People breeding Staffs to the "original standard" - is it dangerous?

This thread has been started due to a locked topic about Irish Staffs.

It's no secret that many people breed taller (therefore, nautrally they will be more muscular) dogs and call them a number of different names, here's a few (please feel free to mention any more you may have come across):

Irish Staffs (aka Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier)
Old Tyme Staffords
Staff cross
English Bull Terrier x Stafford cross

Many of the people who do this say they do so because they want to breed Staffs back to the original standard.

The discussion point here is, is that dangerous? Given what the Stafford was originally bred for. Also, one could argue that a taller, more muscular Staff, makes it look very much like the type of a Pit Bull, so there is a risk of it falling under the DDA, and/or worse, it actually recreating the situation the Pit Bulls were banned with to begin with (are we're starting to see a repeat already? Look at the news and your street corners?).

The breeders who breed them to this old standard argue the dogs and fitter and healthier.

Discuss.

(Please note all usual posting guidelines!)

agree with you on the looking like "type" comment.

in all honesty i have no hard and fast feelings about it as they will all be different dogs individually the same as the standard staff and all other dogs on that matter. and you do get the larger athletic standard stafford aswell. and i suppose the SBT x EBT description is not a lie either as there are SBT and EBT blood in the lines. although one opinion i do have is that irish staffords and staffords are not two different breeds they are all staffords and no longer referred to as the irish. even ed reids IKC no longer recognises them as a separate breed.

will be interesting to see other comments here and maybe i will be able to express my views further

can i ask for a link to the closed topic you mention?

Closed topic link: Is Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier actually a breed??

I think there are two issues really.

1] Original standard regarding doing the `task` [ fighting ] which they were bred for

2] Healthy physical conformation

Issue 1 is more about the mental / attitude traits, fighting `instinct`, however people want to put it

Issue 2 speaks for itself.

I believe all breeds should be bred for the healthiest physical conformation and the best good temperament possible.
Anything less is dangerous for the dogs be it from suffering health problems or from the DDA in some way.

Perhaps one way to get some perspective, [ in my own mind if no one elses lol ], would be to have a hypothetical breed as a sort of comparrison, [ which people might be able to discuss in a less, erm, `antagonistic` way than tends to end up happening with a real breed ] :

I humbly offer a made up breed which I shall call Robodogs, developed in the Virtual Middle Ages :

Breed standard,
At least 30 inches at the withers, should have the speed of a greyhound combined with the strength of a lion.
Coat, very short to make it hard to grab the dog.
Work ethic: The Robodog is bred to attack humans so should look at all humans as though they are a walking buffet.
Should have the power and confidence to take down any human of any size and dispatch them in ways which will please onlookers during the Robodog Olympics.

Now lets say that over many years, there have been Robodogs not meeting the breed standard in `work ethic`, which have been bred from successfully, [ it helps if they don`t try to eat their breeder really ].
They have also developed into a less physically powerful and smaller lighter built breed because they simply don`t need to be like the dog equivalent of Charles Atlas as they dont do the Original `task`, [ mother nature and evolution doing their thing as it were ], and to the disgust of breeders of the original Robocop standard, the newer `strain` actually like humans as company instead of as a meal and have turned out to be great family pets who can be taken anywhere safely.
They still have the general `look` of the Original and are recognisable as such, but have a `gentler` overall appearance at the same time.

Which breed standard is the one to strive for - the Original or the newer `lesser` strain....

I shall now have some caffeine then reread to see if that makes as much sense as I hope it does

Brilliant reply Patch and i have to say i agree that todays staffords are the better version (sorry to put it like that i couldnt think of another way )

I prefer todays standard,
all breeds start somewhere and thats why the standard was changed, as the breed was more refined over the years the standard changed, I don't feel this has made them any less healthy.
Back in 1935 when the original standard was drawn up was the start of the stafford.
I wouldn't say the stafford of back then was more dangerous,
but saying that they were more agile for the job originally intended which we can't get away from the fact that they were used for dog fighting.
This is why the standard as changed I guess.
I hope that made some sort of sense

I'm not sure on this to be honest.
I agree with looking like type,but then again KC Reg Staffords of today's standard got mixed up with all this type rubbish because there is no clear defination of that stupid word TYPE.

I don't really see any big changes in the standard,apart from the height got reduced but not the weight.
They have added more into it from the original one of 1935.

We have always had Staffords bred to the original standards of 1935,so i can't really see how Irish Staffords and alike they have just come about since the banning of the Pitbull under the DDA.
I hate to see bitches and dogs for that matter standing at 14 inches,even though that is acceptable with todays standard,i prefer mine to have a little daylight underneath them.
My ideal height for a bitch would be 15 1/2 to 16 inches and 16-17 inches dogs with weights to correspond,and a nice balanced dog,not too terrier looking not too bully,but a mixture of both.

I also noticed that there is no mention of the colour blue in the original 1935 standard,yet the breeder's of the so called Irish Staffords or whatever you prefer to call them,breed to these standards and will tell you so,so why breed blue's when these were never mentioned?


I personally don't think it's dangerous to breed to these standards if that is the sort of dog you prefer,as long as they are tested for known conditions within the breed,as all lines can carry these conditions and not just todays show lines.
I prefer the staffords of today.

Just thought i would add this link in so you can see how it has changed and been added too.
http://www.staffordmall.com/standardhistory.htm

In my opinion you should breed to the standard if you don't like the standard then don't get a stafford.

My sentiments exactly!

I do think that the stanard is there for a reason and theres no excuse for not sticking to it,
but thats my opinion