Horsefeathers!

[quote name='Matty']I thought every hill billy down south had a blood hound :o this is not true???? :lol: That is how I always pictute a bloodhound, sitting faithfully beside its owner who is drinking moon shine with a big rifle in his arm. All this while he is rocking in his rocking chair.[/quote] Hey, we DO have internet access down here and some of us can even read. :x

Mouse, your dogs are smarter and more accurate than our college educated meteorologists with their electronic doodads and whatchamacallits. You might be able to make some money from your weather predicting pooches. :wink:

Another thing... shouldn't dog training also be about training the OWNER how to handle the dog? That seems to me like it would be best achieved working as a team and not by sending the dog away.

[quote]She also has the sweetest, friendliest personality I've ever seen in a dog, and I'd be heartbroken if that were to change. I didn't get her for protection...I love her friendliness.[/quote] Even though they "fixed" your sister's dog, it doesn't seem like your dog is in need of being "fixed." I don't know anything about this guy, but it says he specializes in aggression and hard to control dogs (even though it says they also do basic training). Since your dog seems to be neither, have you checked out the Tallahassee Dog Obedience Club? I've heard good things about them and have been considering enrolling one of mine, myself. Since she's kind of timid, maybe it might be a good confidence booster? I'm only offering that up as an alternative since it's always good to have choices. I'm in no way discrediting the other place. Contact either of them (and others if you like) and decide who you're more comfortable with for your particular dog. :wink: One thought, though... since she wasn't intended as a protection dog, I don't know that I'd be trying to "make" her into one. I would think that as her confidence increases, she'd be more likely to become more "assertive" (not aggressive).

[quote name='pitbullEmily']Except you can have an airedale. But not a Weimeraner. [/quote] I wonder how Weims got to be targeted? I mean, I'm not for any kind of breed bans and this is exactly why I hate ANY breed discrimination, but it's just really weird to see Weims targeted. It's why I keep saying the list of bans is going to grow until NO dog is allowed. It's what some people would like, anyway.

[quote name='guest'][b]Official Reponse from PeTA[/b]: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response was published in the paper: [url]http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentdisplay.asp?aid=8857&mode=print[/url] PETA Responds to Mike Adams Thursday, August 05, 2004 1) PETA's mission is to end animal suffering. [/quote] What a VAGUE statement. It sounds all warm and fuzzy and is nothing but propaganda to draw on folks' good intentions (therefore more member$ and contributor$). I mean, who wouldn't want to "end animal suffering?" What does "end animal suffering" entail and who gets to decide? Since PETA believes that any ownership of animals at all constitutes animal suffering, are all you PETA supporters willing to give up your pets? If not, I believe all the PETA preaching to be nothing but hypocritical and lacking any credibility. Reading the rest of that "rebuttal" made me want to know who I could see to get the last 2 minutes of my life back.

I saw that. *snicker* Yeah, it's definitely a subject I have been just DYING for someone to address. I'll sleep better tonight. :lol:

It's definitely dog related. Everyone rush to bid on this! 8) Proof that you can sell ANYTHING on eBay. [url=http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=3738728622&rd=1]eBay auction[/url]

Sasha beat me to it. :wink: I broke my ankle, Court, and the gory details are on the link Sasha posted. :oops:

That IS weird. :o

[quote name='sashagirl']:-? I can honestly say without a doubt that if I heard legislation for ANY breed large or small, I would be ALL over it... Take that for what you will... BSL is not good for ANY breed... Because if they see that they can get away with it, it's only a matter of time when we can't own anything... For some reason it sounds like a lot of people are arguing when really I think we all agree here... Honestly, I don't know what to say, because I agree with everything said here... My head is spinning, I am going to lie down now. (Shhh, don't tell my boss)[/quote] It's not an argument. In my long drawn out dramatic fashion (since I have so much time to kill :P ), I was agreeing with Cairn. I think most of us are on the same team. My post was not directed at anyone in particular. It was just general observations. :D Lying down... your head hurt again? :(

You're right. They're EVERYWHERE!! I don't think I could do it. Besides, at this point, I don't want the dogs ANYWHERE near my cast! :-? If I could just figure out what to do with my Tucker Lab. He's 80 lbs of "huh? you tawkin' to ME? let me climb in yer lap so I kin hear ya!" :o

[quote name='sashagirl'][quote name='courtnek']As far as people not getting outraged about it, it's not because they are small dogs, its because there isnt any laws, or community outrage, and media hype about getting rid of ALL Bichon's.....If there was I can guarantee you'd find people here in full voice.[/quote] Thank you court... This is exactly it... Whenever there is a pit bull in the news, all of the sudden they are ALL monstersm, and should be banned. That is why the pit bull community gets their backs up. [/quote] My perception and what I agree with Cairn about is that it's not necessarily about holding any kind of dog to a higher standard. As much as I love smaller dogs and especially little dogs with "attitude" (not meaning aggressive... meaning more like terriers), I am the absolute, without a doubt, outspoken so'n'so to come forward and rage about irresponsible ownership. I absolutely LOATHE it when small dog owners think aggression is "cute." However, here's what I think got to Cairn and here's what I agree with... had this story been reversed and there had been Pit Bulls, many of the Pit Bull crowd would have come forward and cried foul by implying or outright saying that the dogs were probably provoked, that the people did something to the dogs somehow, but when it's a smaller dog, it's automatically assumed that ALL little dogs are nasty little ankle biters. I'm all for responsible dog ownership for ALL dogs. When it's a targeted breed, I have seen here where some people make excuse after excuse for what is to me unacceptable behavior for ANY dog. When it's a targeted breed, I see so many bad behaviors excused away as people "misunderstanding" and people seem to be willing to accept much more in rehabilitation of these dogs or their behavior than a smaller dog which is just "spoiled." I know how it must suck to be the target of so much discrimination. I've been there and still sort of am. I had a Pit Bull(ish) and have a Doberman that some people avoid like the plague, nevermind that he can't even walk. I know the discrimination. However, similar outrage that you feel when people say "see?? that's why I don't like Pit Bulls!! They'are all dangerous!!" is the same frustration many others feel when someone says "see?? that's why I hate all small dogs!! They're all nasty!!" I know that no one is trying to ban small dogs as yet, but it does kind of bug me a little that some of the same people who are so much victims of discrimination are often the very same ones who discriminate. I'd like to think we're all on the same side. My whole point (though long and drawn out it is :oops: ) is that I understand both sides of the debate and am totally objective. It shouldn't be "us against them." I'd love to see smaller dogs held to the same standards as larger ones, but I'd also like to see less excuses made when a particular dog of a targeted breed is indeed "bad." There is no excuse for aggression in ANY dog and it often is the owners who ruin them either by dismissing it as cute in smaller dogs, or brushing it off as cool in larger ones. I think Kendalyn summed it up nicely: [quote]Yes all dogs should be held to the same standards. Any dog (Pit Bull, Bichon, Lab, Chi, Doberman, whatever) that has bitten someone 3 times should be put to sleep because they are dangerous. Rehoming should not even be an option when there are so many good tempered dogs that need homes.[/quote] I also must honestly admit that I don't believe a word of this: [quote]and media hype about getting rid of ALL Bichon's.....If there was I can guarantee you'd find people here in full voice.[/quote] I am not calling it a lie (never, court!), but I'd almost be willing to bet that if that were the scenario, I'd see more posts here from some bitter souls who would think it's "fair" since they've been targeted so long than calls for letter writing campaigns. Who's to say that in the not too far off future some of the more frustrated "little ankle biter" haters DON'T start some kind of push to get rid of them? Many years ago, wouldn't that have seemed just as ludicrous for Pit Bulls since they were once America's sweethearts? Discrimination in ANY form is not good and I just think it's wrong to "hate" one thing just because you've been unfairly targeted in another. While I am not a Pit Bull person, I'd NEVER advocate getting rid of them. I have indeed written letters, talked to people, tried to be a voice just because I believe in their right to exist even if I don't want another one. I guess that's why it's kind of frustrating to hear some of the same "little dog" garbage over and over. Don't like them, fine, but please stop perpetuating the myths that they are all little bastards who would like nothing more than to tear your ankles from under you. It's surprising some of the dogs that are on some ban lists now and it's not so far fetched that "little ankle biters" could in the future make it there due to the same ignorance that has people thinking all Pits are vicious. Since there are those who would like to see an end to ALL pet ownership and are strongly pushing for it one step (or breed) at a time, the dog loving community needs to be working together rather than take an "us against them" attitude. Uh, the "you" in the last few sentences was not directed at anyone in particular... just John Q. Public in general.

My Tucker Lab had some pretty severe HD, but he had FHO surgery a couple of years which seemed to help a good bit. He's still kind of gimpy sometimes and does take the occasional pain pill, but so far, so good. He's about 7 years old. We give him 1500 mg of glucosamine, 1200 mg of chondroitin and 1000 mg of msm daily as well as 1000 mg of vit c (500 mg morning and 500 mg night). One of my Lhasas (Devin) also has very severe HD in both hips (has virtually no hip sockets). He's only 1 1/2 year old and has had no surgeries. Frequent Adequan injections seem to help him as well as the supplements mentioned above. I can tell when it's time for an Adequan injection because his movement becomes really sloppy and his legs just go out from under him as if someone else is controlling them. We don't know if he will eventually have surgery, or if it would help, but for now, we have been able to manage it. I don't know if you've tried any of these supplements, but they're things that, if they don't help, they really can't hurt. Definitely worth trying if you haven't already. Something else to consider and this is just my humble opinion... 8-9 years old isn't necessarily ancient for a Sheltie. Is he otherwise healthy? I think before making such an important and final decision, I'd get a second opinion on the surgery. I don't know if there are other reasons why that vet thinks Sandy wouldn't make it through surgery, or if it's that maybe Sandy isn't a good candidate for sugery because of the type of HD, but it's kind of hard for me to believe that that age alone would be the sole reason to think he wouldn't survive the recovery. Again, all I know is what I read here, so I'm just offering my opinion based on that.

Right now, I'm of the opinion that I'd like to dock ALL my dogs' tails with my own hands and remove quite a few of those long, foofy ears. Heck, I'm almost ready to remove feet at the ankles. My Tucker dog... I'm seriously starting to envision Labs with docked tails. :o Seriously, they are FINALLY catching on that "move" or "go" means, well, MOVE or freaking GO. I'm not the most graceful person on crutches, nor is my house especially big. Having ten dogs underfoot (not underfEEt since I'm only hobbling on one FOOT) is often a joy, but this week, it's been something else. I started to think my dogs were having sympathy pains for me by drawing up their feet and favoring some of them. Nope, before I realize it, I've nailed one with a crutch or the office chair I'm scooting around in. I can't get big, soft hearted Perry not to take it so personally when I ask him to step aside, or try to gently "move" him. It seems to hurt his feelings. He seems to take it as a personal rejection. :-? Rocco could quite possibly be the smartest dog in the world. I can happily say, "Rocco, move" or "Rocco, go" and he knows right what I want and will happily give me a wide path. For the rest of them... the house looks like a dog exploded... little tufts of hair everywhere from getting caught up in the wheels of my chair or the crutches. :-?

Despite my best intentions, I didn't get to catch the show. My best friend needed me and she has been SO good to me since I've been injured... how could I not be there? Besides, I figured I'd get the play by play from some of you here. 8)

[quote name='Cairn6']I was simply saying that each time there is an attack by a large dog someone makes a point to suggest that perhaps the child provoked the dog. Of course you have your opinion but I have seen the "opinion" of people who don't care for pit bulls shredded to pieces on here. All I am saying is just because pit bulls get a bad rap doesn't automatically mean that all small dogs shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt also. I guess I am a little miffed that just because they are little white dogs no one here seems to care. If this were a pit story people here would be outraged. It's not fair the way large dogs are protrayed by the media but what does that have to do with these little dogs. Nothing it's not there fault people are idiots.[/quote] Actually, I agree.

I've superglued some of my dogs back together more times than I can count. :oops:

Their nicknames usually depend on how angry I am at the time. :oops: It usually goes something like, "why, you little _____[u]fill in the blank[/u]_____!!"

Heh... I watched it. A bunch of little boys in tool belts running around crying and complaining. Oh puhleeze! I'm hoping that in next week's episode, they actually get around to building the dang house. :P

Airing tomorrow (Aug. 3) on Montel Williams is something about dangerous dogs. I have no idea if it's a repeat because I NEVER watch Montel since I'm usually working that time of day. Now that I'm laid up out of work for the next few weeks, I'll probably be watching a LOT of daytime tv (no soaps, though... I'd rather drive a sharp, sandy stick in my eye), so I'll make it my business to catch this show. Just from the advertising blurbs I've seen on tv, they showed something about Rottweilers and I think a Pit(ish) and there was a blurb on a wolf/dog cross. I'm wondering if this is going to turn into a soapbox for BSL, but it should be interesting. Just a heads up for anyone interested in the whole "when pets go bad" thing. Check your local listings for when Montel airs in your area.

All I could say when I read the title of this thread was ****** ****** *** ** * ***** *** ****** ****!!!!!!! :madgo: I had been planning on watching that Monster House episode for the longest time and then freaking missed it!!! Only after bitching tonight that there was nothing on tv. Sonofa....!!! :wallbash: So it comes back on at 11? Cool! :)

[quote name='MajiesMom']Is it the same person that posted on the Leerburg BB yesterday, she's going to foster a hound/Dobie X. [/quote] I'm sure it's the same person. I'm not part of Leerburg, but I've seen her mention it on the board I know her from. I'm really not interested in the whole "prongs/shockers... to use or not to use" stuff. I mean, they aren't methods I've ever needed for any of my dogs ever and I don't intend to start using them any time soon, but I don't want to say NO ONE ever needs them. My whole thing was that it seemed kind of, I dunno, wrong to just jump right into that form of training right from the getgo without first seeing how the dog responds otherwise. I do believe she is well intentioned and has this dog's best interests at heart (if I do believe she is a bit misguided). I don't have a problem with her as a person. It just seemed to me like she was being a bit impulsive, but since I have no personal experience with these forms of training (other than once when a "trainer" did indeed abuse my Lab with a prong collar), I didn't want to jump full steam into that kind of debate blind. That's why I asked people more knowledgeable (you guys). 8)

[quote name='DeafAussieLover']I was feeding chicken soup, and sent Hubby to get dog food and he came back with dog food other then [u]Chicken noodle[/u]..[/quote] Well, THERE'S the problem... you sent him out for CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP!! :P

I know the whole prong/shock thing has been done to death, but I still want to ask. For those who advocate them, are they considered as a last resort, or a first? I'm not an all or nothing purist who believes that there is a one size fits all training solution for all dogs, but am I wrong in assuming that prong/shock collars are to be used only when other more positive methods of training have failed? The reason I ask is because there is a girl on another board who is getting ready to take in her first foster dog. She has only met the dog once very briefly and is already going on about training him by using clickers, prongs and shock collars. She says she's used prong collars on her own dog since day one which leads me to believe that was her training method of choice from the beginning. I honestly want to be fair before engaging in a debate, in case I'm missing something. I just think that resorting to any kind of pain training (or discomfort, or whatever) FIRST is just plain wrong. It was stated in the post that, according to the people who have the dog now, this foster is very food reward oriented, so I don't know why she thinks she needs to jump right into prong collars FIRST. Am I missing something? If I'm wrong, I'll apologize to her (not that I blatantly attacked her, but did openly question it). To be totally honest, my opinion is this.... jumping right into prongs, shockers and such immediately before even considering other options is, in itself, misuse of these tools. Of course, to be fair, I'm not a huge fan of these training tools, anyway, so I'm already a bit opinionated. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had some huge lumbering beast dragging me into traffic, but I've never had that problem and even still, it brings me back to my original point which is that it would be the LAST thing I would try, not the FIRST. What say you, the jury? 8)