Shazzapug

How can they ignore it when it is blatant rule breaking? No wonder there are so many doing the wrong thing.

Theres a few of us Pugged peoples going. :D

Do you know whos Pug?

Had to google that word...is this why she was so thin? Good job Dogtainers.

I watched it Lisa...it was about people sending money off with Western Union with the seller being in Africa...going for the cheaper option which turns out they were milking them for more and more. Moral of the story is you get what you pay for, :)

Did mum have a ceasar? In the first week I find Pug puppies cry when they are cold or hungry. If mum has had a ceasar then the milk may be taking a while to come down and therefore crying means hungry. I see you are in queensland, your temp may not neccessarily mean the bubbas should be warm...usually if they are piled together they are cold and if spread all over the whelping box means they are warm or just right. :)

I know exactly how they feel...with the price of hay and grains these days milking goats is uneconomic for most goat dairys and there are a lot closing up shop. Lets hope the tassie company that make powdered goats milk is doing well. :D

Heres the link to the Dairy goat societies website....breeders page

Have you tried Rhonda Patton in Drouin for fresh goats milk?

684 dogs.

Great news

I re homed a desexed 5 yr old Pug bitch she was with her new family about 8 months...they rang one day and wanted to send her back as she just wasnt fitting in...so rather than continue to all be unhappy they chose to send her back. This is the best thing they could have done for her because 12 mths later the best ever home came up for her and she now lives with her daughter as well with a lovely lady. I would much rather people send a pug back than pretend or question why they have the pug.

Aww hope she keeps improving...we have seen a few snakes this year and I ran over one on our road the other day...a brown, and I dont like running over them but it blended in with the bitumen...I am paranoid that they will get wound up under the car Pug hugs for Murphy. ♥♥

Does the lake have livestock like cattle also drinking from it? pooping near it? are they eating the poop? So many nasties are in other animals poop which dogs love to eat. I would also be looking at Hookworm...babies die from it, larger dogs it may upset their tummies etc. Also are they on raw beef? Where does your supplier get the beef from? I had a bad batch once that all my pugs had the runs so I stopped feeding them beef...I think more likely some of beef may have been drenched with something before killing?

If he is up on his feet and walking then I think he has turned the corner on his own...a swimmer cannot stand on his back legs. I would not think it appropriate to swim a baby for 10 mins 4-5 times a day...what breed is the puppy?

I'm sorry, Shazzapug - I'm unfamiliar with the Calendula Oil. I'm not a naturopath so I'm not an expert in knowing what's what in the natural medicine cabinet, but I'd be taking a guess that the Calendula Oil is a blend? IE That it is some sort of oil base with Calendula Tea infused?? Even if it wasn't, the problem with the oil (just musing and visualising) is that it is more likely to attract dirt and potentially clog pores (again ???). My instincts are to suggest the Calendula Tea would be the better and safer bet. But I am open to being contradicted by someone more in the know as far as that's concerned. Ta Erny...I have no idea what the carrier oil would be...

Cowanbree, put it this way. It is highly unlikely that you will cause any harm by dipping Payton's feet in a Calendula Tea brew. (With the feet, I like to gently dab with a dry towel in between the toes afterwards.) The Calendula can 'fix' things, but it depends on what is actually causing the problem. If it is a case of the initial cause no longer being there but the problem relates to the ongoing licking/scratching having become a vicious circle, then yes, Calendula can work to resolve the issue. But if there is an actual cause still lingering (eg. diet; liver dysfunction; contact allergy; etc) the Calendula will sooth and help whilst you work on the actual problem, but won't 'fix' it. Calendula tea has anti-bacterial and anti-inflammatory qualities, yet isn't harsh or stringent on the skin. Make sure you get organically grown Calendula tea and that contains no artificial colouring either. I have organic Calendula Oil (bought for my soapmaking) but I am wondering if I can use it on my pugs legs straight from bottle or diluted? He was all itchy scratchy and his skin all pink...I cut out all raw meat and he is just getting Blackhawk and he has greatly improved.

I have just received my numbers for the sat am and twilight show...twilight numbers have twilight stamped on them and my "am" envelope only has one number in it. So I am confused. :D Just give Beth a ring or see her at the show, i bet she will have a heap of numbers with her in the tent for one reason or another ;) Thanks Tentie I will. All sorted

I have just received my numbers for the sat am and twilight show...twilight numbers have twilight stamped on them and my "am" envelope only has one number in it. So I am confused. :D Just give Beth a ring or see her at the show, i bet she will have a heap of numbers with her in the tent for one reason or another ;) Thanks Tentie I will.

I have just received my numbers for the sat am and twilight show...twilight numbers have twilight stamped on them and my "am" envelope only has one number in it. So I am confused. :D

Does anyone know what time we can set up on friday arvo? Thanks

I got my Monday numbers today.

2 out of my 5 cheques have been banked.... :)

I know one that wont be there Jane. what date is it on?

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8651 Browse > Home / Blog Posts, The Truth About PETA / The Butcher of Norfolk (6th Edition) The Butcher of Norfolk (6th Edition) February 23, 2012 by Nathan J. Winograd Slaughterhouse: slaugh·ter·house (slôtr-hous): n. A place where animals are butchered. The numbers are in. In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) impounded 760 dogs. They killed 713 of them. Only 19 were adopted. An additional 36 of them were transferred to kill “shelters” where their fates and the fates of those animals they displaced are unknown. In 2011, they impounded 1,211 cats. 1,198 were put to death. A paltry 5 of them were adopted and another 8 were transferred to kill “shelters” where their fates and the fates of those animals they displaced are unknown. They also took in 58 other companion animals, including rabbits. 54 were put to death. Only 4 were adopted. All told, 2,029 companion animals were impounded. 1,965 were put to death. Only 28 were placed in homes. That’s a 97% rate of killing. If the animals transferred to kill shelters were themselves killed or displaced other animals who were then killed to take in the ones from PETA, the death toll could be as high as 99% (2,009 of the 2,029 animals they impounded). Only 1% were adopted into homes. While the No Kill movement is having unparalleled success and with No Kill communities now dotting the American landscape—in California, Nevada, Michigan, Kentucky, New York, Texas, Virginia, and elsewhere—PETA continues to be little more than a slaughterhouse. [This is the sixth time I've posted this blog.] The blog I write is about reforming animal sheltering in the United States. It is about ending the systematic killing of animals in these pounds. But this particular blog isn’t about sheltering. This isn’t about the battle between the No Kill philosophy and its eventual conquest over regressive, kill-oriented approaches. This isn’t about a lazy, inept, or uncaring shelter director who fails to hold his or her staff accountable. It isn’t about shelters that kill animals because doing so is easier than putting in place the programs and services to stop it. This is about something more nefarious. This is about something truly insidious. Over five years ago, I wrote a blog opining that the reason PETA slaughters virtually every animal it seeks out and “impounds” has more to do with Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses than with any ideology, philosophy, or belief in overpopulation. This followed a staggering 97% kill rate for animals in 2006, despite millions of animal loving members, a world-wide reach, and a budget of tens of millions of dollars. It followed the killing of 1,942 out of 1,960 cats they impounded. It followed the deaths of 988 out of the 1,030 dogs they impounded. It followed the killing of 50 of the 52 rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals they took in. It followed the killing of the one and only chicken they impounded. That blog earned me a letter from PETA’s attorney threatening litigation for defamation. Then came the 2007 numbers showing a 91% rate of killing—the killing of 1,815 of the 1,997 animals they impounded. And so I reran the blog. In 2008, I ran the blog once again (it has now been up continuously for over four years) because the slaughter—the needless, senseless, evil slaughter—continued with an equally staggering 96% kill rate. A paltry seven dogs and cats were adopted. A paltry 34 were transferred to an SPCA whose fates are not known. And out of 2,216 dogs and cats impounded, the rest were systematically put to death by PETA: Killed: 555 of the 584 dogs. Killed: 1,569 of the 1,589 cats. Then came 2009: only 8 adoptions, less than 1/2 of 1% of the animals they took in. Killed: 2,301 out of 2,366. In 2010, they killed: 1,507 of the 1,553 cats. Killed: 693 of the 792 dogs. And now in 2011, the death rate remained a staggering 97%: 1,965 of the 2,029 companion animals they took in. In the last decade and a half, they have killed over 25,000 animals: that’s roughly 2,500 animals a year every year; or over five animals killed by PETA every single day. PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” In fact, PETA’s attorney stated that in his letter threatening a defamation lawsuit if I did not back down. But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. It is a lie because, according to the Daily Caller, “two PETA employees described as ‘adorable’ and ‘perfect’ some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van.” And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much. In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. Why does the animal protection movement tolerate this woman? No other movement would allow someone to remain in her position without a massive outcry and public condemnation when their actions are so counter, so anathema to their movement’s foremost principles. The child protection movement would not allow someone who kills children to run an organization dedicated to children’s rights. The human rights movement would not allow someone who kills people to run any of their organizations. But the animal rights movement—a movement founded on the principle that animals have a right to life—allows a very public, avowed, shameless animal killer to run an animal rights organization. And without exception, the rest of the nation’s national animal rights groups remain deafeningly silent about it. As if that was not shameful enough, others go further and actually embrace her. While the Animal Rights Conference inducted her into their Hall of Fame, Wayne Pacelle and HSUS have allowed her and her pro-killing apologists to give workshops at their national conference. If history teaches us anything, however, it is that the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to one. The only thing that will stop Newkirk is challenging Newkirk and calling her killing for what it is: the nefarious acts of a disturbed person. Because that’s how history will remember and condemn her, despite the aura of legitimacy her untoward actions now receive from her Board of Directors, the Humane Society of the United States, the groups who promote the Animal Rights Conference, and the other groups which tolerate her leadership position through their silence. While those who now dare to call Newkirk’s slaughter for what it is may be threatened with litigation, or be attacked in other ways, history will vindicate them, as it always does for those who—despite the personal costs—defend what is right by challenging tyrants. While those who remained silent in the face of these atrocities—the hypocritical leaders of other organizations who take her telephone calls, shake her hand, stand side-by-side with her, and take personal pride in their association with her—will someday have to answer for this complicity, and will face the shame that comes with answering “nothing” when asked what they did to stop Newkirk’s bloody reign at PETA… So here it is again: Round 6. Munchausen by PETA. My opinion. In search of a diagnosis as to why Ingrid Newkirk and PETA seek out animals to kill. And a plea for the movement to stop them so that they won’t continue killing. In 2006, an official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) shows that they took in 3,043 animals, of which 1,960 were cats, 1,030 were dogs, 52 were other companion animals, and one was a chicken. Of these, they killed the chicken, killed 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, and 50 classified as “other companion animals.” They found homes for only 2 cats, 8 dogs and 2 of the other companion animals. By the numbers: PETA killed 1,942 of the 1,960 cats, finding homes for only 2. PETA killed 988 of the 1,030 dogs finding homes for only 8. PETA killed 50 of the 52 other companion animals (rabbits, guinea pigs, etc.), finding homes for only 2. PETA killed the chicken they took in. That’s a 97% kill rate. (This was based on PETA’s own reporting to the Commonwealth of Virginia, which only requires “recordkeeping and reporting of only those animals taken into custody… for purposes of adoption.”) Despite $30 million in revenues, they found homes for only 12 animals. An additional 21 cats and 25 dogs were transferred to another agency (likely a kill shelter since PETA has a “policy against No Kill shelters.”) The rest were put to death. Why? I’ve tried to explain it by the simple observation that the founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, formerly held a job killing homeless dogs and cats at the Washington Humane Society, a shelter with a consistently poor record for saving lives and the subject of historical public acrimony for its over-reliance on killing. But, in my opinion, there appears to be something more disturbing going on here than Newkirk’s history. It can’t simply be explained by catch phrases like “they are hypocrites” and “they don’t really care.” Those are terms which No Kill proponents may use to describe Newkirk’s and PETA’s position on killing dogs and cats, but they don’t explain it. Nor is this simply a disagreement between No Kill supporters and traditional “catch and kill” proponents. That is the debate going on with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where their reputations and donations are being threatened. But with PETA, there appears to be something much more nefarious at play. While Newkirk tries to shield her actions by wrapping them in the language of opposition to “No Kill,” PETA neither has an animal control contract, nor do they operate as a rescue group. Any effort to offer a lifesaving alternative to killing is dismissed as “no clue” or “warehousing animals” and any dissent by employees or volunteers is allegedly punished by termination or ousting from the group. In talking with an ex-PETA employee, he indicated that during a staff meeting, he was subjected to a PETA video of this kind (No Kill equals hoarding). Having lived in San Francisco during the 1990s when No Kill was in its heyday there and the San Francisco SPCA the nation’s premier shelter, he openly questioned the veracity of the information and was asked to his supervisor’s office and terminated. Why? The closest analogy or explanation that I have found which appears to fit is the same phenomenon that causes nurses to kill their patients, some offshoot of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (See Attack of the Killer Nurses: A look at a curious phenomenon – nurses who kill their patients, National Review, May 28, 2001). In the typical case, the nurse or caregiver kills the patients with lethal injections. They often claim they act from “compassion for their ailing victims,” because they want “to end their suffering,” and because they and their colleagues are “severely overburdened.” In their minds, they are the heroes and those who try to stop them are turning their backs on their patients. The corollary to PETA’s language about “Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option,” about “overburdened” shelter workers, and about giving animals what Newkirk calls “the gift of euthanasia,” and how “it was the best gift they’ve ever had,” is eerily similar. In her case, she also believes she is the hero and those who try to stop her are turning their backs on the animals. (She recently blasted a No Kill supporter by stating: “How dare you pretend to help animals and turn your back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”) Indeed, Newkirk-through-PETA says that blaming shelters for killing animals is like blaming hospitals for killing patients. Is Newkirk trying to tell us something? Unfortunately, I have no psychological evaluation to support such a diagnosis, except for similarity of language and the acts themselves: the fact of the killing, the death squads, the indoctrination against No Kill, the hateful denunciation of No Kill, and the proactive efforts to stop communities from trying to embrace No Kill principles. So what is it? (PETA-apologists have suggested that Newkirk has seen terrible suffering and worries about animals, but this is nothing more than Orwellian double-speak. I was a prosecutor. I’ve seen and handled cases involving torture, child rape, murder, arson of animals, and other acts of unspeakable cruelty. I was also an animal control director in a shelter which investigated and prosecuted horrific crimes against animals. I’ve seen terrible suffering to which is why I want to end it, regardless of whether it comes at the hands of a single abuser or systematically by killing.) We may never know. But what we do know and what I can say is that animal rights and animal welfare groups should reject this point of view and actively campaign against it not only for the dogs and cats PETA will kill in the future and whose interests they theoretically exist to protect, but because it undermines our movement’s credibility when we either ignore the atrocities PETA is committing against animals, or make excuses for it simply because those perpetrating them claim to be part of our movement. Moreover, PETA’s position that animals in shelters do not have a right to live subverts the entire foundation upon which all social justice movements are inherently based. The right to life is universally acknowledged as a basic or fundamental right. It is basic or fundamental because the enjoyment of the right to life is a necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights” oriented as PETA claims to be and ignore the fundamental right to life. If an animal is dead, the animal’s rights become irrelevant. Not only does PETA not acknowledge the right to life, they have rejected it saying that they “do not believe in right to life,” as it relates to dogs and cats. Of more immediate concern, it is the relationship between Americans and their animal companions that can open a door to larger animal rights issues. In their daily interactions with their dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality, emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy for animals. It is not a stretch that someone who is compassionate—and passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be sympathetic to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and elsewhere. Right now, however, the nation’s largest self-proclaimed “animal rights” group is actively working to ensure that that door is never opened—by actively and proactively arguing that dogs and cats do not have the right to life, and that killing them is an act of kindness. In my opinion: It is beyond ironic. It is beyond hypocritical. It is beyond a betrayal. It is beyond obscene. Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or you don’t; regardless of whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal issues unrelated to animal sheltering, I believe PETA’s position is insane. And despite the fact that PETA’s annual killing of thousands of dogs and cats has been common knowledge among the leaders of our nation’s animal welfare and animal rights groups for years, most of these so-called “leaders” have chosen to look the other way. In fact, HSUS invites Newkirk and her cronies to give presentations at their national animal sheltering conference. Two years ago, Newkirk gave a video presentation on what amounted to why Pit Bulls should be killed and this year, one of her devotees will share PETA’s strategy for how to engage in “damage control” and “public relations spin” when a shelter or community which kills is challenged by No Kill proponents. Why are groups like HSUS supporting her? Do they hate the movement to end the systematic killing of shelter animals which No Kill represents so much that they are willing to embrace a person and organization this zealous in support of the killing of dogs and cats? The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” can’t be it, can it? Is HSUS so threatened by No Kill that they are willing to embrace an organization which appears to be working to undermine their other platforms? With friends like these, the animals truly do not need enemies. In my opinion, PETA’s position on killing of dogs and cats is irresponsible. But as to the question of why they do it, I am not a psychiatrist and I very much doubt that Newkirk and her followers will submit to a psychological evaluation. As a result, I am afraid I have no clear answer, though my personal opinion leans toward Newkirk suffering from the mental illness of Munchausen by Proxy. And if I am correct, she will never stop killing until she is forced to. PETA’s Board of Directors, PETA employees, other animal welfare groups, and animal rights activists need to stop drinking the Ingrid Newkirk Kool-Aid. They must stop making excuses for the killing of animals. They need to openly reject views that need to be explained in the pages of the Journal of Psychiatry. And, if they are to protect the thousands of animals whose lives are at future risk from PETA, they must work to remove the political cover provided by her association with PETA which allows Ingrid Newkirk to continue to act on what I believe are deeply disturbing impulses that result in animals being killed. [The data on PETA's killing rates comes from the Virginia Department of Agriculture. All agencies in Virginia, where PETA is located, are required to report annually. For 2011 data, click here. For prior years, visit the Virginia Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services website by clicking here.]