sandgrubber

I was not making excuses, nor condoning. I was simply observing that people's reactions tend to be strong, vehement, and irrational when issues are sexual. I can't imagine such strong reaction to a dog who is kept in a small kennel with no stimulation or attention . . . or special condemnation because this was done by a licensed professional. I am sure there are many doctors, lawyers, even judges, who abuse their dogs in such fashion. I can imagine that such dogs are seriously damaged. I have never encountered a dog that was subjected to bestiality (although some people seem to regard digital stimulation in AI as bestiality. I've witnessed that, and concluded it did more good than harm) and my statement that I wish I could hear a dog's perspective can be taken literally. I am not convinced that all bestiality involves rape, and I find it conceivable that some forms of human sexual deviation involving animals are ok from the animal's perspective. I would be happy to be see some facts about the harm that is done. I'm also totally naive about commercial--or the much laughed at, folkloric sheep farmer type--bestiality. It isn't a high priority for me to correct that ignorance. But I could imagine that the shepherd form existed (and probably exists) in a relatively benign form where some horny male penetrated a ewe who was in season and receptive. I find this gross. But I wouldn't find it especially cruel. And if someone got off on training his or her dog to lick his crotch (as dogs regularly do to one another and would probably be happy to do with humans if it weren't so rapidly discouraged) I'd find it disturbing, but pretty harmless. Quoting the source of choice for lazy researchers, Wikipedia points out that "The Kinsey reports rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms," The image of bestiality shown in Wikipedia, btw., shows that bestiality is not new, and may involves something as mild (from a dog perspective) as licking of genitals. The discussion is anything but calm and rational . . . as a habitual skeptic, I would prefer to see documentation of the harm done rather than the throwing around of lots of reactive derogatory words. Reminds me too much of unenlightened reactions to homosexuality, or, for that matter, reactions a century back to any assertion that women should enjoy sex.

I was not making excuses, nor condoning. I was simply observing that people's reactions tend to be strong, vehement, and irrational when issues are sexual. I can't imagine such strong reaction to a dog who is kept in a small kennel with no stimulation or attention . . . or special condemnation because this was done by a licensed professional. I am sure there are many doctors, lawyers, even judges, who abuse their dogs in such fashion. I can imagine that such dogs are seriously damaged. I have never encountered a dog that was subjected to bestiality (although some people seem to regard digital stimulation in AI as bestiality. I've witnessed that, and concluded it did more good than harm) and my statement that I wish I could hear a dog's perspective can be taken literally. I am not convinced that all bestiality involves rape, and I find it conceivable that some forms of human sexual deviation involving animals are ok from the animal's perspective. I would be happy to be see some facts about the harm that is done. I'm also totally naive about commercial--or the much laughed at, folkloric sheep farmer type--bestiality. It isn't a high priority for me to correct that ignorance. But I could imagine that the shepherd form existed (and probably exists) in a relatively benign form where some horny male penetrated a ewe who was in season and receptive. I find this gross. But I wouldn't find it especially cruel. And if someone got off on training his or her dog to lick his crotch (as dogs regularly do to one another and would probably be happy to do with humans if it weren't so rapidly discouraged) I'd find it disturbing, but pretty harmless. Quoting the source of choice for lazy researchers, Wikipedia points out that "The Kinsey reports rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms," The image of bestiality shown in Wikipedia, btw., shows that bestiality is not new, and may involves something as mild (from a dog perspective) as licking of genitals. The discussion is anything but calm and rational . . . as a habitual skeptic, I would prefer to see documentation of the harm done rather than the throwing around of lots of reactive derogatory words. Reminds me too much of unenlightened reactions to homosexuality, or, for that matter, reactions a century back to any assertion that women should enjoy sex.

I wish a few dogs could comment on this. I suspect that a lot of dogs would say human sexual curiousity is minor compared to many of the things they commonly suffer -- like a lifetime of solitary confinement in a back yard with little or no stimulation. Comments equivalent to: The Nursing and Midwifery Board is arguing Modystack's conduct was "illegal and repugnant" and "inconsistent with being of good character and being a fit and proper person to hold a registration in the nursing profession". were widely made when people were tried for homosexuality and forced into terrible punishments/treatments. I worked with a vet who used finger stimulation on vaginal AI treatments, attempting to mimic the sensation of the dog's penis. She got great results, and the bitch was enthusiastic. You could call this beastiality, especially if she got a buzz out of doing it (for me this was don't ask, don't tell). But it worked and from the dog's perspective it wasn't the least bit cruel. Human and canine attitudes to sex are SO different. I find it laughable that puritanical judgements are uncritically applied. Mind you, I'm not condoning pimping dogs. Just saying, it would be good to see it from the dog's perspective before throwing the book at the offender. And it would be good to pay more attention to commonplace routine cruelties of confinement without social interaction or stimulation.

For me the take-home messages are: 1) CM started up as a poor kid from Mexico raised around a lot of dogs. He has amazing ability to read dogs and use his own body language to communicate with them. 2) television and Hollywood have built his native abilities up to a bit of a cult 3) CM will screw up from time to time -- this is one instance of bad judgement. (I suspect he likes dogs more than people and really likes a dog pack, thus will take risks). Behaviorism has made much of the science of dog training. There is also an art of dog training that requires the native skills CM possesses in abundance. The ideal trainer (rare, and maybe nonexistent) balances science and art. Unfortunately, the ideal trainer will find it easier to transfer the science than the art. In watching CM, it's probably better to turn off the sound and just watch his moves.

I hate the term backyard breeder. Many small registered breeders keep their dogs in the backyard . . . and some of them advertise their pups on Gumtree. Some of them don't show and may be called BYB's by show folks. Border Collies are not my breed and I don't know what diseases prevail, and what health tests can or should be done. I do know there's a big fuss in the breed between different registries and lots of politics and backbiting relating to working vs. show vs. trial-ing . . .and that some esteemed lines are inbred and not particularly healthy. Back in the days I ran a kennel (in WA), some of the BC's we saw were high strung to the point where they would be difficult pets. I'd encourage your friend to research the breed carefully, define what she's looking for, and ask the hard questions of any breeder he or she approaches. The following might be an interesting read (depending on what she's looking for: http://www.border-wars.com/2014/07/why-border-collies-transcript-and-gallery.html

I used and liked it when I lived near Costco and had friends who would pick it up for me (I'm not a member). I think it is TOTW repackaged.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/07/23/cesar-millan-dog-whisperer-dog-attack-great-dane-studio-city/#ixzz38S3Vzjvg Cesar Millan couldn't stop one of his gigantic clients -- a Great Dane -- from attacking a neighbor during a training session yesterday ... TMZ has learned. Sources tell us the 'Dog Whisperer' star was walking a group of dogs, including the Great Dane, near his home in Studio City, CA -- and none of the dogs were leashed. We're told one of Millan's neighbors was out walking his own dog ... and when the neighbor reached out to let the Great Dane sniff his palm ... the dog suddenly bit the man's hand and forearm. We're told Cesar followed the man to the hospital where he was treated and released. Unclear, at this point, how badly he was injured. A rep for Millan confirmed the attack, and says Cesar was walking a "troubled dog" as part of its training, when it got "spooked by a neighbor." The rep added, Cesar is still caring for the dog. We don't know yet how big this dog was -- but adult Great Danes range from 100 to 120 pounds. A source close to the victim tells us "he's healing," and is following up with a physician today.

Years ago I did tracker dog training in the Perth area. I asked around about training dogs to find a missing dog. For reasons I don't understand, these questions were always brushed off. People seem to believe (but will offer no evidence) that tracking other dogs detracts from a dog's ability to track humans. The trail is already too old for most dogs. Hope the missing dog turns up.

x2 ordinary worming tablets (eg pyrantel) do not treat tapeworm. . . . you need something with praziquantel, which is relatively expensive. This isn't a big problem. Tapeworm isn't common in most areas. (I'm now living in an area where it IS common, and I treat it if and when it shows up).

I was pretty depressed by politicians in the 15 years I spent in Oz. On coming home to the US, I find it's at least as bad here. Here's a dog-related story about our drongo of a state Governor. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gov-admits-ditched-dog-election-article-1.1240626 Florida Gov. Rick Scott finally admits he ditched rescue dog Reagan after winning election in 2010 After capturing the GOP primary, Gov. Rick Scott made much of his new Labrador retriever, even holding an online contest to select a name. But Reagan (the winning name) vanished from sight after the election. Constituents are barking at Florida Gov. Rick Scott after he FINALLY admitted, after two years, that he discarded his rescue dog just months after adopting it. With much fanfare, Gov. Scott rescued the Labrador retriever after winning the Republican nomination for governor in 2010. He crowed about the move on Facebook, and even held an online contest allowing people to select a name. . . . . und so weider Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gov-admits-ditched-dog-election-article-1.1240626#ixzz37lvmZJmr

It's also helpful to put things in historical perspective. Treatment of animals (ok, not factory farm animals, particularly swine) has gradually improved over the decades and centuries. Things we consider abuse were standard practice in the past. More and more dogs live in the home, rather than being left in the yard. Dogfighting still exists, but only as an outlaw activity, not as mainstream entertainment. Abuse of working dogs still happens, but not the way it did in the days when dogs were used to turn spits. Spey/neuter programs result in fewer unwanted pups being born . . . and fewer pups being killed. More and more places have banned chaining dogs out.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/animal-rights-groups-that-paid-circus-15.7-million-file-suit-against-insurers-who-cancelled-them-in-2010/article/2550518 Animal rights groups that paid circus $15.7 million file suit against insurers who cancelled them in 2010 BY: Richard Pollock July 7, 2014 | 6:00 am 50COMMENTS 13 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's circus handler Joey Frisco speaks to an Asian elephant during an appearance in Boston's North End. (AP/Elise Amendola) WATCHDOG FOLLOW THE MONEY CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS ANIMALS HUMANE SOCIETY When leaders of the animal rights movement agreed May 15 to pay $15.7 million to America's most famous circus, it seemed to be the end of the 14-year-old case. After all, at the case's conclusion, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet G. Sullivan bluntly described the suit brought by the animal rights groups as “groundless and unreasonable from its inception.” Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus may have won back its good name, but a new issue has since arisen over who will pay the $15.7 million in attorney fees. The insurers advised the animal rights groups four years ago they would not provide coverage for the attorney fees. Today, the groups are suing their insurers. The fees were originally generated in Animal Welfare Institute v. Feld Entertainment lawsuit, which was filed in 2000. Feld owns the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, known to millions of Americans as "The Greatest Show on Earth." The circus, which criss-crosses the United States by train and truck, has been performing since the 19th Century. The circus was accused of abusing elephants by four animal rights groups and several individuals, including Tom Rider, who once worked for Ringling Bros. The suit generated hundreds of briefs, motions, depositions and hearings, requiring the services of 41 attorneys from all sides. When the settlement was announced, officials at the Humane Society of the U.S. and the Fund for Animals, which were responsible for paying the $15.7 million, defiantly claimed their insurance companies, not their donors, would pay the money to Feld. “We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to the HSUS and the Fund for Animals will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from the HSUS will go to Feld,” HSUS said in a statement released on the day of the settlement. What the animal rights groups failed to disclose to the public was that they'd been told four years before that their insurance companies would not provide coverage. The balking insurance companies included the National Union Fire Insurance Co., the Travelers and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. Revelations of ethical misconduct that surfaced as the case progressed to its conclusion left huge question marks about the credibility of the animal rights groups. John Simpson, a law partner at the law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski and the lead attorney for Feld Entertainment, said the insurance issue continues a "pattern" of misinformation by the animal rights groups. "The entire lawsuit was based on either misleading or outright false statements of fact," Simpson told the Washington Examiner. The case began with allegations that circus workers mistreated the elephants. Rider, a former Ringling “barn man” who handled the elephants, charged that they were abused using bull hooks and chains. Rider initially appeared to be an insider whistleblower making highly credible charges. But those charges soon crumbled largely because of questions about Rider's honesty. Videos surfaced of Rider himself using bull hooks on elephants. He denounced another elephant handler as abusive toward the elephants, but then went to work for him. After leaving Ringling, he joined a European circus that openly used bull hooks and chains. Rider claimed he loved all of his “girls" and had become so emotionally attached to them that he could identify them on sight. During his depositions in 2006 and 2007, however, Rider "could not name the elephants with whom he allegedly had a personal and emotional attachment,” Sullivan wrote in his final ruling. And, when shown video clips of the elephants, “he could not identify them,” the judge said. The case blew up when it was revealed that attorney Katherine Meyer had secretly funneled $190,000 in payments from her own firm and from some of the animal rights groups to Rider. Meyer was the lead attorney for the groups. Neither Meyer nor the animal rights groups had informed Sullivan or Feld's attorneys about the payments. “The funds paid to Rider appeared to be paid in such a way to avoid ready detection,” said Sullivan, who sanctioned Meyer for "bad faith misconduct" with "deliberate intent to harm." Meyer has filed hundreds of animal rights and environmental cases on behalf of activists for those causes. But Sullivan said Meyer “sought to conceal the nature, extent and purpose of the payments” to Rider, including “affirmatively false interrogatory response [denying the payments] signed by Rider and prepared by Ms. Meyer, the same attorney who was paying him.” Rider's testimony was so weak Sullivan said Feld's attorneys "pulverized" the former circus employee while he was on the stand. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Animals separately settled with Feld in December 2012, paying $9.3 million in a lump sum. As the case crumbled, other animal rights groups also dropped out. When the ASPCA and the May 15 settlements are tallied, the animal rights movement has now paid Ringling Bros. a total of $25.2 million. Feld's attorneys claim it represents the largest verdict or settlement made by the ASPCA or the HSUS. The case also is the first time attorney fees were awarded to a private defendant under the 41-year history of the Endangered Species Act, according to Feld's attorneys. The Humane Society and the Fund for Animals were first informed of the denial of insurance coverage in May 2010 when Chartis, the administrator handling the National Union claims, advised the groups, “there is no coverage for this claim, based on the insured’s failure to provide notice during the policy period.” Both the Fund for Animals and the Humane Society failed to tell reporters on May 15 that they had an ongoing dispute with their insurance companies over compensation. The Fund for Animals admitted in court filings that the organization continued to communicate with National Union about the denial, saying they “exchanged further correspondence during 2010; however, National Union steadfastly maintained its denial of coverage.” Travelers also notified both groups they would refuse to provide coverage in a 2010 letter. The Fund for Animals sued all three of the insurance companies last September, claiming “breach of contract” in a lawsuit filed in the circuit court in Baltimore, Md. That case has been transferred to the circuit court in Montgomery County, Md. And only one week after the May 15 settlement, the Humane Society sued National Union in a case now in federal court. Simpson, the Feld attorney, charged that in the latest episode of the case, the animal rights groups are misleading the public once again as they had throughout the trial. “You have its head saying to the donating public that none of their donations are going to be used to fund this settlement, when I don’t see as a practical matter that could possibly be true," Simpson said. “At the time they made that payment, which indisputably happened in cash to our client by wire transfer, there was no insurance payment. So it had to come from the coffers of the Humane Society,” he said. Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society's president and CEO, shrugged off the insurance companies' refusal to cover the settlement, saying in an interview, “denial of coverage is a standard posture within the industry.” Pacelle, who was previously the organization's chief lobbyist and spokesman, said they have a “commitment” from one carrier “to cover the bulk of what our responsibility is.” He said he hopes there can be settlements with the other two insurance carriers. Mediation talks are being held between the Fund for Animals and the Travelers and Charter Oak insurance companies, according to court documents. “What’s not covered by insurance is covered by the Fund of Animals,” Pacelle said. Pacelle's claim highlights another issue. The CEO insisted that the Fund for Animals is totally separate from the Humane Society, saying it has “its own board of directors and its own donors.” But the Humane Society's website describes the merger of HSUS and Fund for Animals as occurring in 2004: “In 2004, Wayne Pacelle and Michael Markarian (president of The Fund for Animals and now chief program and policy officer of the HSUS) helped engineer the corporate combination of the HSUS and The Fund for Animals,” the current website states. And the Humane Society's 2012 IRS Tax Form 990 describes the two organizations as legally "related" to each other. “Since insurance was going to cover the share we were going to commit to, we wanted to move on,” Pacelle said. Pacelle also insisted the lost lawsuit was based on a "sound case." He also offered a conspiracy theory about the circus: “This is a company that has infiltrated animal welfare groups, hired a former deputy director of the CIA to infiltrate animal welfare groups." Charity Navigator, a national consumer rating organization of public charities, published a “Donor Advisory” notice about the Humane Society and the Fund for Animals earlier this year in describing the Feld case settlement. Sandra Miniutti, a Charity Navigator vice president and spokesman, said donor advisories are issued “because donors may want to re-evaluate their donations.” She said the advisories indicated “extreme concern.” Only 160 public charities have been marked with a "Donor Advisory" out of the 1 million public charities reviewed by the organization, she said. Rider passed away in October 2013. UPDATE: Charity Navigator has issued updates to its donor advisories for Humane Society of the U.S. and Fund for Animals as a result of this story. CORRECTION: The animal rights groups discussed in this story agreed to pay a voluntary settlement and were not ordered by a court to pay, as an earlier version of the headline erroneously stated. The Washington Examiner regrets the error.

Thats Texas for you. I'm surprised they're not using shelter dogs for target practice.

Scum bag How lucky that the dog didn't consume any meatballs and was unharmed. My dogs would have gobbled them in a flash! I wonder how many times this creep has done this in the past and gotten away with it.

I'm absolutely convinced that there are healthy Pugs, Pekes and Frenchies who can make it at agility, etc. Also convinced that it should be possible to increase the health standards of this group of breeds. Also convinced that the multiple problems -- not just brachy face structure but also spinal problems, inability to whelp freely, eye problems, etc -- tend to go together. Result, breeds with high vet bills and generally short lifespans: also high price tags because these problems limit the number of people willing to breed and increase the costs of breeding. Seems to me the critical question is whether there are enough breeders making a serious effort to produce robust dogs in the troubled breeds. As Anne and others have noted, steniotic nares are still widespread in the show ring, and the less visible problems remain major problems even from breeders with good reputations. Can anyone name breeders who are doing well using the strategy of 'a little more nose' . . . and aiming to produce pups who may not fare well in the show ring, but have a high chance of living normal, healthy lives? If there are no such breeders, I don't see much hope for the affected breeds.

Four, not six. It's moveable and gets moved every three or four days. The chickens do scratch. Chickens are not dogs. If anyone decided they had too many dogs and ate a few to reduce their numbers, I think all of us would be shocked. This is routine with chooks.

Why do you want to show? If you want ribbons, get a good example of a rare breed.

Update: Six months later. Fencing off the chooks with electric fence worked fine. The dogs completely lost interest. Due to problems with my shop, I haven't been able to build a bigger run for the chooks yet, but have learned what weeds they love and make sure they get lots of them. Now getting 3 to 4 eggs a day. The chooks are Australorpes, a gentle breed, and have shown no inclination to harm one another, despite smallness of their enclosure.

I'm confused. Didn't the Kennel Club (UK) revise breed standards for many (most) brachy breeds to penalize extreme brachy conformation a few years back? Didn't Australia follow suit (while the US adamantly refused)? How's this going? Is change from within happening? ...or has my memory failed me (again)? p.s. I found a source http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/activities/dog-showing/breed-standards/about-breed-standards/ quoting from it In 2009, all of the breed standards were reviewed to ensure that no standard demands any feature which could prevent a dog from breathing, walking and seeing freely. Breed health and welfare is a driving force of the Kennel Club and so any feature described in a breed standard which might threaten the wellbeing and quality of life of a dog is eschewed. Above all, dogs of all breeds should be able to live healthy, comfortable lives. Most pedigree dogs are bred as family pets and companions so health and soundness must come first.

Seems like a constructive and realistic position from the VIC AVA, though it would be good to see the discussion paper it was written to address. This is more trait-specific than breed specific, and unlike the usual BS BSL, it addresses real health concerns. I wish breed clubs and the kennel clubs would take stronger stands to discourage extreme conformations with bad health implications, as opposed to titling flat faced dogs over those with some muzzle. If clubs and judges did more to curb breeding for fashion rather than function, there would be no call for legislative action.

Too little information in this story to form a judgement. A 10 yr old dog frothing at the mouth could mean lots of things . . . and one person's idea of fit is another person's idea of malnourished. I'd think more overt neglect would be needed to warrant a 10 yr ban and $5k fine. Lots of a##holes manage to get their dogs killed by neglect well before they reach 10 yrs.

The floors don't bother me so much. It's when they take a swim in their dip tank, roll in the sand, and then come in and relax on my bed that it gets to me.

On a Good Dog by Ogden Nash O, my little pup ten years ago was arrogant and spry, Her backbone was a bended bow for arrows in her eye. Her step was proud, her bark was loud, her nose was in the sky, But she was ten years younger then, And so, by God, was I. Small birds on stilts along the beach rose up with piping cry. And as they rose beyond her reach I thought to see her fly. If natural law refused her wings, that law she would defy, for she could do unheard-of things, and so, at times, could I. Ten years ago she split the air to seize what she could spy; Tonight she bumps against a chair, betrayed by milky eye! She seems to pant, Time up, time up! My little dog must die, And lie in dust with Hector's pup; So, presently, must I.

A curious, sensationalized bit of natural history . . . . relevant in reminding us that we don't understand Dermodex mange very well. http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5799992/these-mites-live-on-your-face-and-come-out-to-have-sex-at-night These mites live on your face and come out to have sex at night Updated by Joseph Stromberg on June 11, 2014, 3:10 p.m. ET @josephstromberg [email protected] Demodex folliculorum, a type of mite that naturally lives on the human face. Meet Your Mites Right now, there are thousands of mites on your face. They're microscopic, but closely related to spiders and ticks. And despite your reaction to hearing this news, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you. "99.9 percent of humans carry them," says Ron Ochoa, a mite scientist at the US Department of Agriculture. They're most abundant on our faces, but live in the hair follicles all over our bodies, and a single person may harbor more than one million of them in total. 99.9 PERCENT OF HUMANS CARRY FACE MITES During the day, the animals stay hidden in your follicles, feeding on oils naturally secreted by your glands. At night, they use their stubby legs to climb to the surface to find mates. Perhaps the most startling fact about these mites: they were first identified in 1842, but scientists still know surprisingly little about them. "These are things that live on us — they're intimately associated with us — but they've not really been studied," says Holly Menninger, who's part of a North Carolina State project that's sampling the mites that live on hundreds of volunteers. "It's kind of crazy." Her team is among the few that trying to learn more. Here's what little we do know so far about the mites you carry everyday. ....article goes on . .. .

If and when you decide to go for Xrays, look for someone who does Penn hip. This involves a more exacting specification of placement.. . .and placement can greatly affect the way the hips appear on Xrays. The Penn hip crew claim to get accurate predictions of hip quality at 16 weeks. See http://info.antechimagingservices.com/pennhip/