I've copied that thank you.
I've also added that the mate must be agreed by us before any mating can take place. Its a pity that once you lift them you have no say on future litters, wish the KC would do something about that

I'm very sorry to hear about your girl Hayley, I know its hard so we both have strong views because of very sad painful experiences

My view on pedigree dogs will never change, as never will yours on the same issue

But I still think no proof of pedigree means a badly breed dog, theres no excuse for this anymore

I dont think that everytime there is no pedigree its a badly bred dogs, maybe its not the correct thing to do, because the term badly bred to me means bad hips, eyes etc.

My views wont change, the pedigrees are important but the kennel club logo on that peice of paper is not to me.

I understand what your saying, we both have had horrible experiences, so its tarnished our views.

Badly bred to me means, apart from people not health testing the dogs;
Dogs that are not bred as close to there breed standard as they can posiably be, as the standard is there for a reason,
and if that certain dog isn't even close to the breed standard then I dont personally see how it can be classed as a certain breed, especially as it doesn't have any proof of its heritage.

If your bitch/dog is not a good standard aswell as clear bill of health you shouldn't be breeding from it in the first place.

Im not saying that this way of breeding will completely stop health issue's,but its going in the right direction

I think the kennel club need to do alot more before they allow pups to be registered, then atleast people will know that if the pup isn't registered then there will be a better reason for it,
and not just because people were only 'selling them as pets'

If there were stricter guidlines there would be less idiots selling badly bred pups for money as there would be less people willing to buy them

The thing is hun, the stafford standard is not set in stone, the dogs DOES not have to be 16/38 ratio, but close to it, because if it did, then could you imagine how many staffords would not meet the mark.

If you breed a 16 inch male at 38 pounds to a 16 inch female at 38 pounds, it is no where near for certain that all the pups will be this height and weight. many show staffords and a alot of winners are and have been 17 inches and weighed more or less.

I think you will find it very hard in this stafford game to find any breed weather its show, pet, athletic or otherwise that breed to the 16/38 (new standards) or the 15-18/38 (old standards!!!) with every single dog they own. Many show breeders do stud or mate their over or under standard dog.
Personally as long as its close to it, I dont have a problem.

The wonderful thing about Staffords are they come in all different shapes and sizes, suiting many different people.

A nice 15 inch bitch is no better than a 18 inch bitch, just like a nice 16 inch male is no better than an 18 inch male.

Courses for horses and all that.

Just a friendly question clair, if seren makes it over 16 inches (remember this is top height for a male, so ideally 15 inches for the bitch is what judges fancy) would you be disappointed? what you breed her ?

No hayley, I would not be disappointed,
As I no how well seren was bred no matter what hight she was/is.
But I wouldnt breed from her if she was way off standard,thats if I was to breed her, I dont unless she has some exceptional quality that I think would benefit the stafford bloodlines I would NEVER breed from seren

Owned both and had so much love from both so cannot choose at all. Cross breeds selling for more than pedigree here!!!! 2nd generation labradoodles £7-- - £800!!! A Staffy £400, crazy

That I will agree with

Having read the "inbreeding" discussion it slightly puts you off having a "pedigree" dog and unless the KC make health testing of parents mandatory and have stricter breeding regulations then a KC registration isn't really an indication of quality.
I imagine there are dubious characters breeding KC reg puppies as there is non-KC reg.

I remember hearing an opinion a while back that Pedigree dogs were inbred and had more health problems than a non pedigree dog.I have also heard the opinion that mongrels live longer.

Plus Not all non-pedigree dogs are bred by "BYB" or are "badly Bred"

If I am buying a puppy/dog of a specific KC recognised breed it will always be KC registered, not the perfect guarantee there isn't such a thing but a great deal better than buying a pure breed dog from someone who doesn't bother to register their puppies or sign up to the KC / breeders code of ethics. If a litter of puppies belonging to a KC recognised breed isn't KC registered why is this, has the breeder got something to hide?

If I am not concerned about having a particular breed I will get a rescue dog, I would never pay for a cross breed or unregistered dog other than in the form of a donation to a rescue.

Edited to add..(I hesitate to use the word 'pedigree' and would rather say purebred *whatever* (as opposed to cross breed /mixed breed dog) because a dogs 'pedigree' can be defined as a line or list of ancestors and all dogs have these)