Are You Serious Jo

I call Godwin's Law first! Ok, let's start at the beginning. Wiki is not a reputable source of scientific information, in fact, I used to tell my students they would fail an assignment for using wiki as a reference. Can you find me a peer reviewed source of information that describes the effect of low levels of CO2 poisoning? I don't think CO2 was used in the camps either, but I'll not dispute that till I double check.

That all makes sense and it is how I'm using it now. When he impinges on the flight zone I say out and he moves back well. Because he is still a noob really he tends to think he needs to stay close to them in case they get out of control so this is really helping him learn the right distance. Thanks, just want to double check these things

That link doesn't work but when I looked it up on wiki it didn't say it causes immense pain anywhere. Can you please relink to where it says that?

Yeah, cross drive sounds like a pretty hard thing to master but congrats on the pass I have a question. Been working on getting Leo to keep off the sheep more by using out, which he understands. But is it ok to use out when he is moving sheep or keeping them still and only use my cast commands (get over for clockwise and go bye for anticlockwise) when actually getting him to cast from near me? I don't want to confuse him and it seems ok so far, but when giving the out command he might be going in the same direction that I would have used the cast command for, except he is a lot further away from me.

CO2 is a pretty peaceful way to go, they just go to sleep. Can you please explain how that is cruel?

The other thing is that every time she walks out it is reinforcing and has an effect on recall. I'd be insisting he comes in first too, even if he comes inside and lets you lock her up and park the car.

He probably would have said the same thing if you have a few kids or lots of shopping. Poor bugger probably won't bother being nice to older women with lots of dogs again.

I think the thing to ask yourself is if the breeder can be unethical on this important thing what else might they be unethical on?

If it was me, I would have removed the dog. Here you seem to be advocating that people take the law into their own hands. That's as simple as I can make it.

LisaCC I wasn't doing any such thing. Here you seem to be denying that you advocated that people take the law into their own hands.

LisaCC I wasn't doing any such thing. Although they had a red hot go at beating it up to look as though I had. I always employ the same triple criterion. "Which intervention, in which situation, with which dog is the most efficacious." If it was me, I would have removed the dog. I don't care what others want to call it, it was just next door. No-one said that it is the universal case that dogs should be removed from their home and spirited away from their rightful owners. I don't understand, you have contradicted yourself with the bolded quotes above.

The Skye people are taking names and making biscuits, I'm impressed!

You finally agree :laugh:

Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. I still haven't seen you point out where the OP said the dog was in distress. If the dog was no in pain or immediate danger then removing the collar or stealing the dog is wrong. Just because you disagree with how the dog is kept doesn't make it cruel. If we don't speak up when people post about this sort of thing they won't get a different perspective. No wonder the dog world is falling apart with all the people being lightening quick to judge with no facts.

So what you are saying tralee is that you are unable to understand a hypothetical situation presented to you. Would you prefer that to people thinking you are avoiding the issue because you know your argument doesn't stand up? I might think it is stupid to not get the required operation done immediately therefore I am justified in stealing that dog you were caring for. Or is stealing only allowed when you decide it is ok?

Seriously, it is obvious you have things knotted up irrationally. I didn't do anything to make the dog's injury worse. No further harm was done! If fact, if you knew the condition it was being kept in then it was a good act just to 'seize' the dog as I did. The dog was removed from the very real threat of further harm being done. I can't see you doing any good for the dog, or acting in the interest of the OP's puppy neighbour. I think you know what I'm getting at, some might believe the harm was in the operation being delayed. If I decided that the dog was in pain because it had an injury that needed repair and wasn't getting it fast enough I could take matters into my own hands yes? So if the dog's owner was not looking after it properly then why are you sending it back, being the moral crusader you claim to be? Not as black and white as you make it out to be.

I know it wasn't your dog, but it was in your care and can be stolen from you. The semantics of whether you owned the dog doesn't matter, an outsider might have decided the dog wasn't getting the correct care and stolen him. How would you have felt if you were judged like that?

But what if someone subjectively decided that not getting an operation done on a dog immediately constituted harm? How would you feel to come home to a stolen dog?

But what if someone decided that you were being cruel by not getting a necessary operation for that dog and stole him? Some people would say not getting it done immediately wasn't great, is it ok for them to steal him?

Bound to intervene legally???? I think not. A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law. Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police. Who said your values are the correct ones anyway? Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop? Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Its not limited to a moral imperative. It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary. As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law. Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not. But where did the OP say the dog was suffering? What if I decide I am not happy with something you do with one of your dogs and take it, how would you feel? Sure if the dog was yelping in pain, sick or someone was beating it you'd intervene, but really where was the suffering mentioned here?

I'd take the tape to the museum and get one of the zoologists to listen to it. You can trick your brain into hearing something then when you suggest that others hear it to. Not saying it wasn't a man but it is causing some stress so better not to let imaginations run wild.

While it's not ideal to have a collar on a puppy this young the OP didn't say anything about the puppy showing any distress. If it was near the fence then it can't be in any pain. Better than the puppy getting run over.

Housebreakers usually don't make any noise though, they try to be deathly quiet so a housebreaker making that noise is very unusual. They don't try to shut barking dogs up but move to the next house.

Don't be ridiculous, it's clearly manbearpig.

Until we get Bogan Specific Legislation we aren't going to get anywhere with this.