Hi everyone, this might be a bit of a daft question, but I’d like to get some confirmation.
Basically, a friend of mine is expecting a litter of American Staffy cross Rottweiler pups. Since both breeds are restricted and have to be registered, will the puppies need to be as well, or will they just be classed as mixed breeds?
Translated from French
The forum content is sometimes translated from another language, and posts may concern countries with different animal laws. Do your research before making any decisions.
Since the forum is translated by AI, the translations may contain errors.
Speaking of dogs with strong temperaments, take the Anatolian Shepherd. They weigh between 175 and 200 lbs, sometimes reaching as much as 240 lbs. There have even been specimens recorded at 265 to 285 lbs in Turkey. And yet, these dogs aren't even categorised! It’s an absolute joke. In Africa, they use them to protect livestock from leopards and lions. I heard a story about a housing estate where an Anatolian Shepherd escaped its garden and killed four local dogs... Meanwhile, the Amstaff, which is like a kitten by comparison, is listed as a Category 2—or even Category 1 if it’s not KC registered. It’s ridiculous. This country, this world, is taking us for mugs! And we all just keep quiet...
True, but when the breed categorisation laws were first introduced, Kangals were unheard of in France; nobody was using them for dog fighting (unlike the poor Rotties, Staffies, and Dogo Argentinos...).
The law was mainly a PR move to appease the public; it’s basically breed discrimination.
A Staffie isn't any more dangerous than a Malinois. Logically, they should have categorised the giant breeds (Tibetan Mastiffs, Caucasian Shepherds, English Mastiffs...), but they are virtually non-existent in France.
Kangals are starting to become more common now. If they end up being adopted en masse by irresponsible owners, they’ll end up going the same way as the Category 1 and 2 breeds...
This thread has been inactive for 7 months @Sayokhan...
To understand why Anatolian Shepherds aren’t on the restricted list, you have to look back to the 90s. At that time, the breeds most often "misused" or poorly managed were Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, and AmStaffs.
Our dear politicians just took a scattergun approach, thinking that slapping restrictions on these dogs would reassure the public (lol), while gradually "phasing out" these breeds from the country through really strict ownership rules.
The exact opposite happened, though—there was a massive surge in Staffie and Rottie numbers.
In the meantime, more niche breeds like the Anatolian Shepherd slowly started to appear. They’re powerful dogs, both in size and weight, and have a very strong-willed temperament. However, because their numbers are low, you don’t typically find them in just anyone’s hands—at least in theory.
The tragedy you heard about in that neighbourhood is rare, but it’s heartbreaking for those who saw their dogs killed. It also highlights a real lack of control on the owner's part... but even with every possible precaution, a dog escaping, a botched introduction, or a scrap can escalate so quickly. That doesn’t excuse the owner, and it doesn’t clear them of responsibility following the attacks; owning any dog, no matter what it is, involves serious duties and huge responsibilities.
Speaking of powerful breeds... take the Anatolian Shepherd. They weigh between 12 and 14 stone, up to 17 stone max. Specimens of 19 and 20 stone have even been recorded in Turkey. And yet these dogs aren't even on the restricted list! It’s a total joke.
In Africa, they use them to protect livestock from leopards and lions.
I heard a story about one in a housing estate where an Anatolian escaped its garden and killed four dogs in the neighbourhood...
Meanwhile, the Amstaff, which is like a pussycat in comparison, is heavily restricted if it’s not KC registered. It’s ridiculous. This country—this whole world—is taking us for fools! And we just sit back and say nothing...
Hi @Wiegehts,
Regarding the spelling, I wasn't talking about your post, but the one from the person who dug up this thread from over a year ago. I make mistakes too, but there were so many in that one they were really jumping out at me.
I don't know if it's a generational thing, but my kids make a huge amount of mistakes as well – I respect the work teachers do, but I get the impression that students are never taught how to proofread or self-correct. They don't even know the basic tricks for things like 'their', 'there', and 'they’re' to work out which one to use – same goes for basic plurals and apostrophes.
Not to mention my teens reckon that adding an 's' to the end of words when it's already obvious they're plural is a waste of time! 🙄
Hi @Wiegehst, I totally agree with you – some breeds have more personality than others, or are more 'highly strung', but that doesn't make them bad dogs. You can still find aggressive dogs even in breeds that are meant to be 'friendly'. Mind you, sorry, but the spelling mistakes still make my eyes bleed – it's probably a bit of a 'parent thing' from having to check the kids' homework so often! 😉
Oh no, did I make mistakes in my wall of text too? I’m so sorry, my English lessons are a distant memory as well... Do you want to play teacher for us so we don’t end up writing like absolute heathens? 😁
Signing up "just" to jump on a year-old thread, putting words in everyone's mouths and being malicious just to get a rise out of people and stir the pot... Doesn't that look like a troll trying to keep themselves busy during lockdown? 😈
I totally agree with you — some breeds have more character than others, or are more 'highly strung', but that doesn't mean they are vicious dogs. Conversely, you can definitely find aggressive dogs even in breeds known for being friendly.
Mind you, sorry, but the typos are still making my eyes bleed — it’s probably a bit of a parental habit after years of checking the kids' homework! 😉
I reckon everyone has the right to have their say and speak their mind. The post might be a year old, but I’ve got every right to post what I want. Learn to read for a start—all I said was that claiming they are "strong-willed" dogs is completely wrong. Most people on this forum spout off without knowing what they're talking about, so if you don't like my post, I didn't ask you to reply. I shared my experience, end of story!
A dog with "character" isn't the same as a dog with a bad temper. That’s probably what you’ve misunderstood, which explains your aggression (which in itself doesn't show a strong character, but rather an irritable temperament).
A dog with a strong character might prove to be more confrontational with other dogs, more stubborn, and trickier to train (being headstrong or independent).
In itself, that doesn't make them "mean" dogs, just dogs that you have to handle intelligently and socialise with extra care.
No one here is going to say that a Staffy or a Rottie is a killing machine or a bad dog. It's just that very few people are realistic about the temperaments of these breeds. We need to stop being naïve and acting like everything is sunshine and rainbows; a dog is still a dog, but depending on its genetics, it will be more or less easy for a novice to raise and train.
So yes, you’ve got a lovely 5-month-old puppy in the middle of the "everyone is my best friend" phase. In a few months, the hormonal surge might make him less likely to listen to you, or he might start having minor scuffles with other dogs... basically like any other dog.
The only difference is that you’ll get far less flexibility and submission from a Staffy or a Rottie during a conflict than you would with other breeds. It’s not a disaster, it’s not "bad", they’re just dogs that, for the most part, will stand their ground and aren't the type to just roll over and play submissive.
That’s why the previous replies weren't trying to demonise these breeds, but rather to give the owner a heads-up about what the situation might actually look like.
