter is bred from two top quality, top sized dogs. One particular dog/bitch from the litter is absolutely outstanding, but he/she is over standard. Maybe not by much, but over just the same. So he/she is used at stud/brood and produces more first class pups, but a couple or so of these are also over standard & are used for breeding....etc etc etc.

And don't think that slightly oversized dogs are passed over in the show ring - they're not. Any judge worth his salt will look at height after he has looked at overall quality. If a slightly oversized dog (ie 17") is a good example of the breed he will be placed accordingly. If a dog is too far over the desired height/weight of course it won't be picked, because it isn't a stafford according to the breed standard! And you have to have a standard (a written description of what makes a dog a member of a certain breed) or you don't have a breed!

what you are saying is true, & since desirable was included in the standard exactly what you are saying is happening.
16" to 17"?...hey, it's only an inch....17'' to 18"?...hey, it's only an inch....?....?....?
when people realise ''undesirable'' is the opposite to ''desirable'' the breed will be better off.

altho most ethical breeders still do breed to the 16/38 ethos, i would like to see desirable removed from the standard altogether. define the breed, draw a line in the sand.
i would also like to see the "short foreface" cleary defined. some staffies are getting terribly short in the muzzle department...... nose to stop- stop to occiput is to be 1 as to 2 for e.g..
i don't know where people get this ''short, stocky'' nonsense from either.
a well conditioned staffy is an athlete, fit, well muscled & lb for lb the equal of any dog on the planet.

i wonder if those seemingly wistful about a return to the original standard realise that would instantly disqualify every blue as a staffy.
liver was considered to be blue when that standard was written. so liver/blue was not listed as an acceptable breed colour.

Caryll wrote:

pedro wrote:Am Staffs standard states ''preferable'' height is 19''
there really is no definite height/weight parameters as long as the dog fits the general description with correct proportions. same as the apbt.

I think you'll find that's not quite right......

http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm#breedstd

Size
Height and weight should be in proportion. A height of about 18 to 19 inches at shoulders for the male and 17 to 18 inches for the female is to be considered preferable.

altho abbreviated, the above, from the standard, is pretty much what i said. off the cuff & all.

edit.

being an exhibitor in the terrier ring i probably have an advantage over most here in is as much as i have regular contact with Am Staffs, their owners & their breeders. & have had for a lot of years.
while not claiming to be an expert, i do have a fairly solid knowledge of the breed.

matter of fact the terrier bully breed people spend a lot of time together ''discussing'' the merits of their respective breeds.

the dog in the photo displayed in this thread, a particularly handsome dog for sure, but a staffy? he would, imo, fare far better in the am staff ring than in the staffy ring.

pedro wrote:the dog in the photo displayed in this thread, a particularly handsome dog for sure, but a staffy? he would, imo, fare far better in the am staff ring than in the staffy ring.

I have always said Max is nothing like the show dogs of today despite being 100% pedigree stafford, thats what I like about him, and what I looked for .. a slightly taller athlete of a dog, as my preferred dog of choice is the APBT, tho unfortunately that I could never own one living in the uk .. colour has no bareing on this subject in my opinion

Andy wrote:

pedro wrote:the dog in the photo displayed in this thread, a particularly handsome dog for sure, but a staffy? he would, imo, fare far better in the am staff ring than in the staffy ring.

I have always said Max is nothing like the show dogs of today despite being 100% pedigree stafford, thats what I like about him, and what I looked for .. a slightly taller athlete of a dog, as my preferred dog of choice is the APBT, tho unfortunately that I could never own one living in the uk .. colour has no bareing on this subject in my opinion

freedom of choice.
however, the standard isn't just a ''showdog'' standard, it's the breed standard.
dog shows are the exhibition of the best examples of breed compliant dogs.....breeders being judged by their peers

it doesn't surprise me that you would rather a pittie, i think most who sing the praises of the oversized ''staffy'' share your sentiments.
i makes me bloody angry tho. because the integrity of the breed is suffering .
the little warrior deserves better.

as i said in an earlier topic.
the repealing of the b.s.l laws would be the saviour of the staffy. we would get our dog back.

How many 16 inch 17kg staffys are out there? The smallest male staffy I know of is Tama, a pedigree boy from Highbourne in Richmond. He would be the most true to standard staffy I've seen, but I very much doubt he will be 17kg or less when fully grown as he looks about that now at 9 months. And this is from a breeder who has produced Aust champions.

Just clarifying, Tama is owned by a friend of mine and is not owned by Highbourne, but bred by them.

I think what ever height your staffy is, all long as he/she's balanced that's fine. I do think anything exceding the standard to much is not staffy like. Now Kenny isnt in the current standard, standing 18inch's and 20 kg, (sorry, not sure what that is in pounds)but balacend. And he's placed at every show

Also, in Kenny's defense and to all the big boys and girls out there, who are frowned upon, just remember, your big 18incher was part of the "original" Standard. I do agree tho, anything taller, wouldnt be very staffy like. I feel Kenny is frowned on by some show people because of his size, even tho, his ped has lovely dogs, Varoonic voodoo, bowtmans, Maxta, Wallace the wizard, right back to Gentleman Jim.

A question-
If you know the full ped/family of your dog, it's KC reg, then why are they being born big? Kenny's mam is 16inch and so is his dad, his litter mates are all 16inch, but Ken is 18 inch. The one nobody wanted, yet the best looking out of the litter. The only thing i can think of is, Kenny was apparently the very greedy one

I'm sorry but Wallace the Wizard has to be the best pedigree name I've ever heard

PygmyParrot wrote:I'm sorry but Wallace the Wizard has to be the best pedigree name I've ever heard

It is funny

Andy wrote:I'm lucky cus Max has topped out at exactly the height and weight I kinda always wanted in a staffy (18" and 46Ibs .. LEAN!) he couldnt have been closer to what I wanted if I'd ordered him from Amazon

It's funny, but if Bandit had been an inch taller (18") he'd probably have been a similar weight/build to Max!

kenny d wrote:A question-
If you know the full ped/family of your dog, it's KC reg, then why are they being born big? Kenny's mam is 16inch and so is his dad, his litter mates are all 16inch, but Ken is 18 inch. The one nobody wanted, yet the best looking out of the litter. The only thing i can think of is, Kenny was apparently the very greedy one

If you breed two dogs, no matter what breed, you will get variations in the litter which will throw back to ancestors. So, two 16" staffs (and don't forget that 16" is a top height for a bitch!) will produce pups of various heights, probably between 15" and 18".

If you bear in mind that Kenny's mum was obviously a top sized bitch, it's no real surprise that at least one of the pups takes after her!

Harley wrote:How many 16 inch 17kg staffys are out there? The smallest male staffy I know of is Tama, a pedigree boy from Highbourne in Richmond. He would be the most true to standard staffy I've seen, but I very much doubt he will be 17kg or less when fully grown as he looks about that now at 9 months. And this is from a breeder who has produced Aust champions.

i can't say i have seen any frazer dogs i would say were over 16''

ethical breeders can pretty much guarantee their dogs will match the height standard. weight is a different matter, however, any well bred 16'' staffy male could be made to be 17kg if the owner was so inclined.
i have already said most well presented registered males ''show dogs'' would be around the 19/20 kg mark.
one or two kgs could be taken off. one or two inches can't.

kenny d wrote:Also, in Kenny's defense and to all the big boys and girls out there, who are frowned upon, just remember, your big 18incher was part of the "original" Standard. I do agree tho, anything taller, wouldnt be very staffy like. I feel Kenny is frowned on by some show people because of his size, even tho, his ped has lovely dogs, Varoonic voodoo, bowtmans, Maxta, Wallace the wizard, right back to Gentleman Jim.

these days pretty much every dog goes back to the m line....brindle mick....i think he was jims sire.....all the other foundation lines fell by the wayside.

have you ever measured kenny with a wicket?
& measurement is skeletal....muscle or fat doesn't count.

Caryll wrote:

Andy wrote:I'm lucky cus Max has topped out at exactly the height and weight I kinda always wanted in a staffy (18" and 46Ibs .. LEAN!) he couldnt have been closer to what I wanted if I'd ordered him from Amazon

It's funny, but if Bandit had been an inch taller (18") he'd probably have been a similar weight/build to Max!

kenny d wrote:A question-
If you know the full ped/family of your dog, it's KC reg, then why are they being born big? Kenny's mam is 16inch and so is his dad, his litter mates are all 16inch, but Ken is 18 inch. The one nobody wanted, yet the best looking out of the litter. The only thing i can think of is, Kenny was apparently the very greedy one

If you breed two dogs, no matter what breed, you will get variations in the litter which will throw back to ancestors. So, two 16" staffs (and don't forget that 16" is a top height for a bitch!) will produce pups of various heights, probably between 15" and 18".

If you bear in mind that Kenny's mum was obviously a top sized bitch, it's no real surprise that at least one of the pups takes after her!

Makes sence

pedro wrote:

kenny d wrote:Also, in Kenny's defense and to all the big boys and girls out there, who are frowned upon, just remember, your big 18incher was part of the "original" Standard. I do agree tho, anything taller, wouldnt be very staffy like. I feel Kenny is frowned on by some show people because of his size, even tho, his ped has lovely dogs, Varoonic voodoo, bowtmans, Maxta, Wallace the wizard, right back to Gentleman Jim.

these days pretty much every dog goes back to the m line....brindle mick....i think he was jims sire.....all the other foundation lines fell by the wayside.

have you ever measured kenny with a wicket?
& measurement is skeletal....muscle or fat doesn't count.

No, not sure how to do that

A wicket is basically a 'stand' that you put on the floor & put your dog next to it - it will have a movable horizontal piece at the top which you lower to the dog's withers & measurements on the upright bit.....

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=measuring+wicket+for+dogs&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bpcl=38897761&biw=1016&bih=588&wrapid=tlif135358251371810&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=3AeuUKDBA4SE4gSOw4GoAw

kenny d wrote:

pedro wrote:

kenny d wrote:Also, in Kenny's defense and to all the big boys and girls out there, who are frowned upon, just remember, your big 18incher was part of the "original" Standard. I do agree tho, anything taller, wouldnt be very staffy like. I feel Kenny is frowned on by some show people because of his size, even tho, his ped has lovely dogs, Varoonic voodoo, bowtmans, Maxta, Wallace the wizard, right back to Gentleman Jim.

these days pretty much every dog goes back to the m line....brindle mick....i think he was jims sire.....all the other foundation lines fell by the wayside.

have you ever measured kenny with a wicket?
& measurement is skeletal....muscle or fat doesn't count.

No, not sure how to do that

the easiest way, altho not 100% accurate, is to make up a t-square type arrangement with the underneath of the cross piece 16'' up the vertical, 18 or what ever.
place the vertical next to his front leg with the cross piece across his back.
that will give you a pretty good idea of his height.

pedro wrote:the easiest way, altho not 100% accurate, is to make up a t-square type arrangement with the underneath of the cross piece 16'' up the vertical, 18 or what ever.
place the vertical next to his front leg with the cross piece across his back.
that will give you a pretty good idea of his height.

It has to be across the withers, not the back.

If i done it to his back, he'd be alot taller than 18inch lol

A lot of people have mentioned amstaffs, our neighbour in france has a pedigree amstaff bitch she is a good 2" taller than olly hes about 18 the male amstaffs ive seen are bigger still ,ive never seen an amstaff in britain just big crossbreeds, to see real pitbulls you should watch pitbulls and parolees on animal planet ,they look nothing at all like staffies they are huge ,tall i mean.and they seem nice dogs but i suppose its down to who owns them.

harlou wrote:ive never seen an amstaff in britain just big crossbreeds,

That's because they are a banned breed.

yes i know but why do people say they have one when they look nowt like them

because people think they will be 'cool and 'ard' if they have a banned breed

harlou wrote:yes i know but why do people say they have one when they look nowt like them

Because they think it's big of them to have a banned dog!

I prefare the standard now to reflect a good example for the breed. 17kg and less than 16 inches with all the bits in all the right places a sight to see

Caryll wrote:

pedro wrote:the easiest way, altho not 100% accurate, is to make up a t-square type arrangement with the underneath of the cross piece 16'' up the vertical, 18 or what ever.
place the vertical next to his front leg with the cross piece across his back.
that will give you a pretty good idea of his height.

It has to be across the withers, not the back.

right.
the withers.....the top of the shoulders.....which is the highest point on his back.

harlou wrote:A lot of people have mentioned amstaffs, our neighbour in france has a pedigree amstaff bitch she is a good 2" taller than olly hes about 18 the male amstaffs ive seen are bigger still ,ive never seen an amstaff in britain just big crossbreeds, to see real pitbulls you should watch pitbulls and parolees on animal planet ,they look nothing at all like staffies they are huge ,tall i mean.and they seem nice dogs but i suppose its down to who owns them.

I weatch that show too and your right, the pits there are nothing like the ones here.

He got measured at a show by a mate, but i will try doing it this way

pedro wrote:

Caryll wrote:

pedro wrote:the easiest way, altho not 100% accurate, is to make up a t-square type arrangement with the underneath of the cross piece 16'' up the vertical, 18 or what ever.
place the vertical next to his front leg with the cross piece across his back.
that will give you a pretty good idea of his height.

It has to be across the withers, not the back.

right.
the withers.....the top of the shoulders.....which is the highest point on his back.

To be pedantic, the withers aren'e a part of the dog's back - it's where bottom of the neck vertebrae meet the top of the shoulder blades. The back starts behind the withers.

Caryll wrote:

pedro wrote:

Caryll wrote:

pedro wrote:the easiest way, altho not 100% accurate, is to make up a t-square type arrangement with the underneath of the cross piece 16'' up the vertical, 18 or what ever.
place the vertical next to his front leg with the cross piece across his back.
that will give you a pretty good idea of his height.

It has to be across the withers, not the back.

right.
the withers.....the top of the shoulders.....which is the highest point on his back.

To be pedantic, the withers aren'e a part of the dog's back - it's where bottom of the neck vertebrae meet the top of the shoulder blades. The back starts behind the withers.

Thats how Kenny was measured

Caryll wrote:

pedro wrote:

Caryll wrote:

pedro wrote:the easiest way, altho not 100% accurate, is to make up a t-square type arrangement with the underneath of the cross piece 16'' up the vertical, 18 or what ever.
place the vertical next to his front leg with the cross piece across his back.
that will give you a pretty good idea of his height.

It has to be across the withers, not the back.

right.
the withers.....the top of the shoulders.....which is the highest point on his back.

To be pedantic, the withers aren'e a part of the dog's back - it's where bottom of the neck vertebrae meet the top of the shoulder blades. The back starts behind the withers.

the withers are the top of the scapula,

my boy had a compressed vertebrae that was barely visible on the xray because it was shielded by the scapula.

so if the backbone begins forward of the scapula, which it does, the withers will do me as part of the back.