NuggyWuggy

HOT * Answers my questions and gives plenty of information. * Has researched the breed and especially knows it's vices, not just what they like about them. * Is willing to wait for a pup. * Demonstrates an understanding of the importance of training. NOT * Avoids answering questions or gives one word answers when more is obviously required. * Expects to pay a price that is no where near the general range for the breed. * Wants a perfect pup that won't do the naughty things their last dog did. I answer all enquiries, and my biggest NOT is a breeder who does not answer - absolute disgrace!

I was walking my female SBT and was stopped by a guy who wanted me to let his "purebred miniature staffy" have pups with her so that he would stop humping peoples legs. He apparently cost thousands of dollars and has papers, but he was a miniature and only would stand as high as my bitch's elbows. He said I could do whatever I liked with the pups, he didn't care, he just wanted his dog to stop humping people and was convinced this would solve the problem.

My suggestion would be to find an opportunity to have a general conversation with one or both of the parents - suss them out and maybe get an idea of how they feel about dogs to start with, and that might give you a better idea of how best to approach the situation. If you bring up the kids teasing your dog, I personally would say that I was more worried about my dog barking because of it, and disturbing the peace in the neighbourhood. I think if you say that you are worried because you don't want their kids to get bitten, the parents might get defensive and think your dog is savage and threaten to do all sorts of things to it if it ever touched their kids. It could be just that they have no idea their kids are doing it and will be shocked and embarrassed, and reprimand their kids for it straight away. But if they don't like dogs they might be inclined to get their back up about it. I'd also try and catch the kids in the act, and nicely but firmly tell them that you don't like what they are doing and neither does your dog - tell them if you see them do it again you will have to talk to their parents about it. Just remember that unless you are in a position to pack up and move should things turn ugly, you may have to deal with neighbours that hate you and your dog because of how you handled the problem, so always be nice, polite and humble about it, and don't paint your dog as being unpredictable and possibly savage (whether he was provoked or not would probably make no difference in the laws eyes should he snap). Getting angry and giving them a mouth full will only make things worse for you and your dog. If you want to avoid dealing with the neighbours all together then maybe another fence to keep him away from them or extend the one that's there so they can't poke their heads or sticks over it.

I and many others, don't feel comfortable desexing puppies prior to leaving for their new homes. There's ample documentation as to why not Sigh - I get so tired of this - in some breeds - especially large breeds - it is not feasible/advisable/responsible to spey/neuter at 8 weeks....for those with breeds where it is safe - great...for those of us who don't have that luxury pls stop implying we are irresponsible for not doing so.... I can understand how you feel and rightly so but for those breeders who are putting in place desexing contracts that state " desexing at 6 months " , there is no difference between doing it at 6 months or 8 weeks. The benefits of delaying desexing, don't come into play that early. Desexing upon maturity , is altogether different to desexing at 8 weeks or 6 months From what I can see from my research, there is a significant increase in the incidence of incontinence problems in females desexed at eight weeks than there is in those desexed at six months, as well as a few other things that are concerning to me. Most of the homes that my pups go to like to have the dog indoors most of the time and I could see incontinence problems becoming a big issue - apparently it's difficult to treat and expensive, and people end up surrendering the dog in the end. I've never had these issues with pups desexed at six months and would like to keep it that way. Despite still getting enquiries from people who want to breed the dog, the desexing contract works well for me. If I need to rehome a dog that is over six months old, I desex it before it leaves.

Sigh - I get so tired of this - in some breeds - especially large breeds - it is not feasible/advisable/responsible to spey/neuter at 8 weeks....for those with breeds where it is safe - great...for those of us who don't have that luxury pls stop implying we are irresponsible for not doing so.... My thoughts exactly. I've done my research about this matter and have decided against it at the present time.

Well thanks to everyone for the feedback. The constructive criticism was helpful, though it's nice to see that some of you like my original response It's hard to find a balance I think - if you don't reply you are rude, if you reply but don't explain your reasons you are unfair, and if you reply and explain your reasons you are judgemental.

Just to give a little more information, before people begin to fill in the form on my website, it is explained to them that the pup MUST be desexed at six months of age and it CANNOT be bred - this is also stated elsewhere on my site....I also offer people the option of stating that they want the pup as a family pet, but would like to begin showing/breeding etc. I also explain to them the purpose of the form. Now, based on feedback here, I have also added that if people would like to get involved in these things I will be happy to assist. I don't just leave contact with people filling in a form, this is just the beginning...

Well I don't want to come across as judgemental or turn people against registered breeders....I was hoping by saying the things I did, the person would see what could happen if I let my pups go without requiring desexing - not specifically to them but in general, and also open their eyes to how much work a responsible breeder puts into a litter and unless they are willing to do the same they shouldn't bother at all. So maybe next time I should just say that my pups are to be desexed, but if they want to learn about how to become a responsible breeder I can offer some assistance.

I recently had a puppy enquiry via a form on my website, and in part, here were some of the questions and this particular persons answers: "03 - If the pup/dog is for Show, or Breeding, which State or Territory controlling body are you a member of and/or what is your breeder's prefix? (If not just put N/A) = n/a 04 - If you don't want the pup/dog for Breeding and/or Show, will you have it desexed at 6 months of age, and have you made financial arrangements for this? = No 05 - Why have you chosen a "said breed", and what do you know about the breed? = n/a we would like a female "said breed" to add to our family, with the possibility of having 1 litter of pups before desexing" I replied with: "Hi ...... Thankyou for your recent enquiry, unfortunately I will not have any pups available for you. As I am a responsible breeder, I require all people who purchase a pup from me to sign a contract agreeing to desex their dog at six months of age to prevent it being bred by someone who isn't willing to become a registered breeder and test for hereditary diseases as well as selecting only the best dogs to make up future generations. I am determined to protect all dogs I breed from back-yard-breeders and puppy-farmers. I also like to see that people who want to own one of my "said breed" know something about the breed and also why they have chosen this breed. People all too often buy a particular breed without knowing the requirements to properly care for them, and the dog ends up at the pound when it becomes too much to handle. However, I do understand that you may well love and care for your pet, I just won't let my dogs be bred by someone who isn't fully aware of their responsibility toward the breed. I'm sure you will find what you are looking for elsewhere, as there are plenty of breeders who don't care what happens to the pups they breed as they are only interested in money. Regards......." They replied with: "Wow! Thanks for the judgment!" This made me rather cranky as I thought I explained myself well, so I replied: "My reasons stated for not selling my pup to someone who is not willing to desex it at six months of age are general and weren't specific to your situation, unless of course you feel they are. Based on your answers to my questions, you want to breed the dog at least once although you are not a member of your states Canine Controlling Body, you are not a registered breeder of "said breed" and therefore do not have a breeders prefix. You cannot tell me why you have chosen the breed or what you know about it. Do you know the Breed Standard and based on it, what dog you would use to sire the litter? Do you know what diseases they may be affected by and require DNA testing for before breeding, what age to breed them, how much it costs (sometimes the bitches life) if something goes wrong. As for the resulting pups, what would you do with them? Would you require any you didn't keep to be desexed at six months of age so they didn't end up in the hands of a puppy-farmer or the like, being bred year after year? Say your one litter resulted in four female pups, which you sell to people who also breed one litter resulting in four female pups each, and they in turn all breed one litter resulting in the same amount of female pups and so on - now all MY hard work of studying and learning and DNA testing and careful planning to produce a litter for the purpose of improving the breed has been undone. Until you put in the hard work I have, and have to sort through the people to find the best possible home for your precious pups that you are responsible for, please don't assume my determination to be a responsible breeder is judgement." So....was I too harsh?

Thanks guys!

Would someone be able to give me a rough idea of the general maintenance costs for a Stafford, thanks.

I thought so too GayleK. Your post is about changing the standard by which dogs are bred and judged and gain titles. If you have no interest in showing why do you care what the breed standard says? There have been many thousands of blues bred in Australia and the UK in the last few years yet you can count the number who have won anything in the show ring, let alone gained their title, on the fingers of one hand. Do you honestly believe this is ONLY because the standard requires a black nose? Blues have won in the UK. Blues have won in Australia. Blues have won under specialists in both the UK and Australia. The standard says nose black yet these dogs still won...... so where do you really think the problem lies - with the standard's odd requirement for a black nose regardless of colour which is obviously not strictly adhered to (otherwise no blue would ever have won anywhere) or perhaps there is some other explanation for this almost total lack of success? When the majority of people who breed blues get their act together and show they actually want to breed good quality healthy Staffords, then perhaps they will get support to have the standard changed. I don't recall ever having said that I have no interest in showing, where did you pull that one from?? I certainly don't believe that the reason why there are only a few blue SBT's that have had success in the show ring is because of the Standard requiring a black nose - but I do think that the fact that they have had success despite this shortcoming should indicate that they can't be completely woeful. I think that the reason why there are SO many blue SBT's being bred and so few having success in the show ring, is because the majority of blue's being bred are purely for making money - these dogs don't go to shows. But I refuse to heap all those that own, breed, or show blue SBT's in the same basket - I think the fact that some are exhibited and have success indicates that their owners/breeders are in some way different from the money hungry ones who simply do not care about the quality of their dogs. Why would they bother exhibiting their dogs otherwise - they know they could make $2000+ on a pup without the mum or dad being a champion or even having stepped foot in a show ring. I definitely acknowledge the general lack of quality in the blue SBT's, and I never denied that. What I refuse to believe is that even those ones that have been exhibited and had success, are also poor quality - their title means nothing simply because they are blue.

I think you would be less confused if you had actually read and understood my original statement instead of taking one part and using it out of context.. my original answer to you was... I would have a look at the blues which are champions and study their actual virtues. Then have a look at their show record - have they ever won in top company, have they ever been placed at a breed speciality, what is the standard of competition they have been shown against. The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality. The bolded bits are the really relevant bits to the point I was making, not your fixation on titles :rolleyes: Oh dear....ok Sandra777, thanks so much for clearing that up, I guess I just had so much trouble seeing past my fixation on titles ( Ha, I just realised this topic has nothing to do with titles....hmmm, maybe I should rename it!) that I failed to actually read and understand your original statement - it probably has something to do with my very little experience with conformation showing! How about you let it go now and move on

I'm still confused as to how saying that a dog isn't completely woeful translates to "the bees knees" or "a great example of the breed" ....but there you go. I would imagine that a Grand Champion title is a better indicator of how good a dog is too - I had read on a website that a certain blue Stafford was halfway there at 18mths of age, whether that's true or not who knows. It would be interesting to know then if the blue dogs that have been titled got their points by not ever coming up against another dog or in the worst of company - there are SO many Staffords being exhibited at all the shows I've been to. I guess if it's that easy to get a not completely woeful dog titled, I should have tried it with my boy instead of getting him desexed

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"?? Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing. Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees. Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me. So me thinking that wins and achievements in the show ring leading to a dog attaining Championship status, indicates that a dog can't be completely woeful, automatically means that I have very little experience with conformation showing - nice. What I originally said was that there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful, not that they must be the bees knees or top quality - just not completely woeful. No need for judgements of my experience based on that statement. Believing that a dog can't be completely woeful and still be a champion does in itself indicate a considerable lack of experience. Doesn't it depend on opinions? - obviously the judges that awarded it the wins that lead to it attaining it's title thought it wasn't completely woeful, it doesn't matter if you did - your opinion is not the only one and obviously not the one that matters in those cases. Seen as this topic isn't about my level of experience or yours, I'm not going to bang on about it.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"?? Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing. Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees. Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me. So me thinking that wins and achievements in the show ring leading to a dog attaining Championship status, indicates that a dog can't be completely woeful, automatically means that I have very little experience with conformation showing - nice. What I originally said was that there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful, not that they must be the bees knees or top quality - just not completely woeful. No need for judgements of my experience based on that statement.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

Ofcourse not, I never expected it would - sending an email got me the information I was after though, just because it wasn't what I would have liked to hear doesn't make it a complete waste of time.

Sure, that's fine with me.

Someone has hit it right on the nose... so to speak... *grin* There are quite a few reasons why Blue is not fully integrated into the standard for Staffords... T. True, there are many other reasons why breeders stay clear of the blue dogs, though I'm focusing on the nose colour issue in this topic. I'm sure I read in another topic a while ago where a breeder said if the Standard was changed and blue noses accepted, they would consider adding a good qualty blue to their breeding program (and there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful), from what I can gather this particular breeder is ethical - so my question is more directed at those breeders that feel this way, and whether or not what I was told via the email is enough for them to consider a blue dog.

I thought the same thing. There are plenty of other indicators as to whether the nose is blue or black anyway, seen as all of the eumelanin in the nose, coat, eyes, etc has been affected in the case of a blue Stafford - there'd be no black on the dog anywhere. The reply is frustrating and I would like to pursue it, but the way I understand it is that I would need all the state member bodies of the ANKC to support it and push for it too otherwise I wouldn't get much further than where I am now.

Shortstep, I'm just glad that they have progressed from saying that blue Staffords can have black noses and do, to acknowledging that this is infact genetically impossible. Whether they like them or not, who knows, I just think they are happy with the way things are otherwise they would do something about it.

I know there are always heaps of discussions here about blue coloured Staffords, the breed Standard requiring a black nose but this being genetically impossible etc. Well I wasn't satisfied with this contradicting Standard, so I contacted the ANKC about this and didn't get very far with them - they won't do anything other than what The Kennel Club UK does. I contacted them and didn't get much further - but I decided to contact the SBT Breed Council of G.B. & N.I., and after they raised my question at a Breed Council meeting in March the Public Relations Officer replied to me with this email, in part; "The issue was raised concerning black noses on Blue Staffords, and the following conclusion was reached. Whilst it was accepted that blue dogs cannot have pure black noses genetically but frequently have ones of an extremely dark charcoal colour, this is virtually mpossible to differentiate under normal juding conditions. Furthermore the blackness of a dog's nose may vary visually depending on how wet or dry it is. Thus while recognising an anomaly in the Standard it was felt that no action should be taken. This was accepted by the Breed Council. The Breed Council is not advising any changes to the standard but if you are unhappy with the standard you must seek the support of one of your local Australian Clubs. If the Australian Clubs agreed that a change in the standard were needed this could be sought through your national canine council (not quite sure of how this works in relation to the state councils). Alternatively if the Australian Clubs were unanimous for a change they could open discussions with the Breed Council. These discussion would be largely on an informal basis." So they know the situation, but are not going to do anything about adjusting the Standard. My question is, will the SBT breeders that stay well clear of the blue coloured dogs continue to view matters the same way, knowing that the Breed Council are happy to leave things the way they are as far as the "anomaly" in the Standard is concerned? I personally think that if they just added a note to the Standard, for example, "a dark slate nose is accepted in a dog with a blue coat colour" it would atleast show people that they first of all know that blue Staffords can't have black noses, and secondly that they accept this. Although I'm not satisfied with the contradiction in the Standard, I'm happy to have heard from the horses mouth, so to speak, that the Breed Council are aware of it and they are apparently happy for blue Staffords without black noses to be part of the breed.