sandgrubber

Hard to get lower. Ok, there are a few mass murderers who have set the bar for low. But this is SICK!!!

Good to hear I'm not alone . . . yes, I say excuse me (or 'scoozie') and 'sorry' as well. How can you accidentally step on a dog and not apologize. Not a well formed idea, but I sort of think there's a group of people who say 'thank you' to their dogs and end out with polite, if not always obedient, best friends. 'Leadership' can gentle, and a pack doesn't have to be based on dominance, threat, and dominance. I admire Ceasar Milan, etc., but I don't think domineering is the only way to have a good relationship with a dog, and I think they understand and appreciate common courtesy . . . if in a doggy sort of way.

Please run a logic checker. You've got a double negative above [nothing . . . made not one iota] that blunts, if not turns around your argument. But responding to what I think you meant, as opposed to what you said . . . How do you know? Positions, especially positions with a poor factual basis (or that defy the laws of physics), are often undermined by long sustained pressure. Immediate responses are often superficial. Think of the many people who, as youths, thought one way, and as mature adults, have changed their attitudes. KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!!!!! Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist, but I still believe in force of reason. Btw, what was the quality of the things people said? In particular, how strong was the element of denial? When you have a debate with two sides parading half truths, improvement is possible when both sides increase their quotient of truth. May be gradual. WTF. It's taken a long time for things to degenerate. It'll take a long time for them to improve. If I may be so vain as to use my response (posted on PDE blog) as an example . . . I think things like this need to be said, over and over and over again. No doubt others can say it better than I. I do believe the unbalanced stance of PDE can be turned. . . and the grotesque aspects of show-directed breeding can be reversed to put function before cosmetic form. I think moderation and balance are as important in argument as in dog breeding. Here's my entry to the PDE blog . . . which includes many, many interesting entries: Please put finger on the problem. The problem is showing as a basis for selection . . . NOT PEDIGREE DOGS. The pedigree provides a solid basis for selecting for health, temperament, and working ability. Problem is, it has been misused to select for extreme conformation, particularly in some breeds. I sympathize with much of PDE stuff. I just wish it didn't have the effect of turning dog lovers away from the good things in the pedigree world, making life harder for breeders who put health and temperament first, and encouraging the scum who produce DD cross breeds from dogs with no traceable health records and no tested temperament as a way to make money. JH has owned danes, Labbies, and now owns a flat coat. Wouldn't surprise me if she has experienced the sorrow of a sweet and beautiful, but unsound, dog (so common with danes). I'd guess she's as vulnerable to the marvels of a good working dog as I am,

I emailed JH, in part to tell her about an awful link on her personal page (which she says was hacked), emphasizing that there were still healthy working dogs and that the problem wasn't PEDIGREE, it was breeding for show conformation. Her response: "I am particularly keen to highlight what can be learned from the working sides of the breeds - and probably haven't done enough of that recently." It would be great to have a PDE III that focussed on good breeding. . . and I think that could happen. I agree with others that PDE is doing damage to the pedigee dog world. I think the emphasis on PEDIGREE is wrong, AND logically inconsistent with the goal of breeding healthy dogs. The pedigree system is the best basis for rescue of breeds that are in trouble, as the good features of the breeds we love have been concentrated through good pedigree breeding. . . . as for Labradors The breed standard for Labradors says 'powerful' (I think it's the secon word in the breed standard) and you are right, conformation judging is pushing the breed to exaggerate big bones and broad heads. Unfortunately, the part of the breed standard that stresses endurance and hard work is poorly tested in the ring. We in the Labrador community need to reverse that trend. We have to stop referring to the leggier working type Lab as being 'ugly' and appreciate the inherent soundness of a medium build. On the other hand, Labs should be powerful and athletic, and, being bred originally to bring in fishing nets off the coast of Newfoundland, they should be solid and able to carry a little blubber. Solid bone is good, and I think the breeders of 1950 would have preferred strong boned over lanky. Physiology permitsbalanced, stocky animals to be sound if the balance of muscle to bone is right and the architecture of bone is efficient. I'd hate to see people breeding Labs to look like greyhounds. But I would love to see Australians allow the local interpretation of the breed standard move toward a dog with a lighter coat and leaner frame, capable of sustaining work at high temperature. As for melting big brown eyes, I don't see the harm in giving a few points for experssion . I think you are incorrect on the health question. Labradors have a reputation for HD and all quality breeders pay attention to both HD and OCD. The reputation for HD is not justified by the statistics: Australian Labrador HD average score (sum of both sides), at 12, is the same as SBT and below the KC Cavalier, Goldies, GSD's, and Airdales, to name a few. Of course, there is room for improvement . . . but Lab breeders take hip scores seriously and there should be further gradual improvement over time. I have never found statistics comparing breed average elbow scores, and would appreciate pointers to them, but given the emphasis that even show people put on looking for 0,0 elbows, I would guess OCD is fairly low and declining. Of course, there are Labrador breeders who compromise the breed by breeding their lines close and putting conformation above health and temperament.. . and these are concentrated in the show ring (and unfortunately, are rewarded by many judges). Look at the Labs selected for Guide Dogs or at sniffer dogs used by the police, or as hunting dogs (US, Scandanavia and UK are better than Oz on this score because there is much more bird hunting going on), or by the military as bomb detection dogs. You will see a much healthier looking dog. You will also find many show Labs are dual purpose, and compete in both retrieving and conformation. I'm not a showie, but I suspect that for Labbies, the worst judging comes from the 'all breeds' judges, and the breed specialists, at least with Labs, tend to emphasize 'balance' over 'power'. What needs to happen with Labs, and with every breed, is for those who breed for moderate/balanced conformation and emphasise health and temperament in breeding programs to take a firm stand against the pressure, coming from the show ring, to exaggerate the hallmark conformational features of the breed, and to focus on breeding for health and the temperament expected in the working ancestral stock (for Labradors, biddable, intelligent, trainable, non-aggressive, stable). Strangely, working within breed clubs Jemima Harrison prescribes . . .though she makes a lot of comments I find irritating. See: http://pedigreedogse...d.blogspot.com/

Dogs sense temperature (as, eg., do ticks, many snakes . . . and many many other animals). That brings the count to six. But the impression of sixth sense owes more to extremely keen smell and hearing, and relatively poor sight . . . and a brain that assembles information differently than human brains do.

Here's the original source for this thread . . . extract follows. http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/06/pde-two.html PDE Two A few days ago, I let the Kennel Club and others know that the BBC has commissioned me to make a follow-up film to Pedigree Dogs Exposed, to explore what impact the film had and to assess what progress has been made in addressing conformation and genetic issues in purebred dogs since 2008. PDE 2 will be what the BBC call a "personal view" film - acknowledging, as of course I have to, how involved I have become in this issue since making Pedigree Dogs Exposed. There has been no response from the Kennel Club yet. I am keen for the KC to have a voice in the film so hope they will decide to take part and to let me film at one or two dog shows between now and the end of the year so we can see what progress has been made since PDE, particularly as regards the "high-profile" breeds. I asked, in fact, to film at Southern Counties Champ Show this weekend - and was turned down by Show Chairman David Cavill, although he has kindly offered himself as an independent expert on the film. I went along anyway yesterday and, walking along the benches mid-afternoon saw a man coming towards me who looked very familiar. We recognised each other at the same instant. It was Ronnie Irving, outgoing Chair of the KC, who did a bit of a double-take and hurried on. A few minutes later, an announcement went over the Tannoy reminding everyone that filming was not allowed. Coincidence? It was the only such announcement I heard all day. I am, in fact, bound by strict broadcasting rules. There's nothing to stop me going in as a paying punter and using the lenses that God gave me, but, having been refused access to film, there's no way I can sneak in with a camera.

PETA = PITA (too American? Make that PITB, for Pain In The Bum). How about ganging up on the Pedigree Dogs Exposed blog and pointing out that the bad apples haven't spoiled the bin: That many breeders breed for health, working ability, and temperament; and that many breeders of non-pedigree dogs breed for the almighty dollar (or pound . . . pun intended); that if you want predictable dog, purebred is better; that pedigrees mean something. I do not think this is a case of all hanging together or we'll all hang separately. I think the public has general sympathies for pedigree dogs, but are made uneasy by extremes of 'conformation' as sometimes sought in the show ring. I think it's important to put pressure on breeders who put 'winning' above all and in the process take cruel shortcuts to beauty, or relax standards for health and/or temperament. I don't want to be allied with people who breed for conformation extremes, or with people who wax their dogs. I think that hanging them out to dry would improve the pedigree dog world AND reduce the criticism. Shaar, I believe you don't shave or wax. But do you know people who do? Do you belong to a breed club? How about working with the breed circle to gain acceptance for the fully haired Crestie as well as the hairless, and to bring shame on those who go to extremes to remove hair. Personally, I think that would be more productive than railing against PDE. p.s., I know nothing about Cresties . . . other than having been involved, once, in a search for a valuable stud dog who had escaped from a breeder's kennels, and was especially hard to catch because it ran from everyone, especially the breeder.

Apologies. I'm embarrassed about loosing my temper, but I do so sometimes. I was paid to be picky about grammar, spelling and usage for many years and I never liked the role. It p's me off to be criticised, or should I say criticized, for using one Americanism. Guess there's a bit of a bull breed about me . It's hard to ignore a perceived attack. Thanks to those who have brought the thread back on topic. I'll try to do a summary someday . . . giving people a set of links to blogs worth trying. [interjections in square brackets]. btw., Mervin, that should have read 'Sandgrubber asked [tense wrong] a question about 'their' and 'there'; [full stop or semi colon, not comma. Use either quotes or italics to set their and there apart from the rest of the text. Btw, I did not ask a question. The difference between the two words is clear, and the same in US and UK English]. I answered it. Get your hackles down. [Heckles, in US or British English, relates to abuse of a public speaker . . . most often seen as heckling. Hackles, or perhaps haeckles in older versions of English, refers to the hair on a dog, or other animal's neck]. I just get annoyed that every time I spell it right in the Queen's English [English is a proper noun and should be capitalised . . . or capitalized . . . and you missed the apostrophe in Queen's], an American spell checker tells me I am wrong. End result is [tense?] that in years to come everyone will spell it in the American way. I am not having a go at the American people.' [No? Then are you attacking me, personally?] PLEASE learn the Queen's English, find a British spell checker, and stop attacking people [by which I mean, me] over trivial spelling differences that have nothing to do with dogs. Guess I'm still mad. Sandgrubber ask a question about there and their, I answered it. Get your heckles down, I just get annoyed that every time I spell it right in the Queens english an american spell check tells me I am wrong, end result is that in years to come every one will spell it the american way, I am not having a go at american people. Edited to correct minor punctuation errors.

Yes that's another rock that needs to be turned over. I'm sure if someone with the right skills set into it, a show focusing on DD's and puppy mills could balance the exposure of pedigree dogs. (Not sure about X-breeds. In my experience X-breeds are all over the map. I've never met a Lab X kelpie that I didn't like, or, for that matter, one with HD. Commercial X-breeding feeding pet shops is another story.) But the problems with pedigree dogs bred and managed to win shows require exposure. And some in the show community have a snobbish sort of nastyness that invites wrath. My mum (b. 1923) was raised in Minnesota with working style cocker spaniels. She regarded the AKC American Cocker Spaniel as an abomination.. . ruined temperament and all too pretty/fussy. Also, the collie, that was, even by the 1950s, narrow skulled and no longer bright, like Lassie. I was raised to believe that show breeding was ruining various breeds. My observations tend to justify the prejudice I was raised with, and extend it. Bassets are lovely dogs. But it's so sad that they've gotten so bulky that many can't mate naturally . . . and back problems are very common; or that entropian is the norm with shar peis. Sick that people are soooo keen on winning shows that they would take a partially haired crestie and wax it. And it makes me want to cry that so many of the gentle giants live short and painful lives. I think a lot of dog lovers carry around observations/ prejudices like the ones I was brought up with . . . hence the 'Pedigree dogs exposed' has a big audience.

I get about 18 inches of a queensize bed. I don't know why the damn dogs insist on lying crosswise rather than longwise and putting their bums to my face.

It's hard to separate prejudice from 'expectations'. Here are some residual thoughts form running a boarding kennel for several years: I have positive prejudices toward all gun dogs and feel hurt when they don't justify my expectations (friendly, willing to please). I expect them (espec. Labbies and Goldies) to be awful diggers, and if not well trained, to jump up on people. GSP's are often hard to get in at night and can be noisy. I am cautious of guarding breeds when they may have something to guard, and some are hard on other dogs. I am cautious of terriers, bull breeds, and a few other types when it comes to interacting with other dogs . . . years of working in a boarding kennel tells me that some are fine and some aren't. Herding breeds are often great (apart from compulsive fetching) but tend to fence fight and may get bossy in ways that start non-lethal fights. I pretty much lost my prejudice against SWF's (little yappers) in the boarding kennel . . . most of them are great. Kelpies and staffies are the worst, when it comes to escaping. Kelpies go over. Staffies crowd doors. And of course, any 40 kg + is a problem if the dog isn't well behaved. Staffies are often lovable clowns. Staffy X = unpredictable. Greyhounds are sweeties, but not real bright. Afghans are like greyhounds, with a coat from hell.

We have this kind of dialogue in my house, regularly. MOVE!!!! . . . dog moves, reluctantly. Thank you! good girl! Scratch scratch / pat pat. I feel a little silly saying thank you to the dogs, but I can't help myself. And I think they've come to regard it as a reward, particularly for obeying commands they don't specially want to obey. Also seems good, if kids happen to be watching, to reinforce ideas of politeness. I avoid 'Please' . . . dogs understand commands but I think requests are confusing. How do others use polite words with dogs? Or am I just a little crazy?

sorry, I don't get this. I was raised in the US and spent many years in Australia. I have trouble with spelling differences between English dialects. If you use a dozen question marks, please provide an intelligible question. The point of the post was to help people direct one another to useful/interesting/fun blogs. Given the number of times I've overlooked what are blatant errors in spelling/usage in any English dialect, eg., 'there' for 'their' and 'its' for 'it's' on posts, I am inclined to take it personally when someone attacks for what is correct spelling of 'favorite' in US English . . . but I refrain from pointing my middle finger :D.

Maybe should pm but nothing to keep private. When I moved to WA, I was confused about whether WA-ers were sandgropers or sandgurbbers. They sound the same if you're from the USA, as I am. When I went to apply for a prefix, sandgroper was taken (no surprise), but sandgrubber was wide open. I see 'sandgrubber' as both descriptive of Perth area geography and a tribute to my ability to confuse words. I'm now in coastal California and TAS Fog's Edge, but for Australian purposes I'll remain sandgrubber. Believe me, if you've been exposed to Perth's economy, a lot of us are grubbing (-:

Does not belong on DOL. Full stop.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_dogswithjobs2.html Brooklyn Dog a Rising Star in New York Art Scene Sharon Guynup for National Geographic Channel October 21, 2002 Most of America's 68 million dogs are pampered pets, but a small percent still actually work for their biscuits. Among these gainfully employed canines, there's a range of occupations, from seeing-eye and guard dogs to sheep herders and hunting dogs. But artists? Tillie, a three-year-old Jack Russell terrier from Brooklyn is, according to her Web site, "the world's preeminent canine artist." She is indeed a rising star among visual artists on the New York City contemporary art scene. The 16-pound female, whose full name is Tillamook Cheddar (for the Oregon cheese she's so fond of), has seen her pictures hung in 12 exhibitions over the past three years, including six one-dog shows. She's made a dozen TV appearances—and the four-legged artist has sold about 100 pictures, with sales "in the five-figures." Tillie's abstract creations have been likened to modern masters Willem de Kooning and Cy Twombly. In her most recent show at the prestigious National Arts Club—entitled "Collarobations"—she created works with the controversial artist Tom Sachs, photographer Dirk Westphal, and 24 other humans. How Does a Dog Embark on an Art Career? Okay, so how exactly does a dog embark on an art career? It all began when Tillie was just a six-month-old pup. One day, her owner, freelance writer Bowman Hastie, was sitting on the couch writing on a legal pad. The dog jumped up and started scratching away at the pad. . . . and it goes on

I'm amazed by the quality of some of the K9 blogs out therre. Title says it all. Do you have a favorite dog blog? If so, please post,

Good pick! I think DOL needs to set up a pinned topic for good (or relevant . . . sometimes it's good to keep track of the anti-pedigree dog community) blogs.

I've tried the repellers . . . in a caravan, where they should have maximum effect. No effect on mice, whatsoever. Went back to traps. It's easy to put them in places where dogs won't put paws, like the back of a cupboard or next to the toaster.

Link to full article Interesting, start, but needs much more work to be convincing. I would have liked to see more description of Fox's studies of wolf behaviour, eg., description of where it was done under what circumstances. His work is ~ 40 years old . . . are his methods still considered valid? Do the wolves he studied reflect wolves as a whole? And more importantly, do they represent wolves as they existed before extensive environmental modification by Homo sapiens. I don't think you can characterize all French Bulldogs by observing four females interact in five one hour sessions. I find the group behaviour of Labradors varies considerably between breeders . . . don't know if this is due to genetics or environment. It's peculiar that he doesn't mention Balyaev's work with foxes which so strongly showed correlation between morphological and behavioural changes during domestication.

The Chinese Crested write up she did was laughable. Apparently I pour hot wax on my dog then rip it off... I have been told that's what I do so it must be true. I went and read the Chinese Crested article on her blog and I have to say, I find it convincing. see: http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/01/bald-truth-about-chinese-crested.html Her sources seem to come from the 'inside' . .. people talking about how to win shows . . . and I am pretty repulsed by the descriptions. You are being unfair. She does not say all Crestie people denude their dogs. She agrees that some are naturally hairless. If what she says is true, ie, the Crufts crowd includes many who do extensive hair removal before showing, I think it deserves attention. Conformation shows should be about conformation, not cosmetics, and hair removal on the scale she's talking about strikes me as cruel. While I don't buy Pedigree Dogs Exposed lock stock and barrel, there are a lot of things in the pedigree dog world as dominated by conformation showing that need examination and perhaps correction. It's routine for the journo who breaks a question open for examination in a big way is sensationalist. Over-reaction on the part of the pedigree dog world comes off as denial, and does more harm than good.

You can take the dog/wolf out of the environment but can you take the environment out of the dog/wolf? That is the balance we need to find, how much is inherently 'wolf' behaviour and how much is 'man made'. In the study I linked earlier there are very clear and quantifiable behaviours that correlate between dogs and wolves and correlate with alterations in morphology which have been influenced by artificial selection. A big ask! What if common behaviours between dog and wolf come from a common proto-wolf / proto-dog that is no longer available for behavioral study? I'm happy to buy into the notion the wolves have been more persecuted in Europe than North America. Has anyone seen comparative study of wolf behaviour, or, for that matter, morphology, on different continents? p.s. Anyone following this thread might want to read the article WoffnHoof posted in 'Studies About Dogs'.

This comes from Blog run by a guy who calls himself Retrieverman. It's an interesting take on the 'wolf behavior as model for dog behaviour' that lots of dog people subscribe to. . . . and an interesting blog. It seems to me that wolves have experienced a Belyaev [the fox domestication Russian] experiment in reverse. Persecution was a selection pressure against tameness and approachability, and the animals that survived the cull were largely those that were most nervous and emotionally reactive. It is so severe that many wolves won't cross roads. Roads and virtually anything else that appears novel are too much for them. This is one reason why it was found that many captive wolves won't eat beef. They were raised eating deer and elk, and beef is just too novel and too scary. Perhaps one of the reasons why these wolves are so nervous is that nervousness and paranoia are the result of a selection pressure that chooses wolves with shorter critical periods for socialization. Just as Belyaev selected for tameness and got longer critical periods, man could have selected for only those wolves that were paranoid and emotionally reactive– and this may be in some way correlated or associated with a shorter critical period. Maybe it goes like this: If you have a short critical period for socialization, one has only a limited opportunity to learn which things are safe, so almost everything else in the world is scary. Conversely, if you have a longer critical period, one can learn that more things aren't scary and one's brain develops very differently. Both of those courses of development would have profound influence on how one's brain would develop, and perhaps, it can explain many of the differences between dogs and wolves. . . . One part that is always missing in the wolf and dog comparison is the tendency to ignore the simple reality that wolves have continued to evolve after dogs were domesticated. The dog didn’t descend from the wolf running wild today, but both descend from a common ancestor. Both may be the same species, but that same species exists in two distinct populations. One has been selected by both nature and man to be very close to humans. The other has been selected to fear humans at all costs. The error is assuming that the latter has always been this way. from: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/ . . .

oops . . . meant to put this on General . . . sorry

Hate to mention, but it's rare to have only one mouse.. . . where you've got one, you've probably got many. I keep traps set. I use the old fashion snap traps -- not the Chinese made ones, which I find impossible to set properly -- Victor traps made in the US are much easier to use. Peanut butter or Nutella for bait. Traps aren't kind, but the kill is almost instant, unlike poisons, where the poisoning process may take a week or more. (They do this deliberately. Rats are smart. If they see another rat eat something and keel over, the other rats avoid eating the stuff. So they make poisons that act so slowly that the rats can't associate the poison with the death). I catch one almost every night. My dogs are happy to dispose of the dead ones. Yum yum. Mouse with peanut butter!