Blues

Blue Staffies are GORGEOUS looking dogs - they really do look almost blue (unlike the "blue" Dobermanns (the breed I had before my Staff) which were just very thin-coated blacks)

Is it my imagination, or are blues becoming more and more common because they are so sought after? A LOT of the puppies posted recently are blue.

They are beautiful and I initially wanted a blue staffy. I found my breeder and looked at the sire and dam...and I forgot all about blues. Still, they are great looking dogs.

They are good looking staffs.. But they are not great examples of the correct breed. A lot of them are poorly bred tbh and some don't look like staffs at all.

But you've got a blue Jason, and a lovely looking dog he is too.

Yeah they are becoming very popular . Not really my cup of tea but that's more to do with with the fact that all the ones I've seen here in Ireland are poorly breed and very far from the breed standard because they are just breed for colour and to make money .which makes me sad

we were after a blue staffy, but the prices (£600/£1000) were ridiculous...

Lynda wrote:But you've got a blue Jason, and a lovely looking dog he is too.

ah yes thankyou Lynda. Ramsey Was bred very well with a decent background so he does look decent in my eyes but if im honest some blue staffs are not great examples of the breed.
I love all staffs but i understand why some dont like blues.

Good example
http://www.stamtavler.com/dogarchive/details.php?id=124715

bad example
http://www.stamtavler.com/dogarchive/details.php?id=139330

Both gorgeous blue staffs but they dont look alike. Some blues are inbred quite alot which i HATE.

what a coincidence, bumped into a valglo dog today over enville common (west mids) it was 2 yrs old and black, but it was the best staffy i've ever seen, damn near perfect, we chatted for a while and went on our way, superb dog believe me...

i can imagine mate. valglo is a good bloodline

Blues are gorgeous such a cool colour, and whenever I've seen pictures of them, they always look like their coats are fuzzy and soft. Problem is, people exploit that interest in the colour. I mean, it is just a colour, but all the blue puppies I looked at where ridiculously expensive (or maybe that's because of all the champions or something), and almost all of them were bred from two blue parents. Admittedly this was on one of those pet sites, and there are plenty of good breeders out there, but irresponsible people who are in it for profit are going to up the price on their puppies just because they're a more sought-after colour.

yeah. Puppy farmers who are selling at high prices just because they are very popular at the moment. When there are too many blues they will no longer be popular. I hope Blues start being bred more with other colours to make the blue gene more of a better example

Lynda wrote:Blue Staffies are GORGEOUS looking dogs - they really do look almost blue (unlike the "blue" Dobermanns (the breed I had before my Staff) which were just very thin-coated blacks)

Is it my imagination, or are blues becoming more and more common because they are so sought after? A LOT of the puppies posted recently are blue.

I've nothing against blues, however the colour is basically a poor black (dilute of black = blue, dilute of red = blue fawn). The colour isn't rare, in fact more than 50% of all pups registered with the KC last year were blue. So, any breeder that charges more for a blue pup is ripping you off!

Jason wrote:yeah. Puppy farmers who are selling at high prices just because they are very popular at the moment. When there are too many blues they will no longer be popular. I hope Blues start being bred more with other colours to make the blue gene more of a better example

There are already too many blues. I have nothing against the colour, but they are being bred so highly that there are very few brindles/reds/pieds coming through. Why do you wants even more blues? It's a dilution of colour and as such it produces so very many skin problems.

Caryll wrote:

There are already too many blues. I have nothing against the colour, but they are being bred so highly that there are very few brindles/reds/pieds coming through. Why do you wants even more blues? It's a dilution of colour and as such it produces so very many skin problems.

i never said i 'want more blues' and i havnt defended the blues.. alot of people like yourself have an issue with the blues but it shouldnt be with the colour it should be with the standard build and size i think thats what really matters.

I dont know why alot of people prefer blues at the moment i really dont. I prefer red staffs personally but i really only care about breed standard frame

In Australia the majority of blues are nowhere near standard, especially height and weight. The majority seem to be taller and heavier. I think some blue breeders are opportunistic and have no concept of trying to produce pups true to standard. I have a blue boy and he is 17 inches and 20kg at 9 months. It is a beautiful colour though.

Jason wrote: alot of people like yourself have an issue with the blues but it shouldnt be with the colour it should be with the standard build and size i think thats what really matters.

I really don't have an issue with blues. What I have an issue with is the 'fad' of breeding for blue above all else, and the poor breeding (ie blue x blue) that is going on to produce them.

They have always been around, but have never before been favoured (because it's a dilute colour which can lead to health problems).

Don't make rash statements without the full facts.

yeah thats fair enough and your point is valid and fact.. But your boldness sounds like because of the fad you insult the colour, which fair enough is a throw back but as i said it should be about the build people care about and not the colour.

Where have I insulted the colour?

There are too many blues being registered at the moment, that's something that cannot be denied! When a dilute colour makes up more than 50% of total registrations, that's too many!

It doesn't help that most of those registrations are pups from litters that have been bred with no though to health or Standard, but purely for colour.

Caryll wrote:
There are too many blues being registered at the moment, that's something that cannot be denied! When a dilute colour makes up more than 50% of total registrations, that's too many!

It doesn't help that most of those registrations are pups from litters that have been bred with no though to health or Standard, but purely for colour.

I totally agree with you on this. But either we ditch the blue or we help the blue thats all im saying

That's far too simplistic.

You can't ditch the blue because it's a natural dilution of black and red. Yes, we can 'help' the blues, but only in as much as nobody should breed specifically for blue. All litters should be bred for health/fitness/standard first.

If there are blue genes in the line, then blue pups may be produced, but certainly not on the scale that are being produced now.

Caryll wrote:That's far too simplistic.

You can't ditch the blue because it's a natural dilution of black and red. Yes, we can 'help' the blues, but only in as much as nobody should breed specifically for blue.

this what ditch meant.

Caryll wrote: All litters should be bred for health/fitness/standard first.

If there are blue genes in the line, then blue pups may be produced, but certainly not on the scale that are being produced now.

yeah again i agree.

Jason wrote:

Caryll wrote:You can't ditch the blue because it's a natural dilution of black and red. Yes, we can 'help' the blues, but only in as much as nobody should breed specifically for blue.

this what ditch meant.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here.

What I meant was, you can't get rid of (ditch) blues. However, nobody should breed specifically to get blues. That's bad husbandry. The only absolutely sure way to produce blue pups is to mate blue to blue, and this is fraught with problems. The main problem has to be CDA (colour dilution alopecia) and this is a common affliction in dogs that have 2 blue parents. But to breed solely for colour will dilute the breed standard and produce pups that do not match the ideal of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

I repeat that I have nothing at all against blues. I've seen some really cracking blues, some of them belong to forum members!

I dont think it matters about colour really as long as they are healthy and decent dogs thats good enough for me

I quite agree. My problem isn't with the dogs or their colour, it's with the breeders who deliberately breed for blue without any regard for health problems, and then charge higher prices for a 'rare' colour that is actually more common than any of the other colours put together!

There seems to be a hell of a lot of blue pups out there in dodgy world and I bet if you looked at all the non registered breeders it a lot more than 50% with them alone , it almost seems to be if its not blue its not worth having so these poor breeders don't want to take the risk that half the litter may not be worth anything to them so go the blue / blue route and at the end of the day it all goes back to bad "breeders" and wannabe breeders, we should just go round and shoot the lot.
I personally know a very good breeder that has blues and to a far better standard than some I have seen on private ad sites and she will not charge a penny more for them as in her eyes all of her dogs are beautiful and sometimes they happen to be blue, this is the only way they should ever be bred

We got our blue for 250. Although as she ia gtting older brindle is peeking through! still gorgeous though

Colour does not matter to me , but the price some Blue Breeders are asking is shocking , i phoned one before we got Duke he wanted £700, i asked are these solid Blue he replied i can't guarantee it, i said goodbye .


As far as im aware the Blue's were not recognized by the Kennel Club till the mid 80s ( correct me if im wrong ) as they were seen as a poor Black, some some bright spark made them popular and made a lot of cash as well, i like the Blues but i would not pay what some are asking .

personally i dont believe £700 is too much. Staffs in my eyes are one of the best breeds to have as a pet and i see alot of pointless rubbish breeds at £3000. Chiwawa, King Charles, Bulldogs are just way too much money.

Staffs should be more to stop chavs getting hold of them and treasure them more

I paid far more for Lily as she is blue than Lola. Lola is perfect breed standard where as Lily isn't as she is taller and heavier, but she is still a beautiful Princess. Because of the recent popularity in Blues ther are are more in rescues and shelters which is very sad

Yeah true. You should pay more for better quality examples but we love them all the same

mickgill wrote:Colour does not matter to me , but the price some Blue Breeders are asking is shocking , i phoned one before we got Duke he wanted £700, i asked are these solid Blue he replied i can't guarantee it, i said goodbye .
As far as i'm aware the Blue's were not recognized by the Kennel Club till the mid 80s ( correct me if im wrong ) as they were seen as a poor Black, some some bright spark made them popular and made a lot of cash as well, i like the Blues but i would not pay what some are asking .

As you say here Mick you cottoned on early and the fact is most of these "Blue Breeders" are poorly breeding to get the colour they want and charging a high proportion , it's really up to people to do their research as ther is nothing along with the health checks etc to stop- breeders doing this it's just about people being wise

Jason wrote:personally i dont believe £700 is too much. Staffs in my eyes are one of the best breeds to have as a pet and i see alot of pointless rubbish breeds at £3000. Chiwawa, King Charles, Bulldogs are just way too much money.

Staffs should be more to stop chavs getting hold of them and treasure them more

Jason in the grand scheme of things my dogs are worth millions , in fact they are priceless , simple as . But as you will see reading around you can buy a blue from a good breeder that doesn't breed blue / blue , has all the checks in place and turns out good healthy stock for £600 , this is roughly the market value of a good quality well bred dog , and you will generally pay a bit more when there are numerous champions in the line as people are then selling show stock , it's up to people what they want the pup for. A good Blue is a beautiful looking dog and we have some great examples on this forum but they are not rare or special as everyone wants one now so there are loads out there

Chiara wrote:I paid far more for Lily as she is blue than Lola. Lola is perfect breed standard where as Lily isn't as she is taller and heavier, but she is still a beautiful Princess. Because of the recent popularity in Blues ther are are more in rescues and shelters which is very sad

Simple facts Chiara , Blues have just left the door wide open for the dodgy breeders and a lot of people (no including you) will just assume because a dog is 800 or 900 pounds then it must be really good so they get sold and then people get problems

mickgill wrote:Colour does not matter to me , but the price some Blue Breeders are asking is shocking , i phoned one before we got Duke he wanted £700, i asked are these solid Blue he replied i can't guarantee it, i said goodbye .

As far as im aware the Blue's were not recognized by the Kennel Club till the mid 80s ( correct me if im wrong ) as they were seen as a poor Black, some some bright spark made them popular and made a lot of cash as well, i like the Blues but i would not pay what some are asking .

Nobody can guarantee that a blue pup will remain solid blue into adulthood, so this breeder was actually just being honest. That's not to say the pups were healthy or well bred, though!

Blues have always been recognised & allowed. They were referred to as grey or fawn, though, not blue. Any breed that has black or red will probably get dilutes - blue & fawn.

Jason wrote:personally i dont believe £700 is too much. Staffs in my eyes are one of the best breeds to have as a pet and i see alot of pointless rubbish breeds at £3000. Chiwawa, King Charles, Bulldogs are just way too much money.

Staffs should be more to stop chavs getting hold of them and treasure them more

I think it's to much for a supposed Blue that could turn out brindle Jason , i take your point about chavs it is as well though up to those who breed Staffys not to sell to anyone under a certain age , the couple who bred Duke would not sell a pup to anyone under 35 and they ask and i stress ask all those who did buy one to keep them in touch over the Dogs progress, we of course are very happy to do this , we believe they did not over charged for Duke even without papers and it's the least we can do .

we keep in touch with our breeder and are good friends through FB (one good thing about the FB site) and also all the rest of the litter , even networked to the brothers and sisters of the parents and their litters etc and amazing how many of the dogs are so similar

mickgill wrote:

Jason wrote:personally i dont believe £700 is too much. Staffs in my eyes are one of the best breeds to have as a pet and i see alot of pointless rubbish breeds at £3000. Chiwawa, King Charles, Bulldogs are just way too much money.

Staffs should be more to stop chavs getting hold of them and treasure them more

I think it's to much for a supposed Blue that could turn out brindle Jason.

yeah but that goes for all dogs.. A dog you pay £3000 like the bulldogs is riddled with health issues.

I don't think you can compare with Bulldogs, or any other breed, tbh.

Prices differ according to a breed's popularity and litter size. For example Bull Terriers (standard, KC registered, fully health tested parents) are, on average, in excess of £900.

Bulldogs, who rarely have large numbers of pups & are a relatively small breed (numbers wise) will be more expensive. Not all Bulldogs are riddled with health problems, either - you just need to do your research before you buy.

I'm not comparing the breed..... I'm comparing prices.. People have preferences on what they like and that plays a factor

Yes, but breeders (decent ones) will have one price no matter what colour a pup is.

Lol yeah... I never said they didn't

Blues are gorgeous!! The breeder im gettin off, sire is azure biyou walker and dam is kiamirose aysiz firtine if that makes sense? Dads a blue and mums a brindle both have blue genes.. Sorry if the names wrong I said new to SBT

Well the pup you buy will almost certainly turn brindle - blue brindle

RPN wrote:Blues are gorgeous!! The breeder im gettin off, sire is azure biyou walker and dam is kiamirose aysiz firtine if that makes sense? Dads a blue and mums a brindle both have blue genes.. Sorry if the names wrong I said new to SBT

The mother's very nice! Dad's a bit too inbred for my liking, but nice looking dog.

yeah he is very inbred

first time i was wanted to buy a blue pup but was 800 euro..and i found my may i was very happy was true love when we see him anyway we pay for max 200 euro..and the person who sell us the pup told me if i want papers i must give him another 100 euro...i did not want any papers because i don't take him to dog show is just our baby...was better to have his papers???thx

I like to have the papers because I like to research the ancestry.

If you don't want to show then they're not necessary, but they would at least prove to you that your pup is pure bred. Did your breeders carry out the Health tests necessary? ie did they DNA test for L2 Hga and eye test for HC?

danielirl wrote:first time i was wanted to buy a blue pup but was 800 euro..and i found my may i was very happy was true love when we see him anyway we pay for max 200 euro..and the person who sell us the pup told me if i want papers i must give him another 100 euro...i did not want any papers because i don't take him to dog show is just our baby...was better to have his papers???thx

Litters should be registered if they are pedigree yes. I'd want papers and Im not showing.
To be honest i doubt he sold you a pure breed. My first staff didnt have papers.

Jason wrote:

danielirl wrote:first time i was wanted to buy a blue pup but was 800 euro..and i found my may i was very happy was true love when we see him anyway we pay for max 200 euro..and the person who sell us the pup told me if i want papers i must give him another 100 euro...i did not want any papers because i don't take him to dog show is just our baby...was better to have his papers???thx

Litters should be registered if they are pedigree yes. I'd want papers and Im not showing

I think the papers just give you that little piece of mind extra that you are buying legit and not supporting back yard breeding , daresay most of these breeders that want to charge you and extra amount for the papers are just doing so because they don't have them and it will scare you off , as you think " well I don't need them so why pay more than I need ??"

Dave wrote:

Jason wrote:

danielirl wrote:first time i was wanted to buy a blue pup but was 800 euro..and i found my may i was very happy was true love when we see him anyway we pay for max 200 euro..and the person who sell us the pup told me if i want papers i must give him another 100 euro...i did not want any papers because i don't take him to dog show is just our baby...was better to have his papers???thx

Litters should be registered if they are pedigree yes. I'd want papers and Im not showing

I think the papers just give you that little piece of mind extra that you are buying legit and not supporting back yard breeding , daresay most of these breeders that want to charge you and extra amount for the papers are just doing so because they don't have them and it will scare you off , as you think " well I don't need them so why pay more than I need ??"

yeah spot on. correct

I promised after being naive with Tilly ( no papers and BYB) as rescuing was not an option we would only ever go the legit route again , doesn't make him any better behaved as he can be a proper little sh1t at times but love him to bits and know I have done my best to make sure I'm not supporting scum and trying to ensure Tommy has the best chance I can of a good healthy life

he was bring all his papers..and now i speak with him on Facebook some time we meet to see max..i was with max to see his parents and his brothers,,he is a pure staff..now i thinking to take his papers..he told me that max father was in some dog shows in different city in ireland thx all for telling me that is better to have his papers maybe i want to breed him and i can not without his papers...p.s. i don't breed him for any money and not now he is just a pup

I thought you can't register a non pup