KP

[size=6]Tufts says dog study OK'd by inspectors[/size] By Jack Meyers Thursday, January 1, 2004 Tufts veterinary school officials yesterday said a research study in which several dogs' legs were deliberately broken was fully inspected by state and federal officials, who found no violations earlier this week. Nevertheless, a group of Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine graduate students is vowing to protect the five dogs, who are scheduled to be put to death this week. ``Regardless of the inspections . . . the experiment is unjustified,'' said Dana Zenko, 29, a Tufts graduate student. ``They are killing five dogs to test a way to make a dog's broken leg heal better. Clinical studies have already proven this.'' The research is being led by Tufts professor Randy J. Boudrieau to test a new method of healing broken bones. This fall, Boudrieau broke both back legs of six dogs. One dog died after the operation. The five remaining dogs will be euthanized and the healed bones examined under a microscope to compare techniques of treating broken bones. The crippling of the five dogs, which were bred for research purposes, was first reported in yesterday's Herald. Zenko said she and the others fighting for the dogs have received a huge outpouring of support. Dr. Angie Warner, associate dean at the Tufts Veterinary School, said officials are continuing to talk with students about concerns. A forum on research ethics is scheduled for next week, she said. But there are no plans to alter the research on the dogs, she said. ``We feel there's a significant benefit to be gained by many dogs and many veterinarians'' in improving techniques to heal broken bones, Warner said.

[url]http://www.bordercollies.nl/dispimage.shtml?img=etfe776a[/url] This is about all I found.... Liver colored border collie... If this isn't what it looked like then I also think its a Toller. (Nova Scotia Duck tolling Retreiver or NSDTR)

[quote name='Doglistener'][quote]The shoes was a good example. Did he chew them up because he was mad at you for leaving him? Or did he chew them up because he is lonely,[/quote] Neither he [u]probably[/u] chewed then because he was teething [b]or because of separation anxiety[/b] ie rejection which is an instinct not a cognisant act.[/quote] :wink: But not definately. Its unknown..but also...you re-itterated exactly what courtnek said while disagreeing...with separation anxiety. [quote name='Courtnek']The shoes was a good example. Did he chew them up because he was mad at you for leaving him? Or did he chew them up because he is lonely, he misses you and they smell and taste like you? I do believe they have the emotions of lonliness, sadness and can become so attached to you they dont want you to leave them, causing anxiety issues while you're gone. Remember these are pack animals. In their natural existence there will always be other animals around to keep them company. Unlike cats, it is not natural for them to be alone. [/quote] Whether it's a cognizant act or not is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant, is the reason. Anxiety. I may know as a human, that I have anxiety at certain times but that doesn't take it away. Whether the dog knows it or not ([b]which it doesn't![/b]) is completely beside the point. I agree it is instinct because they are pack animals but you can't say a dog has anxiety if you don't believe it doesn't feel emotion. Oh yeah, great point HF :)

Grapes, Rasins, Prunes: kidney failure, as little as a single serving of grapes or rasins can kill a dog. It takes anywhere from 9 oz to 2 lbs of grapes and raisins (between .041 and 1.1 oz/kg of body weight), to cause severe vomiting and diarrhea, and possible kidney failure Here is a listing of other stuff [url]http://groups.msn.com/RealityBites-DogTrainingForum/yourwebpage.msnw[/url]

Do I feel they understand morals? Ethical codes? Do I feel that they assume a level of understanding which we do? Not the slightest bit. BUT I feel that many dogs can [i]learn[/i] to read human emotion and body language as well as vocal expression...otherwise they would be as responsive as a rock or...vine since it also doesn't have a brain. I don't feel they use spite or have the ability to understand spite. I feel they understand an extremely simple version of cause and effect. They don't understand why things happen...of course. Dogs obviously aren't capable of calculus or capable of complex thinking but they learn [b]cause[/b] I sit and stare at them by the door the [b]effect[/b] will be they will take me outside. Most importantly my point is, if dogs were not able to rationalize or reason or have any type of thought pattern at least to a small degree it would be completely impossible to train them. Some dogs have actually amazed me at some of the things I see. I understand what you are saying Doglistener and can and [b]do[/b] agree with a lot of your points [b][i]but[/i][/b] I just don't completely go along all together with the whole...dogs never think have have no thought process because of my point. Whether its instinctual or whatever it is...dogs would still have to have some type of thought pattern to achieve training or any type of learning whether its good or bad. A dog will learn to cower because someone raises its hand to it and spanks or hits it in a certain way... yeah it may be instinctual but you can't have learning without a thought pattern. BTW doglistener...you have a PM

Thats exactly what I think courtnek. I feel dogs definately have the ability to rationalize and reason to a certain degree of course. This goes along with counter surfing and being on the couch when no one is around. They learn to do it when you are not there because they can't be corrected for it...unless you have tried avoidence training. Its not something that you train them to do but they figure it out on their own. There are all kinds of examples I can give but won't get into all that. I completely agree with everything you said. Dogs are definately smarter than some people give them credit for. I feel they DO have certain feelings but its not the same as human feelings or to the same extent. If they didn't have some sort of level of feelings they wouldn't have anxiety and they wouldn't get so excited to see you when you walk through the door. I do NOT feel they do things out of spite although my husband is one of those people who gives them more credit than that. :roll: It drives me insane sometimes.

This message was posted on my board by a member who fosters in NY. [quote]To all members on the board, please spread the word (permission to crosspost). There is an outbreak of Leptospirosis on the East coast of the US, a bacterial infectious disease that is highly contagious and can be zoonotic (passed to humans). It is passed through fecal and urine of other infected animals, so please take caution and avoid heavily populated dog areas (dog parks, shows, vet offices, etc.). We have 16 infected dogs in our own kennels, as well as in other shelters and kennels in New York, and known outbreaks as far south as Florida.[/quote]

[quote name='peekaboo'] This time cutting off some of the dead bone. And YES. It was VERY VERY VERY painful for the dog. I had no choice on the docking, but in most cases I'm not against it. It's fast, done very early and heals fast (the tail, at that time, is smaller than an pencil). Ears???? Whole 'nother story. NO purpose is served, hurts an older dog, requires weeks of follow up and what do you get at the end?? a dog with different ears.[/quote] This is what I mean.... I completely agree Peekaboo. (you stole my dogs name :wink: :D ) I've never said I feel a law should be passed but I feel it is discrimantory to not allow a natual dog into these shows just because its not altered. I feel a dog is "standard" only when it is natural. I applaud the guy for standing his ground. As for the dew claws, in some cases I can see where its necissary to remove them but not all dogs need it. I've never had dew claws removed on my dogs but I've seen some dogs where the dew claw has been ripped off or nearly ripped off by the dog getting it caught and ripping it the wrong way on something. Some dogs dew claws stick out like a sore thumb so to speak and them getting caught well, I'll bet thats a lot more painful than then having them surgically removed. I can see in some purpouses the need for it but I don't feel its always necissary.

Shara, the same woman I quoted also said that she just heard there are breeder's trying to breed herding out of the Austrailian Shepherds so more city people can keep them in apartments.

[quote=ROTT'N'PIT]Your problem is more with why do it. [/quote] Well, I feel its a valid reason. There is no purpous in why it should be done. [quote]But how can you say "you cant crop or dock your dog, because i dont want to cro por dock mine?" its not right. i think its a mattter of choice and in the show community its tradition-- when a natural dog wins a show its a big deal, like the underdog winnin the race or something.[/quote] I never said that once. You are twisting my words. Why? I did say I don't crop my animals and that is my choice and being that this is the debate forum I stated [b]my opinion[/b] on this matter. In all actuality it's not hardly right to chastize me for debating my personal opinion in the debate forum... is it? Voice your opinion. Thats what we are here for but don't instruct me as to what mine should be especially while twisting my words. I fully realize that it is choice for this topic. I don't feel purpous in why it should be done and the fact that it is done causes too many people abuse the proceedure and at the innapropriate ages because it is a "desired" look [u]only[/u] because AKC etc. promotes the look and to show these dogs many times there are these requirements for show standards. If these standards and requirements were removed less people would probably abuse the proceedure just because its "desired" and you would see more natural dogs which [b]in my opinion[/b] are what should be shown since they are supposed to be an example of "breed perfection". I mean if you are going to go for that title it should be done the right way. Not all dogs are cropped or docked at a young age and it is not always done properly. These requirements are why. In my opinion if the dog is going to be cropped or docked it should be done by a vet within the first couple days of life but this is not always done. I still feel that its painful reguardless of what age but its best to do it as early as possible by someone who knows what they are doing. This is also why I'm against it AND the fact that there is no purpous for it in the first place. Dogs don't always show they are in pain. After my dog was spayed she was so excited to see us you wouldn't even be able to tell she had a surgery. Acted like any other day and did so the whole time she had the stitches in although she wimpered if something touched her tummy. That didn't mean it didn't hurt any other time... how could it not? Someone pointed out on my site with this topic, you have the jerks who put rubberbands around the tails to cut off the circulation. Then we're talkin' about long term pain, possible infection and if unlucky enough death. It takes a long time for the tail to die and fall off and there are people stupid enough to do this to an adult dog! She also said that AKC and show [u]standards[/u] have actually ruined most dog breeds from what they initially were and that thankfully there are still breeders fighting to keep the breeds pure and for the purpose they were bred, and I have to agree for the most part.

[quote=ROTT'N'PIT]There is nothing wrong with cropping your dog, it doesnt cause much pain in a pup and depending on the breed its part of the look. [/quote] I'm not trying to be a bratt or anything so please don't take it that way :D but I'm not understanding this... What is your reasoning on why you feel its not much pain for a pup? You didn't really elaborate on that... My side to debate with this is that I don't feel it should be "just because" its an [u]adopted[/u] part of the look for these breeds. Its cosmetic. Its not natural. How can you even for the sake of showing a dog, if that were the case, judge a breeds perfection by altering its look?? That just doesn't make sense to me. I just don't understand the reasoning. Yes I have the choice of keeping my dogs out of show and thats fine with me. I don't show my dogs but for the people who do the dog doesn't have the choice not to go through the (what I feel [b]is[/b] a painful and unnecissary surgery). I've never had a surgery that wasn't painful... To me this is like paying for your 4 year old daughter (who doesn't know the difference, other than feeling the pain) to get breast implants because it's "the look". What's the purpous in it? I just can't see the point...

[quote name='kendalyn']HF, I don't think you need to worry so much. You haven't ruined your dog's psyche. The way you handled Pauly's aggression worked. That is really the main point. There is always more than one right way to do something and your approach was fine in my opinion. What your husband did was not cruel or abusive and it taught Pauly that you and he would not tolerate such behavior. Good job![/quote] I completely agree. When you are challenged you have to do what you have to do...If you were challenging the dog it would be a different situation. THEN I could see where it would be a bad thing but if you let it go it will turn out worse. What you did worked. Don't second guess it. You did good.

I think thats a great article... Pretty much nothin I wouldn't agree with in it. Thanks for sharing....it does sum up a lot.

Good job K! :) :wink: Keep those hot threads comin to the debate room...

[quote name='Horsefeathers!'] I'm STILL interested in seeing someone come forward with a purely positive method of handling aggressive or somewhat dominant dogs. I prefer to use as humane and positive methods as possible. I've never, ever used any negative training with obedience... it's always positive. There is no punishment for not getting it right; no manhandling, no yanking, no pulling, none of that. However, when trying to bite, it's a whole 'nuther game.[/quote] ME TOO :) and I agree. A lot of people would have the opinion that because I use a pinch collar I manhandle or bully my dogs and its just not that at all! It replicates how a dog corrects another dog or a mother dog to her pup...with a correction to the neck, a bite or pinch on the neck...doesn't mean it has to be hard. Just enough to say "hey, cut it out or listen and stop day dreaming" I also only use it when necissary. One of my dogs had to be trained out of aggression (against people and dogs) and has to be reminded where her place is on a dominance level here and there. (I've also found with her that grabbing her scruff and gettin' real with her tends to be more effective than a pinch correction with her)...so I also agree that you have to go with what works. When she challenged me in aggression the pinch collar correction would make it worse with her....(other dogs don't necissarily work the same way.) With her I've had to grab her. Many times with both hands and give her a vicious verbal correction. How I do it gets through to her pretty well. Here's the kicker...when we are training she does really well on the pinch collar though...Doesn't mind it a single bit. I don't get a bit of lip and never have when training. Funny when she challenges me, she won't go for it and actually made the aggression worse but its ok in training?? If my dog wasn't happy about it she would let me know. It wouldn't matter when it is. She likes the defined teaching. So I know I'm a good mom and not a barbarian people tend to assume. She actually seems happier once I introduced it. It clearly defines right from wrong in a way which she understands. I use the collar to proof both of my dogs.... To correct what they already know very well, yet do not do because they are testing me. I love my dogs to death, but with that...I expect a lot from them and I in turn invest a lot of time and work into them. They are rediculously happy so I'm content with how I do things. I have to say it does burn me when people assume that because some people use a pinch collar that they abuse or mistreat their dogs or any opinion pointing in that direction. Granted there are those people that do but that doesn't make me one of them...no more than all pitbulls are killers...That is a completely ignorant opinion...in my opinion. Those opinions always seem to come from people who know absolutely nothing about pinch training. Yes the prong collar can be abused and misused, of course it can! But so can purely positive training. I've seen some pretty screwed up dogs using purely positive training... I think there are also a lot of variants in what people tend to believe as purely positive as well. I've known people who believe purely positive is completely ignoring the bad and praising and rewarding the good. (which I think is utterly rediculous and confusing) Others believe that its just using verbal corrections and praising and rewarding the bad.... some use clickers, some don't.... Also, Alpha Roll although its not the safest method does work for some dogs with a degree of dominance. I think you should be comfortable to a point or at least in a position where you know the dog well enough to know what to expect with the dog before you try it though. You should be have enough confidence that you can win or end the fight if one breaks out. You should have an idea of the degree of dominance and age, size and strength of the dog should all be factors well. Always be aware there is a possiblity that you will get bit using this. A dog should never be dominated without thoroughly consdering the end result.

[quote name='Black GSD'] [quote name='Horsefeathers!'] Severe meaning he was swiftly "apprehended" by sweeping his feet out from under him and pinning him down on his back. I realize that this may be a stupid thing to do with a severely aggressive dog, or with a really dominant breed, [/quote] That is the thing. If you were to do this with a dog that is TRUELY dominant. You WILL get bitten. [/quote] I completely agree with this... I can't count how many times I have heard of a trainer or a person getting bitten attempting this. To me this technique is like driving down the road blind folded. You can't forsee the outcome. You are taking a large bargain using this on any dog willing to challenge you. For that reason I rarely ever attempt alpha rolling dogs. Especially aggression or strong dominance cases just because you take a super huge chance on getting your face and/or extremities bitten to shreds but thats just my humble opinion.... :P :D I believe that each dog is different in how they can be trained. I don't believe that every dog can be trained by purely positive anymore than I would believe that every dog should wear a pinch collar and don't even get me started on choke collars... I would agree that aggressive dogs can possibly be trained in purely positive obedience but I just can't buy the "purely positive can train out of aggression" theory.

No big deal...I wasn't offended or anything just wanted to explain a little better :) I wasn't very clear with the way I worded it all :wink: Take care!!

There is a large difference between dominance and true aggression although they can coincide and many dogs can have both...I strongly feel that purely positive training would NOT have the ability to truely overcome either of these problems reguardless of what is being displayed on either subject. I'm sorry but I just don't believe it. I agree, I feel that dogs especially certain breeds have to know right from wrong and dogs with these problems sometimes need a firmer side in training than purely positive can offer. Then again it is amazing what some people have a gift or talent for in some cases what others cannot achieve reguardless of the training...but I'd be interested in seeing this in person...

[quote name='courtnek']I am not a fan of scruffing, and you should never lift the dog off the floor, but a short, sharp snap of the line will remind him who's boss without hurting him. Wolves dont scruff an adult or almost adult pup because it could cause injury to a pack member. Instead, there would be a showdown of teeth posturing, snarling and lunging. If the other wolf didnt back down, it would become a fight, but usually, the almost-adult will give up to the pack lead. If the almost adult DIDNT give up, he would definitely be bitten, although not usually enough to cause any real damage, by the pack lead. And yes, the lead WILL kill a pack member who wont back down, if he has to. Obviously that particular method isnt going to work for you, you cant get down on hands and kness and teeth challenge Pauly, but with the lead in place you can correct him sternly without danger to yourselves, and that includes isolation from you if he doesnt give it up. Hopefully you've caught it soon enough and none of this will be necessary (the sterner forms of demotion, like isolation). The lead and some strong firm stances from you and hubby should be enough to take him down and show him his place.[/quote] :-? I think you misunderstood what I meant....I guess I didn't explain it very well... I meant this by basically just grabbing with a full hand scruff possibly even with two hands and just giving a low growling firm "no" even so much as giving a small shake if necissary [b][i][u]without[/u][/i][/b] pulling the dog off the ground, which [b]is[/b] done by wolf packs and dog packs as a form of dominance over other adult dogs....[b]very[/b] often in fact. You can see this big time in play sessions as a way for one dog to dominate another. For a dog, grabbing at the neck is the first and main target for a dog to get a hold of in a dog fight or play because it's the biggest vulnerability bulls eye. If you have multiple dogs that do play or even get into p*ssing matches together from time to time there is no way you haven't seen this. That is what I meant. If my dog challenges me I ain't backin down a hair especially in the beginning. When you are in the beginning stages dominance 9.9 times out of 10 he won't be expecting it from you and doing this right away, in the right way can be very effective. Its imparative to confront the problem to the best of your ability before it really starts to grow. Although, this method is not always necissary if you are using other effective methods to correct the dog. In all of the dogs that I have owned or taught who have challenged me or their owners, I have never been bitten doing this in the beginning stages of these problems. Maybe I have just learned the right timing and how to catch them off guard and how get my point acrossed...I don't know but it came natural to me to learn this. Usually once I have done this the first time the dogs gets the point and they don't need to be reminded again... Like I said, you don't need to pick an adult dog up off the ground to get your point acrossed and doing this will [b]not[/b] cause harm to your adult dog as long as you are not pulling it off the ground. It is a very natural correction and domination technique and it would be a first time ever for me to have anyone believe otherwise. I guess I didn't state that very clearly before. Just wanted to clear up what I meant... :D Although I don't agree with everything you said on a personal basis, Courtnek I understand for the most part and appreciate what you have said and your reasoning... So glad to see things are going so well HF! Thats great news! :) Glad you found something that works for you and your husband...thats the key, and what's important. What works for one doesn't always work for another. Take care! :D

Just a question... At one point in my experience of training a dog out of aggression I came acrossed a purely positive trainer that said/(boasted) they were able to train "true aggression" cases out of their aggression using solely purely positive methods...This interests me.... Just wondering other people's opinion on this....

[size=6][b]Criminal charges cite dog 'torture'[/b][/size] Published in the Home News Tribune 12/20/03 By KEN SERRANO STAFF WRITER PERTH AMBOY: The city's longtime animal-control officer drew animal-cruelty charges and was suspended without pay yesterday in connection with a botched attempt to euthanize a dog later found in an East Brunswick landfill. William "Billy" Paul was charged with torturing and tormenting an animal and inflicting cruelty on a living creature as well as two accompanying civil charges by the Middlesex County SPCA, said SPCA officer Michael Iovine. The case is scheduled to be heard in Perth Amboy Municipal Court in mid-January, Iovine said. The dog, a 5-year-old shepherd-Labrador mix whose plight has drawn national attention, survived not only the attempt to put it down but also passed uninjured through a trash compactor before being found Dec. 4 in back of a trash truck at Edgeboro Landfill. It apparently clawed through the plastic bag it had been placed in. A city woman moving to a place that did not allow pets brought the dog into the city pound the day before it was found, Iovine said. Yesterday, the city announced it suspended Paul from his $39,293 job without pay pending the completion of an internal investigation by the Police Department, which oversees Paul and the city pound. But the city, in a statement from Mayor Joseph Vas' office, made it clear it is seeking Paul's termination. Paul has worked as the animal-control officer since Jan. 1, 1985, a city spokesman said. Perth Amboy has contracted licensed animal-care providers and is using volunteers to keep the city's shelter open, the statement added. Paul, who can appeal the city's actions, could not be reached yesterday. He declined to respond to questions surrounding the investigation earlier this week, but told a reporter, "I love my animals. I'd do anything for my four-legged friends." Iovine said the two disorderly-persons charges carry penalties of up to 6 months in jail and fines of up to $1,000. The civil charges each carry fines of $250. Community service and restitution for the care of the dog after its discovery at Edgeboro also could result from a conviction. He declined to give details about the investigation yesterday. But Iovine said last week that Paul, in an interview, said he followed proper procedures. Paul gave the dog two shots, one to sedate her, the other to stop her heart. And he listened with a stethoscope for a heartbeat and did not hear one, Iovine said. But an agent for the state SPCA, Joseph Biermann, said Paul's responses during a deposition in the city yesterday morning provided probable cause for the summonses issued by the county SPCA. "It's evident that he didn't use sufficient drugs to put the animal down, and it's evident that he did not properly listen for a heartbeat in a quiet environment," he said. Biermann said the correct protocol calls for waiting 30 minutes after injecting the fatal drugs before ensuring the animal's heart has stopped. He said Paul listened to the dog's heartbeat in "the general population where there were dogs barking." As for the dose, "You're supposed to inject 'X' amount of drug for every pound the dog weighs, but there was no scale in the facility," Biermann said. "He basically had to guess at the weight. How can you apply the proper drugs if you say, 'I think we have a 40-pound dog?' " But Biermann said Paul may not have received proper training. The information discovered at the deposition "could potentially lead to further investigation into how the city handles the shelter and its policies and procedures," Biermann said. He added the drugs used on the dog and the stethoscope have not yet been tested for deficiencies. The state SPCA and Middlesex SPCA ran concurrent investigations, but charges most likely will come only from the county organization, Biermann said. The dog, nicknamed Lucky by some, remained this week at Blumig Kennels in East Brunswick. More than 150 people from as far away as California have called seeking to adopt the canine. Ken Serrano: (732) 565-7212; [email]kserrano@thnt.com[/email]

[size=6][b]NY Court: Dog Owner Barking Up Wrong Tree[/b][/size] Dec 23, 2003 4:57 pm US/Eastern (1010 WINS) (ALBANY) The state's highest court decided Tuesday that Jon H. Hammer was barking up the wrong tree. The Court of Appeals said in a 6-0 ruling that Hammer cannot get the courts to change the breed standards for the Brittany established by the American Kennel Club and American Brittany Club. Specifically, Hammer sought to stop having points deducted from his Brittany, Ms. Dale's Spooner, at dog shows because the animal does not have a "docked," or clipped, tail. Breed standards state that any Brittany with a tail "substantially" longer than four inches shall be "severely penalized" by show judges. Ms. Dale's Spooner undocked tail is 10 inches long. Hammer, a Manhattan lawyer, argued that docking a dog's tail violates state laws prohibiting animals from being "unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed." The court said that law gives police agencies and local societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals the power to enforce anti-cruelty statutes. Since Hammer's case does not allege that either the American Kennel Club and the American Brittany Club are cruelly or unjustifiably injuring or maiming dogs, the groups didn't engage in any conduct that violated the law, the court ruled Tuesday. The judges also found that private citizens don't have standing to bring a claim under the state animal cruelty law, which is a criminal statute. Dale Christensen Jr., a lawyer for the American Kennel Club, called the decision "well-reasoned." "It is a vindication of the position of the American Kennel Club and the American Brittany Club were taking, that there should not be judicial interference in the activities of standard-setting sports organizations," Christensen said. To have a court disturb breed rules "would open the door, frankly, to a whole host of challenges and it could become difficult" for dog clubs to remain the arbiters of their sport, according to Christensen. There are 148 different breed clubs affiliated with the American Kennel Club. They set rules for the "idealized way the dog should appear or move or carry itself" depending on its breed, Christensen said. Several of the breed groups affiliated with the American Kennel Club filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case in defense of the club's position. The club argued in its court papers that a Brittany is bred for hunting and that the docking of the tail is designed to prevent injury while they in the field. Hammer and the dog clubs differed in their court papers over whether anesthetic is used by veterinarians when docking dogs. Joseph Foley, lawyer for Hammer, said "we're disappointed" by the ruling, but he declined other comment until he studied the decision. The ruling upheld a decision by the midlevel Appellate Division of state Supreme Court. (

Well, I can't really take full credit for "my" website but I manage it and put it together. Its for all styles of dog training and dog talk...we have a general forum too... [url]http://groups.msn.com/RealityBites-DogTrainingForum[/url] Everyone is more than welcome there :D We'd love some new company!

[url]http://animalark.eapps.com/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/0/8f0fb68a23413aae86256dcb00511ab6?OpenDocument[/url] [quote] [/quote]"No-kill does not mean that no animal is ever put to sleep," Foote said. "Humane euthanasia is an important part of caring for animals. If an animal is terminally ill and suffering, we have an obligation to end that suffering. That is what 'euthanasia' means. Euthanasia is very different than killing animals for human convenience, which is what many 'open admission' shelters do for people. In my experience, a no-kill shelter will typically put to sleep fewer than 1 percent [i](other articles have said up to 35-40%)[/i] of the total animals admitted. And these animals will only be put to sleep because they have serious medical conditions that can not be treated or corrected or because they are a real danger to people." [b]Many open admission shelters insist they rarely, if ever, euthanize adoptable pets. While that may be true there is often disagreement about what "adoptable" really means. Animals that are fearful, or that have minor medical or behavioral problems may be classified as unadoptable and euthanized. Many shelters, for example, will euthanize any cat that has been reported to have urinated outside of its litter box, even though most cats with inappropriate urination behaviors can be retrained. Many also euthanize animals with minor medical problems, like ringworm or mange, or minor behavioral problems like barking in their kennels. Because of this, open admission shelters in the Twin Cities typically kill between one out of every three and one out of every two animals brought to them. Since disclosing this could prove to be a public relations nightmare, many of them publish only the percent of "adoptable" animals placed, thereby letting them present sanitized statistics to their donors[/b]

Oh yeah... just a small push towards your "research"...Pugs and Boxers both are very energetic dogs and require a lot of exercise. This includes daily walks unless you want them to be destructive. I have also found in research that just because a shelter states it is a "no kill" shelter doesn't necissarily always mean they don't euthanize dogs that come in. In fact I've found forums and read news articles disputing this very problem.