at the end of the day all dogs have teeth and in the wrong hands and trained to do so can be aggresive and cause damage, i had to have surgery on my finger the other week, because for some bizarre reason i ended up with my finger in my 5 month old springers food bowl, he went right down to the bone and damaged the nerve, he's not even fully grown yet, i have extensive scarring on my arm from a 3 year old springer bitch that we took in that turned on me, a breed that is known for its friendly disposition, not when its been brought up wrong

I think there are irresponsible breeders of all breeds including my own beloved setters, who are going down in numbers and are rarely in rescue.( I am at the moment searching for an older English setter, its like hens teeth, but that is another issue)
I have never had any problems with staffs or bull breeds myself, infact the few times my dogs have been gotten at, its been by springer/cocker spaniel, jrt, terrier and a Flatcoat bowled Remy over, but that was his stupid owners fault, letting him off without recall in place.
It doesn't matter what I do with my beloved dogs, some pillock will go and breed a dog they don't give two hoots over to get their £.... but I am told that I should neuter my boys...!

You have, but I still think it irresponsible for anyone blanket policy or statement, there are always exceptions to the rules, and I think that the owners should get the choice, not be told that they are going to have to get their dogs neutered, and I would be totally against such a measure, thats like saying that every owner is irresponsible and will allow their dogs to breed, people who want to breed will always find a way, even if it means keeping the dogs hidden to do so, as many people see money, not life, apart from that people work their dogs, and they wont know who to breed from for the best until they test their choices, and the dogs prove that, so they may have more dogs then they plan to breed, or people may just have one dog and decide not to breed, after originally planning to breed from them, but they haven't come how they wanted them too, would they too then have to neuter any dog that they decide at some point not to breed, would they have to tell people their choices not to breed, and what happens if they neuter too early to make a good choice and loose a good breeding animal because of a blanket policy if something like what you propose comes about?

My Lurcher is neutered, but I don't think that I will get any more male dogs neutered unless an issue comes up where they need to be, also just going on the operating table can be troublesome for some dogs, the dogs that I own and love have a higher risk on operations because of their type (less body fat etc) yes most come through surgury with no problems, but if I have a dog that behaves well, and has no medical issues that require him to be neutered, I should put him under for a op that he doesn't need? A risk that he doesn't need? Why? I wouldn't breed from a Lurcher or any type of sighthound, but not breeding to me isn't a good enough reason to neuter, its all about personal choice to me, why should someone else be able to tell me that any of my dogs should be neutered when they have done nothing wrong, neither have I?

No there's no easy answer ~ these were just my thoughts/ideas & I admit I hadn't considered the gene pool effects, not being a breeder myself.

I was really directing my thoughts at those people that don't neuter just because they don't want to, can't be bothered too, think that they may want a litter some time in the future, like the macho effect of having a dog with testicles, have anthropomorphic views on neutering etc. With these pet owners (not breeders, responsible or otherwise), just normal dog owners, then I don't see why, outside the exemptions I've already mentioned, these dogs shouldn't be neutered.

The people that are intent on unscrupulous breeding won't give a flying fig about gene pools, ethics or the plight of the puppies they breed. I was just thinking how to make it more difficult for them to get hold of entire dogs for unscrupulous breeding. Obviously it won't happen overnight, but the more we reduce the availability of breeding stock, the less easy it may be for the BYBs & puppy farmers.

As for the gene pool argument, I don't know much about how the KC operates but surely there are registers of these pedigree dogs to prevent inbreeding/hereditary deformities etc? If new "stock" is required to invigorate the breed then I would have though it would be relatively simple task to source a few young suitable male/female dogs & get KC neutering exemption on the grounds that these dogs will be used as part of a responsible breeding programme by responsible & registered breeders? Zoos do it all the time with endangered species. It doesn't seem an insurmountable problem & if it helps alleviate the overcrowded rescue centres & the numbers of sad & distressed unwanted dogs just by causing a bit of extra trouble for decent breeders, then I would have thought this a small price to pay, especially for dog lovers.

I appreciate that I may be naive in these thoughts but I don't know much about breeding so am happy to be corrected.

So if we don't address the Staffie issue because it's breedist what will happen, lots more lovely cute little pups will be born and bought and have around maybe 2 years of life before ending up in rescue and being pts because there are already thousands waiting for a home. The problem will get worse and worse and I for one would rather put a stop to the breeding rather than keep killing innocent dogs. It has nothing to do with them being dangerous, it's about statistics, your average jack russell might be a snappy little b*gger but they seem to find homes quite readily when up for adoption unlike the massive numbers of Staffies who can hang around in kennels for years or end their days at the hands of a compassionate vet.

These poor dogs are vicitims of thier own success and I honestly think the only way to stop it is by taking drastic action for at least 2 years. It won't suit everyone but something has to be done and I think it would need something like a complete ban on breeding staffs or staff types for at least 2 years.
I understand that will cause a big uproar especially for those that are responsible and breed for show purposes. Perhaps there could be a claus that the only pups to be bred of this type are from breeders that are registered with thier local authority and have permission because its for the purpose of showing or such like.
Anyone else breeding a litter will be subject to hefty fines of £1000 or more which will go direct to rescue charities.
This would make the availability of puppies short to just end up in the wrong hands and normal Joe public if they wish to own one of these beautiful dogs would then give a home to one in rescue.
I know round here they are bred by the wrong type of person just for money and no regard to the pups they are also being crossed with Akitas, Shar-peis and mastiffs to try and breed fierce status symbol dog. This would put a stop to that as there would be a special annonymous hotline for people to report too.
It seems over the top but the breed has exploded well over the top and half measures just won't work to stop these people.

My thoughts as well, I dont see why my boys, plus me should be punished, when they are well behaved and I am in the part responsible. I prefer boys I'm afraid, so would always want them and love my setters too...

The trouble with finding people, is they go to court, plead poverty, get a weekly/monthly rate they have to pay (£5) they lapse on the payment, the authorities dont chase it up, they get away with it and start all over again.

That's already happening, so adding being caught breeding dogs to the list won't make a difference to some!!

I think what this is showing that for every idea put forward, there are huge holes in them!

I think one thing that programme did show was the majority of dogs that end up in rescue (not breed rescue) are Staffies and Staffie X`s , almost every dog in battersea and the others was staffie of some kind.. if we could address that problem woudl it help the numbers of unwanted dogs!!! I dont know, but then the responsible breeder will be caught up in that too!

Very good point made about the £5 a week and then lapsing. And a prison sentence these days is an excuse to not be responsible for anything - and in a fair few cases provides the prisoner with better conditions and opportunities than they would have in their own everyday lifestyle.

I also think that like any law or change in procedures there will never be a completely foolproof system, and I guess that although that would be desirable, what needs to be focussed on is a better system than the present one. Yes sure there will always be ways around or loopholes and some won't but surely what is important is that the numbers of dogs that currently end up being destroyed because they are bred for all the wrong reasons, or are purchased on the spur of the moment without any preparation or thought are greatly reduced.