Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Experimenting with children and dogs?

Removed the following: "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known in Australia to have saved many children's lives. Children and these dogs are placed in a pen and left unattended. Anything from bugs to snakes are killed by the dogs, and along with anything that could be a hazard."

This makes it sound like studies have been conducted, putting snakes into pens with children to see if the dog would kill them haha. I'm guessing whoever wrote it meant there have been reports by the public of such events happening. Nevertheless the claim is strong, such that it should not be in the article until reports can be verified.

No Deadly Attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers

The article mentions how the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is often blamed for vicious attacks on people. This is quite unfortunate because it has been bred into the Staffie to never attack people. Even when this dog was a pit fighting breed back in the 1700's, owners would often carry injured Staffies home on the wagon right next to the baby. I have done quite a bit of research on this and there does not appear to have ever been a single deadly attack on humans by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier in North America. There have been many documented deadly attacks on humans by American Pit Bull Terriers (unscrupulous people have unfortunately bred many of those dogs for modern-day pit fighting, and as vicious guard dogs), and there have been 2 or 3 human deaths by American Staffordshire Terriers since the 1940's. Even the weenie dog (datschund) has killed 2 people in the past 60 years in North America. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier has killed exactly zero. The larger ones (mine is approx. 85 pounds with a 28-inch round neck) can look like vicious pit-bulls, and could easily scare off would-be burglars who don't know the difference. However, the dog would just as soon lick an intruder to death as to bite him. And, all the stories you hear about Staffies being affectionate toward children are true. In fact, it is downright bizarre and almost scary to watch how these dogs respond to children. It appears to be bred into them to be especially loving to kids, and they somehow just know the difference between kids and adults. I've owned many dogs in my lifetime, and in fact have several different breeds of dogs currently. As useless as Staffies seem to be as guard dogs (other than looking tough), I wouldn't trade my Staffies away for any other breed. You just have to make sure that the young ones have something to cut their teeth on or they might start thinking your furniture is a chew toy.

• • • • There are no 80lb Staffordshire Bull Terriers from any reputable breeding program. this is more than twice the size of a Stafford. Please refer to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard from ANY kennel club for more information. Your dog would appear to fit the standard for an American Pit Bull Terrier ( excellent breed of dog) American Stafforshire Terrier ( also excellent) or possibly a Stafford mixed with a very large breed of dog and therefore not true SBT. Hope this helps. Tony Avenson, Thunderstruck! Staffordshire Bull Terriers

§§§ It’s good you choose to defend the much maligned Stafforshire; it’s unfortunate you fail to grasp the harm maligning breeds unjustly can cause. Why have there been more documented attacks by Pit Bulls than Staffordshires? Mainly, because the lowlifes who want to own and/or fight vicious dogs ONLY know of Pit Bulls, or else have themselves bought into the myth that they are by nature more vicious than Stafforshires. The other explanation is that news reports of an attack by a Staff would almost certainly refer to it as a pitbull. The word “Pitbull“ makes for a more sensational headline than would “Staffordshire,” which would mean nothing to most Americans.

In fact, with a converstation with the head of the American Humane Society a few years ago, he remarked that most fatal attacks reported as having been committed by pit bulls were not actually purebred pit bulls at all. Any remotely bully breed is likely to be referred to in such situations as a “pit bull.” Even boxers and part boxers have been called pit bulls in some articles, and, in fact, on labels in some dog pounds.

You speak of Staffordshires being bred not to attack humans. If you’ve ever seen “Animal Precinct” on the Animal Planet channel you will have noticed how little fear animal control officers have of pit bulls they seize in the big cities where they have become very common in gang situations. None-the-less, in some cities - Detroit, for example - they are killed as soon as seized or surrendered, with no chance to be adopted.

The Staffordshire is named for the mining town in Britain where they were bred for pit fighting; the Pit Bull and the American Staffordshire derived whatever temperament they have from the Staffordshire’s “fighting spirit.” In fact, though, it is much more difficult to breed temperament or behavior into a dog than to breed changes in its appearance. In my own experience I have worked training two pit bulls for service dog routines; the only dogs in the program that became violent were a golden retriever (a seasoned service dog) and a German Shepherd. The pit bulls placidly ignored the quarrels.

In defending a breed of which you are fond you unfairly condemn another. I guess you shouldn’t be surprised when equally uninformed people condemn the Staffordshire, which, like the Pit Bull, the American Staffordshire, the American Bulldog, the Bull Terrier, the Boxer, or other dogs originally bred for blood sports, is an excellent, good-natured breed when not deranged by cruel training techniques.

~ John Mayer''

Wrong - A Staffordshire Bull Terier attacked and killed a baby boy.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7876508.stm  81.155.106.207 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

      That case was later proven to be an A.P.B.T renamed to avoid persucution--CarbriniTek (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

John Mayer said:

"The Staffordshire is named for the mining town in Britain where they were bred for pit fighting"

It might be named for the county of Staffordshire, but it isn't certainly named for any mining town called 'Staffordshire' in Britain, because there isn't one. There is a town called Stafford which is the 'county town' of Staffordshire. - 94.194.113.136 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pit Bull?

There are dozens of references that refer to this breed as a Pit Bull. Please provide references as to why this should not be listed, or listed as obsolete. http://www.breederretriever.com/dog-breeds/218/staffordshire-bull-terrier-pit-bull.php http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanpitbullterrier.html http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/tt_AMstaff.htm By the way, 212.., I didn't make this edit, but your rudeness and use of profanity encouraged me to document how wrong you were. Bob98133 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Article need to be re-written

This is an encyclopedia, not a kennel club manual. We should not be espousing what a kennel club 'prefers' in a breed. These are animals and the facts should be stuck to, not a single opinion about what constitutes the perfect dog. Mfield (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the AKC 'preferred' box. Its highly POV and should not be part of a balanced article about a species. Mfield (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This article has been plagued with personal comments and how-to type content, and has ended up a bit of a mess. Bob98133 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started a complete overhaul and clean up. Mfield (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the Kennel Club is a neutral source of information on these dogs' temperament either for two reasons. Firstly they are advocates for dogs and dog ownership in general, and secondly they are opposed to BSL so they have an interest in doing PR for targeted breeds. It's not responsible to suggest these dogs are good with children without any balance or qualification. There is a risk of someone taking this statement overly-literally and ignoring the dictum "never leave any dog alone with a child", which could result in a particularly severe mauling from a "staffie". What is the meaning of the statement that these dogs are "good with children" anyway? Since we have apparently to deal in typical dog-lover anthropomorphisized terms, when thinking of what I would consider the quality of being "good with children" in a fellow human, I would normally imagine some sort of sense of *responsibility*. Obviously no dog, except perhaps the most trained specimens, has any real sense of responsibility whatsoever. Being "friendly to children" and being "responsible with children" are two different things. Paedophiles can appear to be extremely "friendly" to children. Following the logic that these dogs are good with children, we should also add the statement that paedophiles are "often good with children" to the article on paedophiles. I think the meaning that is meant to be conveyed is that "staffies" are "often affectionate and playful with children". Fine. I don't doubt they probably are. We should counterbalance this by saying that like all dogs they can attack children without warning, and like all pitbull types they are notorious for particularly severe maulings of humans including children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.200.221 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The problem seems to be that there are no formal qualifications for "dog experts" other than established groups like AKC or AVMA whose opinions may be influenced by other motives, as you state. I think the only way this will work is by presenting a balance of views both from these orgs and others, and news sources, or even minority opinions if they are identified as such. This article is better and more balanced than it was a few months ago, so it's getting there. There will always be comments by owners on a subject like this, so they just have to be dealt with. Bob98133 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have spent a good hour or so trying to track down the 1996 Southampton University Study into behaviour that is referenced within the Temperament section. I have found an abstract, but not a full copy of the study. When searching is is very apparent that the overwhelming majority of internet references are all from Stafford sites, i.e. It looks to me as though this study is being referenced by stafford owners as some form of holly grail supporting the stafford temperament without real justification, as the references are coming from other websites and not the study itself.. As such I do not think that it is necessarily a neutral point of view to reference the NZ Kennel Club when they provide no reference to the study themselves. It would be best to reword that section based on actual information. Perhaps someone can point me to where the full version of the study can be found? "A survey of the behavioural characteristics of pure-bred dogs in the United Kingdom", Bradshaw JW, Goodwin D, Lea AM, Whitehead SL. Anthrozoology Institute, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtysnakey (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I marked the claim about "special empathy for children" by the NZKC as dubious. There is no doubt that the breed is known for its affinity with humans, but to claim that the breed demonstrates "special empathy" without any kind of scientific source to back it is a bit much for an encyclopedia. It smacks of opinion rather than proven fact. Mfield (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the above this whole page probably needs editing in the meantime i have removed the add on the the above sentence about "special empathy for children" that that is what they are most known for as this is obviously untrue, although on a personal level as an owner of a staff i think they are good with children i would never say that that is their chief claim to fame80.7.125.221 Mancgollum (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The owner not the dog generally determines the dog's tempremant. As a owner of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the mother of a 2 year old I can say from experience that my dog is great with children. This however is not true of a dog that is taught to fight it's entire life. Overall this breed can be a great addition to any family if properly trained and raised from a young age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.71.30 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

NP.O.V and weasel words

This article appears to be extremely one sided towards these dogs being 'friendly'. I do not know about this breed and therefore would not like to heavily delete sections that have been made probably with a lot of knowledge, but lack citations. I find it hard to ignore, however that the article lists 6 citations to attacks by the dogs in a single sentence, but has quotations about "No breed is more loving with its family" stated virtually as fact and the following sentence has to be considered original research.

"Bad Press" is a weasel phrase, since it instantly conjours up the idea of injustice. Also the statement about the dog not experiencing lock jaw unless they have tetanus doesn't make sense, because these two things are identical.

Over all it sounds like someone with a lot of knowledge for these dogs has edited this page in the past, but has let their feelings show too much. I think it wuold be better if someone with better knowledge than myself comes and irons out these points, but i will keep an eye on this article and start deleting the more obvious problems in a week unless people would like to come and make suggestions first. 79.121.197.4 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just two quick points: The claim that "No breed is more loving with its family" is properly cited. Nothing wrong with educated opinions if they are properly cited. The phrase 'bad press' is based upon the RSPCA statement that the breed had a "terrible press". It seems perfectly appropriate. Yozzer66 (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken on the Bad Press comment, I was a little harsh. But I still have doubts about the way that quote is used. I think it is a good quote and feel it could have a place in the article, but it needs to be presented clearly as opinion. I have some time tonight, so was intending to have a go at a larger edit of this article anyway, I'll see how it looks after that. 79.121.197.4 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)