Breed standards obsolete ?

Just wondering if the staffy breed standards aren’t outdated ?

Several times, people are posting about the weight of their (KC registered) staffies but most are above current breed standards. Nifty is almost 8 months old and weighs 15kg830 so she’s already above. She’s balanced type and a good general weight.

In alot of other breeds of domesticated animals, breed standards change.
Isn’t it maybe time that the staffordshire bull terrier breed standards are reviewed too ?

Yeah hank is almost 22kg I think last time we weighed him and he is solid and fat on him at all.

I can't really comment because I see so few dogs that I know are pure bred/KC registered. I do think, though, that you see fewer and fewer breed standard dogs and many more that are significantly above height/weight. Around here they are more than likely to have come from the bloke in the pub for £50, though, so goodness knows what their breeding is.

Pssst.. Liz, wanna buy a pup? I'm in the pub

It makes sense I guess to review breed standards but also there has to be a benchmark and is that the original standard?

Slightly off topic but Flo and me met Lola a Staffy Rotweiler cross in the park today and wow what a looker, you could see the Rottie in her but definitely Staffy, only bigger

-Ian- wrote:

It makes sense I guess to review breed standards but also there has to be a benchmark and is that the original standard

Yes, I agree that there needs to be some kind of standard but to compare to horses, for example, alot of breeds have evolved towards types that are generally a bit taller, often more refined without losing certain traits that are typical of the breed.
Humans are getting taller and heavier, why shouldn’t it apply to our pets too ?

One of the problems with 'bigger' in staffords is the risk posed by BSL.

The 'old' standard was for slightly taller, heavier dogs, but it was revised down many years ago.

At dog shows you will see many, many staffords well within the standard, so it's not true that, in general, staffords are getting bigger! The main problem is poor breeding, or people deliberately breeding for bigger dogs because that's what they 'like'. The resulting pups are obviously outside breed standard, but still registered because their parents were - then the big pups are bred on, without any reference to the 'correct' size/weights. If the standard was changed, those breeders would still breed outside the standard because that's what they like.

Leave well alone & try to keep within the standard - it was written for a purpose & too many breeds have 'evolved' out of all recognition - don't make the stafford one of them!

Gilly what do you mean by leave well alone and try to keep within the standard? If our pups grow to be the weight they are we can’t stop it or have I misread what you intended to put across?

Paris1990 wrote:Gilly what do you mean by leave well alone and try to keep within the standard? If our pups grow to be the weight they are we can’t stop it or have I misread what you intended to put across?

What I mean is don't tamper with the standard. If a dog is well over the standard, don't breed from it. If you (general 'you', not you personally!) breed, don't deliberately breed 'big'.

Obviously, if you have a big stafford, then he's big - nothing wrong with that in itself.

But if you alter the standard, you alter the breed.

Aaaah I get it, we don’t have plans to breed with Hank as of yet but holding off getting him snipped unless we need to for any other reason.

Are our dogs simply overweight, or is there a problem with height vs weight in the breed standard ?
Been researching a little further and found this information


“Weight
1935
Weight. Dogs 28 to 38 lbs. Bitches 4lbs less.

1948
Weight and size - Weight: Dogs, 28lb. to 38lb. Bitches, 24lb. to 34lb. Height (at shoulder), 14in to 16in, these heights being related to the weights.

1987
Weight and size - weight: Dogs 28lbs to 38lbs. Bitches 24lbs to 34lbs. desirable height (at withers), 14 to 16 inches, these heights being related to the weights.

POINTS TO NOTE:

In 1935 the height was included in the General Appearance clause - "standing about 15 to 18 inches high at the shoulder".
Although the weights have never been changed, the height was changed to 14 to 16 inches in 1948.
Both the 1935 and the 1948 Standards describe the height to be measured "at the shoulder" - there is no mention of WHERE on the shoulder the measurement should be taken.
Of course, the 1987 Standard says "at withers" which is a much more definitive point.
In 1987 the term "desirable" was put in front of the word "height".
Since the 1948 Standard the term "these heights being related to the weights" has been included.”


“Note for prospective puppy buyers
Size – the Kennel Club Breed Standard is a guide and description of the ideal for the breed; the Size as described does not imply that a dog will match the measurements given (height or weight). A dog might be larger or smaller than the Size measurements stated in the Breed Standard.”


The only person who has posted here with height/weight within the breed tolerances (38cms vs 11.4kgs) was accused of having an underweight dog with a condition score of 2-3.  
Or is the “terrier type” really the standard of the breed, tall and light weight ?

'Dogs 28lbs to 38lbs. Bitches 24lbs to 34lbs. desirable height (at withers), 14 to 16' (1987 standard)

16 inches is about 40cm, 38lb is about 17kg, so according to that ratio 11.4kg for a 38cm dog is underweight, or are my maths wrong?

But I also think that we are now used to seeing overweight dogs and there is a reluctance to admit that we should do something about it. It's easier to say 'heavy build' rather than 'ooops, overweight!'.

Hold on, I need to convert to metric.

14-16 inches = 35.5 - 40.6 cms
24-34 lbs = 10.9 - 15.4 kgs for female
28-38 lbs = 12.7 - 17.2 kgs for male

Your ratio could indicate underweight but what I meant was that according to breed spec, it could be interpreted as being more correct (as within both height and weight range) than my Nifty or alot of the breeding males out here who are between 38-40 cms but around the 21-22 kgs weight.

None is ideal but is it better to be a little overweight or more underweight ?

Maybe someone out there has a staffy that is within both height and weight ranges that could post a photo of condition ?
I suppose Nifty only has a couple of kgs more than specified.

Nifty staffy wrote: alot of the breeding males out here who are between 38-40 cms but around the 21-22 kgs weight.

Crikey, that's 'chunky'. Chaos (not a full staff) is 54cm and 25kg, very broad neck/shoulders so not equivalent to the terrier type staffie, and he's not underweight. You can't see any body bones although you don't have to press much to feel them. So for a dog to be 14cm shorter but only 3kg lighter it would have to be one heavy set (or overweight) dog!

(please don't now say that Nifty is 40cm and 22kg!)

LizP wrote:
(please don't now say that Nifty is 40cm and 22kg!)

not quite, difficult to tape measure height but around 38cms for just under 16 kgs so a chunky girlie I suppose (needs proof with photos, I know)

Weight is very subjective.

Some people like to see a dog with a little covering (ie you can perhaps see the last rib but no more) but can feel the ribs without pressure. Others like to strip a dog of all fat (ripped), although you can't see prominent pin bones or spine knubs.

Neither are wrong, although the ideal for me is somewhere in between. The Stafford should be very muscular& active, so there should be rolling fat! But a constantly 'ripped' dog isn't healthy (a bit like Mr. Universe), and there's a strain on organs & joints.

Whilst the breed standard is a 'guide', it's also a blueprint for the breed. No judge would place a dog that measured significantly outside the guidelines. Mind you, staffords are not weighed or measured in UK shows, so a bit of leeway will always be given.

I don't think the standards have changed, i think peoples view on the standard has. Most people don't like how the standard "weight" looks...aka ribs possibly being visible in an athletic way. ribs in todays society is a big no no despite it being the healthy weight...same in horses. God forbid you have a horse with a mere hint of a rib...and race horses (the fittest best fed horses in the world no matter what your view on them) are anorexic and abused.

There is a huge difference in skinny ribs, and fit ribs. But the general public don't quite get this at the moment.

I understand what you mean Hayley but when I was told that the good weight was “not to see the ribs but to feel them when you run your hand over them”, how are you supposed to interpret that ?
Especially when you’re a novice ?

I think Nifty wouldn’t be a neglect case with a little less weight so I have reduced her kibble. Maybe it’s like alot of humans and that winter is a bad time as we’re a little less active ?

Again, I think it's subjective & comes down to personal preference.

A dog that you can feel the ribs of isn't unhealthy, but may not be at peak fitness. A dog that you can see the ribs of may be healthy, but may not be muscular dso not at peak fitness.

It's like the Standard - down to interpretation.