DogPaddle

[quote]Weimeraners don't have " Bright BLUE" eyes like the other breeds though they can have blue-grey eyes, (They look more grey than BLUE[/quote] True they are so striking, grey eyes, grey coat . . . actually no that I think of it it sounds dull but they are actually striking. There is some nickname for them based on the all grey thing, anyone know what it is?

Consider that the minimum score would be 22 or 33%. This is a system similar to the taxinomical systems I used to identify subsets of plants within their own subset. This means that in both systems any shrub in the subset of "shrubs" or any dog in the subset of "dogs" stands a good chance of matching some of the requirements. Therefore a rating of 56% is a clear miss. We used to have to have a 90% match rule for interpretive work and a 95% match rule for testing purposes. I would suspect that even a mixed breed should give a result of 90% perhaps as low as 85%. So I agree Hmmm that many dogs would loosly fit this description but [b]hopefully[/b] the system is requiring at least an 85% match to identify mixes and at least a 90% to identify pure pit type dogs. I would like more info on the system, percentages to pass, and what is done if a dog is determined to be a pit type dog.

[quote]he trys to make things go his way by saying "ARF" (he says it to the biscuit box a lot ) [/quote] :lol: [quote]he has to make sure you know when he is sulking by getting next to you and then turning his back to you[/quote] :lol: Glad to hear he is doing so well, good thing for him you were around when he needed. I think he looked like a very dignified gentleman in the one photo you posted on the other thread.

:klacz: Such a wee cutey.

Kagal Dog Breed Standerd from [url]http://www.turkishdogs.com/kangal/standard.html[/url] HEIGHT AND WEIGHT Desirable height at maturity (minimum, two years), measured at the withers ranges from 30 to 32 inches for males and 28-30 inches for females. A male Kangal Dog in good condition should weigh between 110 and 145 pounds. A female should weigh between 90 and 120 pounds. Height and weight in both sexes may exceed the foregoing and should not be penalized as long as overall balance is maintained. Fault: Obese, soft condition. Mastiff Breed Standerd from [url]http://www.akc.org/breeds/recbreeds/mastif.cfm[/url] Size, Proposition, Substance Size--Dogs, minimum, 30 inches at the shoulder. Bitches, minimum, 27

:cry: Sorry for your loss, thanks for sharing.

I know its been a while but I was wondering how he was doing? Any more pics? :D

[quote]2. the odds of running across a stray dog while on the job could be more than some dogs could handle [/quote] That's something I had not thought of, good that someone did. And that point about the bite . . . now that I think about it it is good to have a dog that can bite and [b]hold[/b] but that probably doesn't take that much pressure. I think it would be a blast to do shutzhund with Kavik - he is very tenacious once he has hold of something, can lift him right of the ground. Unfortunately, he is way to soft and way to obsessive, it would either tramatize him or he would obsessively want to do bite work and that would be a HUGE problem.

I say almost certainly Weim: I have seen a number that were nearly brown. They have some facial structures similar to labs. They have somewhat similar ear shape. They do tend to be leaner than most non-working labs but there are lots of folks who over feed and Weims need tons of excercise. There are also one or two breeders of Weims in this area who are not breeding carefully and they have produced a couple litters that seem to have the labs tendency to tank up.

Compare the survey versus AKC description of Chihuahua: Head/Skull Shape System: 1/ The dogs head is medium in length and brick shaped, out of 3 Pat Scored 1. 2/ Dogs head has a skull shape which is flat and at the ears with prominet cheeks. scored 2 out of 3 AKC: A well [b]rounded "apple dome"[/b] skull, with or without molera. Muzzle/Teeth System: 3/ Dogs muzzle is wide and deep, scored out of 3 a 2 4/ Dogs muzzle has well pronounced jaws, displaying strength.scored a 3 5/ Dogs upper teeth meet tightly over lower teeth. PAT scored 3 AKC: Muzzle - Moderately [b]short, slightly pointed[/b]. Cheeks and jaws [b]lean[/b] Bite - Level or scissors. Overshot or undershot bite, or any distortion of the bite or jaw, should be penalized as a serious fault. - [color=red]SO FAR THIS IS THE ONLY DESCRIPTION THAT MATCHES[/color] Ears System: 6/Dogs ears are set high on the head and free from wrinkles. scored out of 3 a 2. AKC: Ears - Large, erect type ears, held more upright when alert, [b]but flaring to the sides at a 45 degree angle when in repose, giving breadth between the ears. [/b] Eyes System: 7/dogs eyes are round. scored a 3 out of 3. 8/Dogs eyes are set apart , low down on the skull. scored out of 3 a AKC: Eyes - Full, but not protruding, balanced, set well apart-luminous dark or luminous ruby. (Light eyes in blond or white-colored dogs permissible.) [color=red]THIS POINT MAY MATCH[/color] Nose System: 9/ Dogs nose has wide open nostrils. PAT scored a 3 out of 3. AKC: No comparable description. Neck System: 10/ Dogs neck is muscular and slightly arched.scored 3 out of 3. 11/ Dog neck tapers from the shoulder to the head. 3 out of 3 12/ Dogs neck is free from looseness of skin. scored a 3 out of 3. AKC: Neck - Slightly arched, gracefully sloping into lean shoulders. Topline - Level. [color=red]THE ONLY MATCHING POINT IS SLIGHTLY ARCHED[/color] I don't think the musculature in a pit's neck can be equated with the musculature in a Chihuahua's neck - pretty sure no animal control officer will make that mistake. Shoulders System: 13/Dogs shoulders are strong and muscular with wide sloping shoulder blades. scored 3 out of 3. Shoulders -[b] Lean[/b], sloping into a slightly broadening support above [b]straight forelegs that set well under[/b], giving a free play at the elbows. Shoulders should be well up, giving balance and soundness, sloping into a level back. (Never down or low.) This gives a chestiness, and strength of forequarters, [b]yet not of the "Bulldog" chest[/b]. [color=red]ONLY MATCHING POINT IS A SLOPE TO THE SHOULDERS[/color] Back System: 14/Dogs back is short and strong. scored out of 3 a 1. 15/ Dogs back is slightly sloping from withers to rump. scored 3 out of 3. 16/Dogs back is slightly arched at the loins with loins slightly tucked. scored 3 out of three. AKC: Hard to find equivalant descriptions, here is the best I could get. Topline - Level. sloping into a level back. Chest System: 17/Dogs chest is deep, but not to broad , with wide sprung ribs.3 out of 3. rounded and well sprung (but not too much "barrel-shaped"). AKC: Body - Ribs rounded and well sprung (but not too much "barrel-shaped"). This gives a chestiness, and strength of forequarters, yet not of the "Bulldog" chest. [color=red]SEEMS TO ME THIS IS A PARTIAL MATCH[/color] Legs System: 18/ Dog legs are medium to large , round bined and reasonably strong. scored out of 3 a 1. AKC: No description of leg itself but other section give indication of daintiness. Feet System: 19/ Dogs feet are medium size , 3 out of 3. AKC: Feet - A small, dainty foot with toes well split up but not spread, pads cushioned. (Neither the hare nor the cat foot.) Pasterns - Fine. [color=red]NO MATCH AT ALL, 19/ Dogs feet are medium size , 3 out of 3 IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN THAT THE EVALUATOR THINKS THAT A CHIHUAHUA PERFECTLY MATCHES THE STATEMENT???? IF A CHIHUAHUA HAS MEDIUM FEET, I'D LIKE TO SEE SMALL FEET.[/color] Thighs System: 20/ Dogs thighs have well developed muscles out of 3 scored a 1. AKC: Hindquarters Muscular, with hocks well apart, neither out nor in, well let down, firm and sturdy. The feet are as in front. [color=red]MATCHES I GUESS BUT AGAIN I DON'T THINK AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER WILL HAVE A PROBLEM DIFFERENTIATING.[/color] Coat System: 21/ Dogs coat is short and stiff to touch.scored a 3 out of 3. AKC: Coat In the Smooth Coats, the coat should be of [b]soft texture[/b], close and glossy. We obviously needn't make an issue over height. [size=6]Either the evaluator is making errors or trying to make a poorly founded case or the [i]Champion Chihuahua [/i]does not meet the breed standerds.[/size] :-?

I think whomever did the rating of this paticular dog must have made an error in the rating or deliberately skewed the numbers to make a point: [quote]4/ Dogs muzzle has well pronounced jaws, displaying strength.scored a 3 [/quote] A Chihuahua does not have pronounced jaws nor do their jaws display strength so then we could assume that 3 is low??? But if that is the case than this: [quote]1/ The dogs head is medium in length and brick shaped, out of 3 Pat Scored 1.[/quote] Has got to be wrong as a Chihuahua has a more wedge shaped head with a fairly pronounced stop - hardly could be considered brick shaped. I'm gathering that 3 most closely matches? However, whether 1 is indicating most pronounced or most meets defination or 3 is one of these statements is incorrect. The evaluation is flawed, the system [b]might[/b] not be.

Interesting distinction between gaurd vs police work. I certainly agree that many of the best GSD and Malinois lines used for police work must be imported here. Still they are very nice dogs and, for my personal preferences, worth it. I suppose the only way to determine if pit type breeds would really be suitable for police work is to trial them and see how they do. I know there was a police force, in Europe somewhere I think, using Standerd Poodles so pit type dogs could get a chance too, in areas with no BSL. I think the Poodle thing would be good - catch people completely off gaurd, paticularly if you dye them pink and do them up with bows. :lol:

What about the claim that pit type dogs make poor protection dogs because they specifically tend to be too freindly to people to make good protection dogs? Additionally GSDs are genrally noted to be highly obedient and highly trainable and american staffordshire terriers and their cousins are noted to be difficult to train, not nec. because of intelligence but just because they are more difficult to train/do obedience with. There may be some pit types dogs that excell in obed. but this is not the standerd. It is not enough for police dogs to be athletic, have drive, and have a good bite - it is exceedingly important that they are obedient and controlled for their safety, the safety of their handlers and to be able to maintain the control needed to do the required job. Granted pit type dogs would have a real edge in police work due to the intimidation factor and the bite work. Might make folks think twice.

[quote]but i still don't believe in the common misconceptions like "a dog feels guilty about doing __" or "he did __ just out of spite". i'm also not trying to "put down" a dog as being an inferior animal. i just don't agree with people projecting all their human feelings, reactions and ideas into a completely different species with completely different social and behavioral patterns and ways of communication and thinking[/quote] What then is guilt in people? What are they actually feeling, what motivates them to act the way they do in guilt situations? How would these answers differ if we were talking about dogs?

Edgar - Another endorsement from me. Good post. I think people get in a tizzy when they think that people are "anthropomorphizing" animals, not because they are so distressed by the idea of dogs having emotions but because they are reluctant to admit that we are not so different from them. I on the other hand think I would be doing well to be a bit more like my dog.

I love it when people say I am anthropomorphizing my dog when I "assign it emotions." I am no more anthropomorphizing my dog than people are anthropomorphizing PEOPLE when they assign them emotions. I mean do you seriously think that emotional responses in people are not motivated by societal conditioning?

[quote]Private citizens riding horses in downtown Toronto?[/quote] :oops: I seem to have misunderstood. Good luck on the letter.

Write your city office and complain that the horses are disruptive to the dog park, request that they patrol without the horses. Explain clearly the benefit of the dog park and the extra stress the horses induce. You might not be able to stop private citizens from riding horses near there, although you'd think they would not want to given the dogs, but you may be able to get rid of the police on horseback.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kavik does the paw, Zaphod does nothing - he is never concerned or possibly even aware that it is possible that he could have done something naughty. In fact Zaphod wags his tail while being scolded - he wags his tail continually.

[quote]I thought she was getting so much better, and she was but it seemed just this paticular dog (maybe cause he was a mastiff, the same breed that attacked her and got her scared in the first place) even though this dog was such a sweetie she really hated him.[/quote] I know - Kavik was ok with every dog in our obed. class except this one really sweet Wiem - Winston. I think the problem was that both of them were (the only) adult, unnuetered males in the class and Winston had the nerve to be [i]taller[/i] than Kavik. Thanks Abker. I think I will also use a different obed. class, perhaps one that is more prepared to deal with the issue.

:o :icon_rock: :oink2: :lol: That could have some messy consequences in the yard . . .

Ooooh the treat on foot trick. That is how we [i]test[/i] leave it or stay. My brother would not believe me that I could get Zaphod (aka EatDog) out part Lab to do this but he is actually very patient about it.

Zaphod is a little skitty but when we is curious, excited, concerned etc his hackles go up. :niewiem: Maybe Sam was just over-excited with his find???

[quote]He is concerned about being able to give 2 as much attention as 1. I don't think it would be hard since there are 2 of us anyway. [/quote] While it is true that two people can give one dog more attention than they can give two dogs, keep in mind the dogs can give each other attention. I know some people must seperate their dogs and that is always a risk, although your plan to introduce them before Scott picks what dog to adopt should help. I have had three males in my home at once and for a breif period none of them were neutered - they were trustworthy together but that was just their personalities. We had the two largest in a giant crate together and the smallest in a smaller crate right next to them just so they would not step on him by accident. (They were all crated as Kavik was only just becoming trustworthy when loose, Tyr had been with us only a short while and Zaphod was a puppy.) HF said: [quote]6. if one dog has bad habits, the other(s) can very easily pick those up . . . 10. more training... this seems obvious, but I mean that with TWO or more dogs, they are often more easily distracted by what the other is doing. Even if you have a perfectly well trained single dog, when you bring another home, you will need to do remedial training with that dog AND the new one. My dogs are great individually and in small groups, but it takes a lot of diligence (and luck) to get them all to listen... it's too easy to get distracted by what the other one is doing 11. if you have two dogs close in age, then you have to worry about the ordeal of losing two close together... most of mine are within a couple of years of each other and I think about this all the time [/quote] I do find they seem to be more likely to pick up each others bad habits than good. :-? There are some logistically problems with training and commands. We spent a great deal of time on "Boys Stay, Kavik Come" or "Boys Stay, Zaphod Come" etc. All in all I like having more than one dog, and if the cost and extra work are ok with you than I would say go for it. HFs comment 11. does worry me though - all 4 of mine will likely go within 3 years of each other - I plan on being a basketcase.