Importing Staffordshire Bull Terrier Into Thailand ? ?

[staffbull]

I would like to import a Staffordshire Bull Terrier into Thailand from the UK. From what i have read Thailand does not allow Pit Bulls, and possibly American Staffordshire Terriers, to be imported. Will my KC registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier be considered a Pitbull? or Am Staff? or will it be recognized as a separate breed and allowed entry? The dog has official Kennel Club documentation stating its breed. I am worried that because the name is so similar to the American Staffordshire Terrier I may be refused entry.

thanks for any info.

[geordie]

I know of one man that has American pit bulls up in Khon Keon. Not sure if this is legal or not or where he got them from. If you do find out if Staffs are ok to import into Thailand i would like to know, i tried for a long time to find breeders in Thailand but had no luck with that.

Best of luck

Geordie

[raindrops]

Best place to check for the list of 'dangerous dogs' banning from importing to Thailand is the Livestock Department. Four year ago, I had to bring two of my ex's rottweillers over from Sweden and had to go through quite an ordeal. If the dog is yours (your pet) there is a good chance you can still bring him over even with the restriction. Lots of paper work but it's worthy if you don't want any headache.

[Roy Jing]

staffbull,

I can't answer any of your questions but I will say good luck and hope you succeed.

Staffies are the most loving and affectionate dogs you can get towards all people. They are only capable of licking someone to death but unfortunately they do appear to be grouped in with Pit Bulls and Am Staffs and people are afraid of them.

I remember buying our Staffy 9 years ago( Australia ) and friends of our said that we were crazy getting such a savage breed of dog seeing as we had young children, but I had done alot of research into dog breeds and I kept finding the same comments about Staffys being 10 out 10 for loving people.

Our Staffy and every staffy I have seen has been just that, people friendly dogs.

Anyway, I'm sure you know all of this already so once again best of luck and please let us know how you get on.

Roy

[MsFigure]

I would like to import a Staffordshire Bull Terrier into Thailand from the UK. From what i have read Thailand does not allow Pit Bulls, and possibly American Staffordshire Terriers, to be imported. Will my KC registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier be considered a Pitbull? or Am Staff? or will it be recognized as a separate breed and allowed entry? The dog has official Kennel Club documentation stating its breed. I am worried that because the name is so similar to the American Staffordshire Terrier I may be refused entry.

thanks for any info.

I don't think you would have a problem importing a Staffy into thailand as as far as I'm aware they are not listed on those stupid "dangerous dogs lists".

I've never had problems bringing in our rotts and a dogo argentino (which is on the list in a number of countries) in the past.

You could always try Kennel Club of Thailand for info, as well as contacts for breeders here and contact them to see if they can help.

[kurgen]

Not sure if this is any help to you but about 3 weeks ago I saw an advert for Staff pups in a vets in Pattaya, it's on either Soi Kao Noy or Soi Neun Plub Wan (always mix those 2 up) in the little Soi with the market and BBQ place.

Can't go and get the # for you as I'm not in Patters at the moment.

Let me know if you have any luck as I may be looking for one myself in the future.

[Etrigan]

MsFigure - Why would you call a "dangerous dogs list" stupid?

Is it because you stupidly own dangerous dogs?

Or a dangerously stupid dog?

Or maybe you've never had the pleasure of being attacked by one of these "stupid" dangerous dogs!

Your ignorance is overwhelming!

[Skyline]

The dangerous dogs lists are stupid!

The main reason for these lists is,certain people want a guard dog,a fighting dog or just a 'macho' dog so they will buy a Pitbull,Rottie,Bull Terrier etc and train the dog to become just that (even though the dogs not trained properly).On the odd and rare occasion that these dogs actually attack somebody,its usually the owner thats to blame,not the dog!

Take any of the 'dangerous' breeds listed and bring the dog up in a normal,family envioronment and the dog will be as loveable,calm and well behaved as any 'normal' breed.

A Staffie is a great dog and would love one myself,unfortunately my Bulldog is a bit stubborn when introduced to new housemates:(

Try one of the dog mags here in Thailand,they may have Staffie breeders advertising there now.

'Ajarn'Russ,your ignorance is overwhelming!

[Nienke]

MsFigure - Why would you call a "dangerous dogs list" stupid?

Is it because you stupidly own dangerous dogs?

Or a dangerously stupid dog?

Or maybe you've never had the pleasure of being attacked by one of these "stupid" dangerous dogs!

Your ignorance is overwhelming!

Wow, that's a bit harsh and personal, isn't it?!

Most dogbites happen by the family dog or a dog familiar to the victim. Statistics in The States and Europe show most bites are done by breeds such as the Golden retriever, the labrador retriever and also the small terriers. (there's a lot of dominance aggression under the goldens and Jack Russel Terrier, especially the males, for example). I do believe that most bites in Thailand are caused by Thai dogs defending their territory.

It is that bites from guard dog breeds and fighting dog breeds are often much more severe, and therefore, reported and in the news. These breeds have a very strong and hard bite and tend to hold, while retrievers have a much softer bite and many bite and loose, often resulting in less damage to the victim.

Also most dog bites happen due to the ignorance by or neglect on the part of the owner.

Not everybody is capable of authorizing a dog, let alone a dog with a strong character of which most guard and fighting dogs consist. And many owners do not or do not sufficiently educate their dog/s (which includes basic obedience AND proper socialization).

Most of the time when I hear, here in Thailand, about a dog that has bitten a child, I understand that 1) the dog has not been properly socialized, 2) not properly trained, and 3) the child was allowed or capable to be with the dog unsupervised.

Anyway, putting certain breeds on a dangerous dog list will NOT solve the problem. There always will be smart asses who will breed another fierce breed, because there is a market for that. Unfortunately.

And as long as people are not properly taking care of their dog, i.e. understanding their behavior (development) and their language, the bite accidents will continue.

And last but certainly not least: Staffies are certainly nice dogs (got one in boarding last month, a real lovely and sweet animal), but they are nothing compared to the boxer

Nienke

[leisurely]

I'd also second the vote for Staffs. We had a boy called Pod, he was a star and fab with people. Sadly he was hel_l with other dogs. We couldn't let him off the lead because he seemed to have bionic eyesight when it came to spotting another to fight with. It is in their nature (after all they were bred to fight bulls and other dogs) to want to bundle. If you can keep them away from other dogs good, if not, prepare for some bloodshed. He truly was the nicest, kindest friendlist and stupidest dog we have ever owned,

RIP Podster

[steves_the_1]

hi

i tried to import my staffy about 3 years ago from holland and what a hassle it was after getting all every injection needed the doggie passport and the paperwork stamped and all the i's dotted from the various departments the day before the flight the airline after agreeing at first changed their minds and refused to let the dog fly telling us Its a dangerous dog and can not fly and this was with every single piece of paper required

good luck and hope you get it sorted

steve

[quiksilva]

Most dogbites happen by the family dog or a dog familiar to the victim. Statistics in The States and Europe show most bites are done by breeds such as the Golden retriever, the labrador retriever and also the small terriers. (there's a lot of dominance aggression under the goldens and Jack Russel Terrier, especially the males, for example)

Surely thats because these are the most common dog breeds in those countries?

I wonder what a bite / dog ratio for each breed would look like?

Personally I don't see a problem with a 'Dangerous Dogs" list but I do think that it could do with a more appropriate title.

Some dog breeds are more naturally more dominant (and hence pre-disposed towards aggression) than others, a list of these breeds would surely help prospective owners to choose a suitable breed for their familly and lifestyle.

Please don't take this the wrong way I am positive that all dogs can be wonderful loving creatures with the correct training and handling. My point is that not all breeds and owners are compatible, and this mostly comes down to their respective temperaments.

Good luck with your Staffy by the way, I have seen plenty of Staffy's, ABP's etc here in Thailand. The Thai pet magazines should be your first port of call, many adverts for breeders are in English.

[endure]

And last but certainly not least: Staffies are certainly nice dogs (got one in boarding last month, a real lovely and sweet animal), but they are nothing compared to the boxer

[Nienke]

I wonder what a bite / dog ratio for each breed would look like?

Breeds I've mentioned higher ratio than the rottie or pitbull. Most probable reason is that people think because it's known as a family dog it often gets less proper eduction than the other mentioned breeds and/or owners are quicker in believing that these kind of breeds never will bite.

Where I saw those figures? Man, i need to search, can't remember.

[Nienke]

And last but certainly not least: Staffies are certainly nice dogs (got one in boarding last month, a real lovely and sweet animal), but they are nothing compared to the boxer

SUPER, SUPER SUPER, I MELT!!!

[MrSnrang]

I have a staffy too but the shop had her ears cropped when she was at the shop. She has spots like a dalmatian too but definitely isn't an American Staffordshire.

You shouldn't have a problem.

[MsFigure]

MsFigure - Why would you call a "dangerous dogs list" stupid?

Is it because you stupidly own dangerous dogs?

Or a dangerously stupid dog?

Or maybe you've never had the pleasure of being attacked by one of these "stupid" dangerous dogs!

Your ignorance is overwhelming!

The Dangerous Dogs Lists ARE STUPID! To ban particular breeds of dogs based on their breed is STUPID! I have to assume that you believe that ALL rotts, dogos, APTB (and all the others on the list) are DANGEROUS. For anyone to believe that is both STUPID and IGNORANT, because anyone who owns a dog on these lists could show you 100 examples of why their dog are not dangerous.

Ever heard BAN THE DEED, NOT THE BREED! ? Everyone knows that it is people (owners and breeders) and their STUPIDITY that cause dogs to become dangerous. Top reasons/ways to turn a naturally good dog into a bad one include: training a dog to willfully attack, not training it in obedience, beating (and other acts of cruelty) on dogs so that they become wary of people so that they bite and attack in fear and not understanding, taking the effort to learn about behaviour/body language of canines and owning big/powerful/strong dogs when they have absolutely no experience with dogs.

ANY and EVERY dog has the potential to be dangerous. It's up to their owners to make sure that their dogs are controllable and happy, and important part of the family.

Do some research and you will be surprised at how many so called "family friendly" dogs are responsible for attacks, bites and other dangerous behaviour/incidents. Do you think these dogs should also be included in stupid BSL lists and be banned too. I've seen and read the reports but I'll let you do your own homework - I got work to do (like helping my 3 year old daughter to wash our "dangerous dogs" ) and really don't want to waste my time on someone who stupidly believes that having a list and banning certain breeds is acceptable or right.

PS. I think Pomeranians should be on the dangerous dog list because I've been attacked one for absolutely no reason. The dog was totally nuts, had severe insecurity issues and would attack anyone who took it's owners attention away from him.

Di

[Etrigan]

There are certain breeds of dog which are dangerous. This is fact. So stop wasting your time barking at the wrong tree!

I never said that Staffies were dangerous, they are great dogs. I own dogs too, and i love them, and have been around dogs all my life since I was a small child. So excuse me, I DO know a thing or two about dogs.......including the fact that SOME DOGS ARE DANGEROUS! Therefore the government has a right to protect people by naming and banning.

As for telling me to do some research, get stuffed, do some yourself, and tell me how many human lives have been destroyed by these animals.

I might be stepping on controversial ground here but I am not ignorant of the issue. Nor will your insults change my position.

[MTW]

Since we cannot make a list of "Stupid People who are Banned from owning Dangerous Dogs", I think listing "Dangerous Dogs" is appropriate.

[staffbull]

thanks for the replies. from what i understand the Pit Bull and Amstaff are not banned from ownership in Thailand just banned from import. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not on the list of dogs banned for import. The potential problem i see is that not only are the names Staffordshire Bull Terrier vs American Staffordshire Terrier so similar but the dogs themselves are very similar in appearance. I would not expect Thai customs agents to recognize the difference between the breeds. Will my KC registration documents along with the veterinary health documents stating the breed be enough to prove my dog is a Stafford and not a Pit bull or Amstaff?

ive attached a picture of one of my Staffords: he is a blue/brindle male, 16 kgs, 3 years old, neutered. I have seen Pit Bulls with the same proportions and identical appearance. The only way i can see to distinguish them is with official Kennel Club documentation.

[Roy Jing]

staffbull,

Wow, what a beautiful little Staffy you've got. Absolutely stunning. Sure hope you succeed in getting him into Thailand as I would hate to have to leave such a great dog behind.

Roy

[Etrigan]

Staffbull - In the UK police forces were issued with guidelines differentiating Staffs from pit bulls after a landmark court case in Lancashire. Staffs are safe. I know this because in 1991, when the act was passed, I documented several cases of mistaken identity.

MTW - Couldn't agree more!

[MsFigure]

thanks for the replies. from what i understand the Pit Bull and Amstaff are not banned from ownership in Thailand just banned from import. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not on the list of dogs banned for import. The potential problem i see is that not only are the names Staffordshire Bull Terrier vs American Staffordshire Terrier so similar but the dogs themselves are very similar in appearance. I would not expect Thai customs agents to recognize the difference between the breeds. Will my KC registration documents along with the veterinary health documents stating the breed be enough to prove my dog is a Stafford and not a Pit bull or Amstaff?

ive attached a picture of one of my Staffords: he is a blue/brindle male, 16 kgs, 3 years old, neutered. I have seen Pit Bulls with the same proportions and identical appearance. The only way i can see to distinguish them is with official Kennel Club documentation.

###### your staffy is impressive. Absolutely gorgeous!!!!!

MTW, I don't think a "Dangerous Dog List" would be inappropriate and definitely better that the current Banned Dog List. I'll be the first to admit that some breeds are more dangerous than others due to the damage they are able to inflict and are not the best dogs for everyone, but to say that all dogs of a certain breed are ALL dangerous is crazy. Any form of BSL is not only impractical, but it does not prevent or reduce canine aggression or irresponsible individuals from obtaining dogs that can become aggressive.

I've owned rotts that NEVER in their 12 & 8 years ever bit or attacked a person or animal, but I've also seen some rotts that were just plain vicious that if they were my dogs, I'd have no hesitation in putting down. I've seen just beautiful natured AMPT that until their deaths in old age were the best family members, good with people and other animals - but I've seen a few that were total psychos and a bad examples of AMPT I had personal contact with.

For a dog to be on a dangerous dog list wouldn't mean that a persons dog is actually dangerous - only that a particular breed has the potential to be dangerous or vicious. What could class them as dangerous is; any breed that the ability to cause serious injury or fatalities to other animals or people and that show undue agression to other dogs or people. Also breeds that used mostly for guarding and hunting (working dogs where they are bred for these purposes) only because these breeds do have a natural and strong hunt and protect instinct, which could result in an injury or death.

To own a dog on a "Dangerous Breed/DogList", the owners would have certain restrictions (rules) applied to owning such breeds and any individual dogs that may not be listed on a dangerous dog list, but have shown and proved to have attacked or killed animals, people (although I still think these dogs should be put down BUT you need to look at circumstances relating to the incident ie. A rott who kills a child because it rolled over in its sleep and smothered the child should not be down, as this was not an intentional incident), or is a menace to other dogs and people (you know those dogs that you past everyday that without fail will try to chase and try to attack you or your dog), would also be placed under these restrictions. These dogs could be made to wear (a universal) collar in colour to identify that they pose a potential risk, owners enforced to follow strict enclosure rules which could possibly include proper containment areas within a persons property and warning signage, muzzling of proven vicious/menacing dogs when taken out in public, etc. I found some good detailed information about such restrictions and BSL at Dangerous/Vicous Dogs and Breed Specific Laws. A legislation of this type would see breeds that currently are and more importantly (I think anyway) breeds that are not on the banned list being monitered to some degree, as well as easily being identified as being a potential threat when out in public. Breeders should also be closely monitered, registered and licenced, as they ultimately are responsible for some of the real dangerous dogs that have given certain breeds a bad name.

Unless you were involved in criminal activities, an irresponsible owner or a backyard breeder, I think that any person that owns a "dangerous dog" wouldn't have any problems with any rules/restrictions because it would only benefit them, their dogs and others in the long run. Anyone who really loves their breed would do anything and accept special rules & conditions if it meant they could still legally own that breed, including accepting penalties if rules are broken. If someone finds that these special requirements is just too much work or have major problems with it, they either have something to hide, doing something illegal and have no right to own a certain breed.

I know that it would make it easier for me to walk my dogs if other owners could identify my dog as one that should be approached with caution, or that they should cross the street to keep them and their dog out of our way.

Fact is BSL does not work (Prohibition has never worked and never will), but at least having a "dangerous dogs list/registry" and restrictions with severe penalities would definitely be better than banning entire breeds based solely on their appearance and on the acts of a small number of dogs responsible for attacks or fatalities. Officials would have a better record and details, moniter dogs and make owners accountable for their dogs (regardless of breed) actions, which would be more beneficial and logical instead of trying to ban dogs that have a "pit-bull" type appearance. And Owners with dogs that are listed on a restricted/dangerous dog list could still legitimally own their pets that are genuinely friendly, gentle, loving and considered part of the family while also understanding that the special conditions are in place ONLY to protect them, their dogs and other persons.

People need to understand and be educated that ALL DOGS - regardless of breed, sex or size - have the potential to be dangerous causing injury or death and that certain rules and things that must always be applied by everyone (whether they own a dog or not) to prevent incidents from occuring. Many attacks are preventable and are caused by stupidity, carelessness and ignorance on the part of the person who has been attacked.

For something like this to work though, there needs to be a controlling body to enforce any Controlled Dog Act, and as far as I've seen during my many years living here - Thailand apparantly doesn't have Dog Control Officers or Dog Ownership laws from what I've seen.

For the OP, Although Staffys are not currently on the "Banned Lists", it may be only a matter of time as they have many of the same physical attributes that the banned breeds listed have.

[November Rain]

Here in HH, there are active clubs for Pit-bulls and Am Staffs. They were shown, as seperate categories, at a recent dog show that we participated in. I didn't even realise there was a dangerous dogs list here in Thailand as both these breeds are bred & shown.

I'm afraid, despite my love of dogs, & my conviction that people are to blame for many dog attacks (not trained properly, not controlled properly, not socialised, teased or provoked etc) I do think there should be dangerous dogs lists. Some dogs were bred for specific purposes, and their breeding & ownership now, should be closely monitored. My fear, in this area, is owners allowing "fighting dogs" to roam & them impregnating soi dogs. I really don't want to see that.

As for OP, can you get your Kennel Club docs translated into Thai & perhaps notarised? That should stop any mix-up with Staffordshire Bull & Am Staff (as long as the docs are translated correctly!)

[Nienke]

Wow, excellent post MS. Figure.

I remember discussions going on about introducing by law a kind of owning/care license for dog owners in Holland. Something like a driving license for cars amd bike or a riding license for horses.

Naturally, many people are against. But IMO it would be a very good thing. EVERY dog owner should know at least the basics of a dog's behavior development, their language and their breed's characteristics (if full-breed or mixed full-breds), and have done basic obedience showing their dog obeys them and is well socialized.

Nienke

Edited May 22, 2007 by Nienke

[Nienke]

thanks for the replies. from what i understand the Pit Bull and Amstaff are not banned from ownership in Thailand just banned from import. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not on the list of dogs banned for import. The potential problem i see is that not only are the names Staffordshire Bull Terrier vs American Staffordshire Terrier so similar but the dogs themselves are very similar in appearance. I would not expect Thai customs agents to recognize the difference between the breeds. Will my KC registration documents along with the veterinary health documents stating the breed be enough to prove my dog is a Stafford and not a Pit bull or Amstaff?

ive attached a picture of one of my Staffords: he is a blue/brindle male, 16 kgs, 3 years old, neutered. I have seen Pit Bulls with the same proportions and identical appearance. The only way i can see to distinguish them is with official Kennel Club documentation.

Beautiful happy looking dog. I like this color as well.

From what i've heard, most (if not all) Pitbull's that are imported are done so with pedigrees saying they are American Staffordshire Terrier and then there seems to be not much of a problem breed wise. Tax wise is another story

Nienke

[bina]

i brought my autistic staffie to israel back in 1986... he was 'autistic ' in that he he wouldnt respond to dogs (a trait required, unfortunately back then, in show rings, called 'sparking') and would sort of sink in to himself; he was great with people and cats surprisingly enough... however, his line were all good showers (and dog fighters ) but had a hel_l of a time explaining that he wasnt an amstaff, pit pull garage dog etc....

friends just bought a rackrussell, i picked him up (8 wks old) and he snarled in my face and snapped!!. i rolled him over so quick he didnt know what happened, however, a dog that responds like that, wouldnt be with my kids one day.

as for breeds, its like gun control laws... while most bites are due to regular family breeds and occur within the family, it seems to be that the more systematic fighter/attacker/biter types are the breeds that have been breed for that so when they are handled inappropriately, or not worked with, they are problematic breeds. so 'dangerous breed' shouldnt be the designation but maybe some other designation proclaiming that their guarding/fighting potential is more highly developed or highly reactive to certain stimuli.

after all in all domestics, there are high strung breeds and low key breeds even in horses and goats and cows and not all breeds fit all purposes.

[helicoptor]

Dont let your dog get into a fight with a porcupine.............

Somewhere there is a bald porcupine

[Nienke]

Dont let your dog get into a fight with a porcupine.............

Somewhere there is a bald porcupine

POOR DOG!!!!

[MTW]

Helicoptor: Is this a picture of your dog or someone you know? If so, what happened??? There must have been nothing left of the porcupine. The dog must have gotten some in an eye? That is a pretty shocking picture.