steve11

I dont see that banning these breeds is any worse than banning any other breed. ALL BSL is totally ridiculous & indefensible.

Thanks thats constructive

I havn't read every post as i am working so sorry if some of what i have to say has already been stated, but i just had to reply. I remember writing to the Daily Telegraph about 2 years ago regarding a similar article & their so called official list. They had the no.1 dog in attacks listed as 'Staffordshire Terriers' & in the same list had Staffordshire Bull Terriers listed at no.19!!. As i pointed out to them in my letter what exactly is classed as a Staffordshire Terrier as there is no such breed. I recieved no reply of course as these idiots have no knowledge on the subjuct at all. As a SBT owner/exhibitor for the past 30 years i have had an absolute gutfull of any crossbred dog with a short coat & rose ears being referred to an a 'Staff'. I love most breeds & this includes the APBT but it seems quite obvious to anyone who pays attention that as soon as the legislation regarding the APBT came into being almost overnight there was all of a sudden all these Staffs. Call me cynical but its a fact. It also seems that the majority of APBT & APBT crossbreeds owners are now happy to simply call their dogs 'Staffys'. Hell i even had a guy down the park tell me his 'rednose' APBT was a Staff last week & he was shocked that i didn't agree with him. A lot of these owners are also calling their dogs Amstaffs (the show version of the APBT) which i think is partly responsible for rulings such as that in QLD recently. Its not the APBT owners fault as the stupid BSL has left them with no other choice but to lie about their breed if they want to own them. In my opinion most of these 'attacks' are poorly bred crossbreeds owned by idiots. If your dog doesn't have papers how can you say what breed it is? Also what constitutes an attack? if we are talking about dogs fighting with other dogs thats a completely different problem to dogs attacking people & should be treated completely different. Ive known plenty of Staffords in my time that will happily fight back if your dog provokes it but never met a Stafford that was anything but loving towards people (thats why they are such a useless breed as a guard dog). Ive also noticed that most of the toy breeds in my neighbourhood are the ones that try to provoke my dogs when im walking them, whether this an insecurity issue or simply that these owners just laugh it off & dont reprimand their dogs because they're 'just little dogs'. The other problem dogs in my area are the ones that are behind a fence & never see the light of day, they are largely ignored by their owners to such a degree that they become bored & sometimes agressive. The owner is the blame in attacks of any sort, not the breed & as such the owner should be the one punished & if necessary the dog/s concerned, not the breed that the said dog/s may happen to resemble. I can't see why that is so hard for people to understand. Imagine if there was a certain type of car involved in more accidents, do we then ban that type of car or any car resembling it? If a certain type of characteristic to humans meant they were to be banned would we allow that? oh wait we already did, anyone remember a certain Mr Hitler? Ok i may be stretching the point but this whole BSL thing is absolute madness..

how about this huge Neo....

I feel for all concerned but since the Husky is not on the list how would this have helped anything. As for the validity of such lists further research shows that pitbulls/am staffs & any crossbreed resembling said breeds is called a Staffordshire Bull Terrier which they most certainly are NOT. This lack of knowledge regarding breeds & crossbreeds by the list makers & supposed experts is another example of why BSL is a farce.

& so say all of us...

When you say staffies i assume you are referring to American Staffordshires not Staffordshire Bull Terriers???? I'd hate to think there are still people out there that are so ignorant as to make comment on the breeds whilst knowing absolutely nothing about said breeds.

pm sent but dont know if it went. Most of my better books i have had for near 20 years or longer & they are out of print, banned or just hard to locate. Try TFH publications or basically anything by DR Carl Semencic, Mike Homan or Richard F Stratton. I would start with Ebay in the US. Definitely the better stuff you will need to search for online. I am a long time SBT fancier/breeder/exhibitor but have had first hand experience with others of the 'fighting breeds' and the history of these incredible dogs is very interesting indeed.

Yes thats basically the history. I have loads of books & info on the subject but wont burden you with it here. They were the one/same breed until the mid 1930's when a show version of the Pitbull was established and they have been a seperate breed ever since. Im not a Pitbull or Amstaff breeder/fancier but i do feel badly for those that will be affected by this decision.

Dont know how many of you have read this but the ramifications could be huge. http://www.dognewsaustralia.com.au/

We feel for you. Truly sorry for your loss.

This sounds like a statement from an idiot who has done no research into the facts (similar to the dribble newspapers like to sprout). Some breeds do indeed attack more than others but look at the percentages & you will be surprised by the breeds involved, & don't group "crossbreeds" with anything other than a "crossbreed". I work out in the field visiting various premises everyday & from experience agree that as stated previously it is indeed the small insecure dogs that will bite most often. Have you also noticed when you walk your dog it is inevitably the small toy type dogs which are yapping & snapping & pulling to get at you & your dog but this behaviour is dismissed by the owner as nothing, yet if you own a medium or larger breed & it exhibits any untoward behaviour you are treated like a criminal of sorts. As for certain breeds attracting "dangerous owners", banning a certain breed will just make that breed more desireable to such people. Even if you are able to remove a breed by BSL don't you think these "owners" will just move on to another breed then another then another...etc, or simply crossbreed as they have been doing recently. Another thing i don't understand is the confusion between dogs that are agressive towards people & dogs that are agressive towards dogs, these 2 problems are rarely related, nor are the breeds of dog involved. Finally the statement that dog breeds have no ethical right to exist leaves me with the simple response that neither do idiots but we don't go round banning them (maybe we should.lol).

Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation regarding this (including info in this thread). For the record the APBT & American Staffordshire Terrier were EXACTLY the same breed up until the 1930's when APBT enthusiasts in a desire to create a show version of the breed started breeding selected examples of the APBT that fitted a certain criteria & decided on the name of American Staffordshire Terrier for the 'new breed'. They have been 2 seperate breeds ever since but are still 'basically' the same dog. As a matter of interest the APBT breed was not able to be registered with the AKC so the UKC was set up entirely for the purpose of registering the APBT with a kennel club & for some time various dogs were dual registered as an APBT with the UKC & as a American Staffordshire Terrier with the AKC. As for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, he is an entirely different breed altogether but unfortunately due to misinformation is being tarred with the same brush. I have been a SBT owner/exhibitor for the past 25 years & have had known quite a few Amstaff's & APBT's owners over the years, i also have a veritable library of books on the various 'bull breeds' which i am a fan of. Altough this is a very basic & brief outline of the 'true' history i hope it goes some way to explaining the facts!...

Totally agree. ... As an owner/exhibitor of pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terriers for the past 25 years i am amazed at what people are calling Staffs' these days. IMO for a dog to be classed as a certain breed you must be able to show that the dog in question is in fact that breed (ie pedigree papers), just labelling a dog a Staff or whatever because Joe down the pub or Bob the backyard breeder said it is, is a pathetic farce. As for the 'dangerous dogs list', they list Staffordshire terriers as a breed (there is no such breed!... it is either a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or an American Staffordshire Terrier) & these are the supposed experts..?.what a joke. As for crossbreeds, once a breed is crossed with any other breed it is no longer a reprensentation of the former breed & should be treated/labelled entirely as a crossbreed regardless of its origins. BSL is a kneejerk reaction at best & like many decisions/laws based on kneejerk reaction is poorly researched & not at all useful.