pet connection

83 Comments »

1. The Science Daily article also failed to compare the eco-footprint of my dog or cat to that of a human child. At least my animals are spayed or neutered, so the “destruction” unleashed by them only lasts while they do.

   Looks like someone needs to train Cesar Millan on how to get along with people. Maybe a few walks in the park where he can be around some other people? Not sure he’s ready to be let off the leash yet.

   As for libel suits, someone from Canada may want to take up the fight. Our Supreme Court just strengthened protection from libel suits for journalists and bloggers, thanks to the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen. As long as it’s deemed “in the public interest” and you’ve done reasonable checking then you can publish it.

   Comment by Greg M — December 24, 2009 @ 8:02 am

2. Sounds to me like Cesar borrowed a page from the PeTA playbook - when in doubt, line up the lawyers!

   Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 24, 2009 @ 8:36 am

3. Like this, when PETA sent a “lawyer letter” to me?

   http://www.petconnection.com/b...../petakerr/

   Interestingly enough, almost two years later and PETA still hasn’t sent me the behaviorist or veterinarian evaluations of the pets they killed. Not holding my breath waiting, either.

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 24, 2009 @ 8:42 am

4. Exactly like that!

   Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 24, 2009 @ 8:55 am

5. Thanks for the shout-out, David. And love what you’ve been posting.

   Comment by Susan — December 24, 2009 @ 9:03 am

6. Hey Susan - do you know if there is a copy posted anywhere online of the statement issued by the animal behavior organizations which you refer to in your blog?

   Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 24, 2009 @ 9:06 am

7. I’ll bite.

   No, really. I’ve been known to.

   Where is the link to the press release, either here or on the Allie Chronicles?

   I’d like to see what the “statement criticizing aversives in dog training” actually SAYS.

   Please provide links.

   All I see is second-hand characterizations of both that “statement” and Millan’s response.

   Given that he is frequently characterized by the online peanut gallery as having “kicked” or “beaten” a dog — and then I watch the video clip a dozen times trying to see this thrashing, to no avail — I am dubious of the reporting here.

   I can tell you that when a mentally unstable one-shot check-kiting client accused me of abusing her dog (I had not, in fact, TOUCHED the puppy) — along with libeling and slandering a veterinarian, a groomer, a local dog training club, and the shelter that was so unwise as to adopt to her — she got a rather stern letter from an attorney. Which had been drafted by me, so you can imagine for yourself the character of the language.

   Allegations of animal abuse are serious, and grounds for legal action by ANYONE. Much less a dog trainer.

   Comment by H. Houlahan — December 24, 2009 @ 9:10 am

8. I started poking around looking for links the other day, musing over a thumb-sucking post on all this for the near future. But in my typical “look! a squirrel!” way, I was soon distracted.

   This weekend I have to do The Family Thing, followed by drinking with friends (to whine about The Family Thing). But I’ll make a note and follow up.

   No. 1 complaint about The Family Thing: The dog. I cannot enjoy myself (well, I wouldn’t anyway, but ..) with Duncan the Labrador on the outside of the sliding-glass door. He gets the boot pretty frequently, more so since the new paint and carpets. My heavens, must keep the house pretty!

   I am soooo not related to these people. Must have been a hospital mix-up. They’re nice but clueless. Except for Kate, my niece, who does what I do whenever she’s home from college: She OPENS THE DOOR AND LETS THE DOG IN.

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 24, 2009 @ 9:20 am

9. I’ll bite.

   No, really. I’ve been known to.

   Comment by H. Houlahan — December 24, 2009

   Oh, and seriously, too much information about you and Professor Chaos. :)

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 24, 2009 @ 9:24 am

10. If you don’t like Cesar, then turn the channel. That’s what most reasonable dog trainers do. It’s not like anyone is being forced to watch the guy LOL
    That said I’d certainly watch one of his shows for entertainment again; that is long before I pay good money to go to another national “pet training” conference where speakers who are supposed to be trainers speaking on training, but are actually there on a 5 day party fest with a paid pulpit for their personal tirades.
    As HH put it - any accusation of animal abuse is serious, and if not backed up by facts then CM certain has cause for a slander suit. Or is the guy just supposed to ignore it?

    Comment by Wendy — December 24, 2009 @ 9:36 am

11. Here’s a link to the press release re: Cesar Millan:
    http://www.dogwelfarecampaign......tement.php

    I am only providing the link. I’m hoping to have the sense, and sufficient distractions, to stay out of this discussion.

    Comment by Lis — December 24, 2009 @ 9:59 am

12. I am only providing the link. I’m hoping to have the sense, and sufficient distractions, to stay out of this discussion.

    Comment by Lis — December 24, 2009

    Look! A squirrel. :)

    And regarding the UK: What do they have against the letter “Z”? Why can’t they speak English?

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 24, 2009 @ 10:02 am

13. While I agree with many of Donald McCaig’s assessments of the AKC, this claim of his is complete nonsense: “Without a wildly exaggerated but very real terror of the power, influence and malevolence of Animal Rights adherents, the Dog Fancy would implode tomorrow.”

    No, it would not.

    Nor do I agree with Patrick’s summation “Don McCaig shows a very sophisticated understanding of how the AKC and its parroting lackeys work on canine list-servs and bulletin boards.”

    There’s nothing sophisticated nor fact-based about McCaig’s straw man, which goes something like this:

    1) There is no significant threat from anti-dog legislation. Mandatory spay/neuter laws, for example, are a reasonable and fair reaction to the mass killing of homeless pets in shelters. These laws would not hurt responsible breeders.

    2) The mountain of evidence that mandatory spay/neuter laws don’t work has no merit, the data supporting it is dubious, so the conclusions derived from it are just “opinions”.

    3) Those of us who oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws oppose ALL legislation that affects dogs.

    4) Those of us who oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws are all part of the Dog Fancy.

    5) The flood of legislation affecting dogs is all the fault of the Dog Fancy, for opposing everything. Judie Mancuso and her ilk have no real influence, and have no effective lobbying presence.

    I have grown weary disputing each of these points in my discussions with Donald McCaig. Trying to reason with him is like talking to a less emotional, more polite version of Judie Mancuso. Where to start? How about with the 5 points above, in a nutshell:

    1) Mandatory spay/neuter laws are a threat to responsible breeding programs. Search the archives of this blog for the many ways this is the case. There are no reasonable “exemptions” in these laws.

    2) The evidence that mandatory spay/neuter laws don’t work derive from official government shelter statistics that allow us to track the effect of these laws and compare to jurisdictions that do not have them.

    3) Many of us who oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws support legislation which would mandate the shelter reform programs that have been proven to lead to no kill success. We are the ones who got a law passed last year to generate funding for low cost spay/neuter in California. And I don’t know anybody who opposes laws against animal cruelty, dog fighting, etc.

    4) Many of us who oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws are not part of the Dog Fancy. I am not part of the Dog Fancy, and I’ve spent the better part of 3 years fighting MSN. McCaig’s own (working) American Border Collie Association and other sheepdog organization that wrote letters of opposition against MSN legislation are not part of the Dog Fancy. The guide dog and assistance dog organizations, the law enforcement organizations, and the search-and-rescue organizations that have lobbied against MSN, they too are not part of the Dog Fancy.

    5) Good grief, wake up. Please examine the facts before claiming that people like Mancuso have no influence.

    BTW, Christie and Gina, McCaig is talking about you and me when he refers to dupes of the AKC. Too emotional to think for ourselves, we are the AKC’s “parroting lackeys [who] work on canine list-servs and bulletin boards.”

    Let’s go back to the claim:
    “Without a wildly exaggerated but very real terror of the power, influence and malevolence of Animal Rights adherents, the Dog Fancy would implode tomorrow.”

    As somebody who has sent out many of the calls to action that elicited the above response, I can say with some authority that the 1% response rate to most of these alerts is indicative of the fact that 99% of the Dog Fancy is not driven by the threat of anti-dog legislation. They would not implode without the threat. They would carry on just as they have been.

    The AKC is not surviving on any exaggerated threat of dog legislation. I am quite sure that the AKC would be happy if the threat would disappear so that they could shut down their Government Relations Department tomorrow.

    Comment by LauraS — December 24, 2009 @ 10:04 am

14. I’ve never read an accusation of Milan “beating” a dog, but I don’t know why anyone has difficulty seeing him “kick” a dog.. he doesn’t even deny it, anymore than he denies the hand-poking thing he does (“a hand is a bite”). Now Millan isn’t dropkicking a dog through the goalposts so perhaps that’s why Houlahan claims not to see a “kick”. But he certainly is using his foot to make contact with the dog. It’s his method of getting the dog’s attention and interrupting a behavior cycle, and it’s an escalation in force from his “a hand is a bite” technique.

    I find his methods sometimes abusive and disgusting (and more so as the years have gone by).. anyone see the episode with the doxie mix that had been in an accident and was now extremely fear aggressive especially during feeding? duh. maybe the poor dog was hurting and didn’t want to be mauled by its owners?? Did Milan suggest a vet visit? Don’t be silly.. he is the master of all creatures. Milan’s method was to muzzle the dog, pin it down and force it to “submit” to handling. Is that “abuse”? Did it “work”? If it “worked”, was that justification?

    You rarely see him trying these stunts with large, hardheaded dogs. Wonder why….

    Pit bull people STILL talk about the episode in which he set up a couple of dog aggressive dogs and instigated a fight. Everyone but him could see the fight coming a mile away (he also allowed one of them to attack his sweet old boy Daddy.) I suppose all the experienced pit bull people who were shocked at that episode are just part of that no-nothing “peanut gallery”.

    There really is no debate about whether or not Millan’s techniques are adversive. “Abuse”, especially psychological abuse, is a vague enough term to have no clearcut definition.

    Comment by EmilyS — December 24, 2009 @ 10:06 am

15. I found this from earlier this year:

    http://companionanimalsolution.....ar-millan/

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 24, 2009 @ 10:18 am

16. Laura, you speak the absolute truth, but there is also a lot of truth in what McCaig says. All entities motivate their troops by pointing to the barbarians at the gate. The fear factor and anger is behind so much of our public policy discussions, especially since 9/11.

    I don’t know what your hate mail looks like, but I can tell you mine is voluminous and about evenly split between people who think I’m an “evil greeder” and those who think I’m a leftist commie sympathiz … er, I mean, “PETA/H$U$ spy/plant/dupe.”

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 24, 2009 @ 11:07 am

17. The AKC isn’t sending that incendiary mail to you Gina, and they aren’t responsible for it. Not one bit. It’s a subset of the Black Helicopter Crowd who does that, and the AKC and the Dog Fancy don’t control them. The AKC’s talking points against anti-dog laws have long been criticized for being too bland, their actions inadequate. The AKC is not inciting the fear factor.

    Comment by LauraS — December 24, 2009 @ 11:24 am

18. People who have long known me are probably close to fainting at the sight of my doing anything to defend the AKC or the Dog Fancy. I call them out when the facts and their actions warrant it, as I have often done. But I’m not going to go along with a baseless conspiracy theory that’s been fabricated by the likes of McCaig to blame the AKC and the Dog Fancy for things they aren’t responsible for. And I surely will not go along with McCaig’s defense of anti-dog legislation, or his attacks on all of us who oppose anti-dog legislation.

    Comment by LauraS — December 24, 2009 @ 11:39 am

19. Again, mostly but not entirely true. The AKC as an organization may not be sending me hate mail, but the acolytes of AKC Board Member Patti, head of the National Animal Interest Alliance, sure are. Over and over and over.

    But your main point is this: The forces of mandatory spay-neuter are serious, organized and well-funded. We must to stand up against them, not only because forced spay-neuter and limit laws don’t work (they kill pets, in fact) but also because they will eliminate reputable, ethical breeders, especially of working dogs.

    This is undeniable truth. On this point, we are in complete accord.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 24, 2009 @ 11:49 am

20. The NAIA and their “acolytes” aren’t sending that stuff to you either Gina. I’m guessing you don’t read a lot of the Black Helicopter stuff on their email lists. They BH crowd has launched public attacks against the NAIA and Patti Strand.

    Comment by LauraS — December 24, 2009 @ 11:59 am

21. Well, unless you actually are reading my e-mail, I’d say you don’t know what I get or who it’s from.

    The fact is I do get a lot of hate mail from NAIA followers — including AKC owner-handlers, pro handlers and judges. The Black Helicopter folks attacks on the AKC and NAIA notwithstanding, the “fancy” folks are still quite capable of typing out some nasty shit.

    Update: Just thinking aloud … I wonder if because show people KNOW I go to AKC events (and have AKC registered and titled dogs) that gets me on their radar screen?

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 24, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

22. Some of the BH crowd are members of the Dog Fancy, AKC clubs, or the NAIA. But the extremists in the BH crowd who send out nastigrams are not representative of the Dog Fancy, the AKC, or the NAIA.

    Comment by LauraS — December 24, 2009 @ 1:16 pm

23. Ugh the CM thing. I made the mistake of watching an episode recently where he pushed an akita with CLEAR hip or mobility issues out of a truck repeatedly. It certainly looked abusive to me. One of these days he will go to far and be a news story in a very bad way. It’s only a matter of time. I just hope it isn’t a kid that gets hurt by one of his “cured” (suppressed) dogs. (suppression can only work 100% if the suppressor is always present after all)

    Comment by Marie — December 24, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

24. Remember the first rule of dog training - the only thing that two trainers will ever agree on is that a third trainer is ‘doing it wrong!’

    Comment by Kimba — December 25, 2009 @ 5:13 am

25. You just keep telling yourself that . . . . . . . .

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 25, 2009 @ 7:27 am

26. I mostly like Cesar’s Way. He does not TRAIN dogs. He does behavior modification for dogs that would otherwise be put down. I use a lot of his methods, the body posture awareness, making sure I am calm, etc. I do use the hand ‘bite’ to get attention when I need to. It’s really more like a touch and boy does it work! I have also done the touch with my foot behind me. My boy tends to try to stare down other dogs. A slight touch with my foot and his head whips right back around to me. I think he has a very natural ‘rapport’ with the dogs. I have a trainer that is like that. A dog that is really acting up in class will settle right down when he takes the leash. The key in dog training is to know what works for your dog. Goldens need different techniques than, say, Dobermans for the most part. Goldens focus more on their handler; Dobermans tend to constantly look around, playing the ‘what’s wrong with this picture’ game. That’s my opinion and experience, anyway.

    Comment by Mary — December 28, 2009 @ 10:40 am

27. Ok I am having a tough time here with the words “fancy” and /or “fancier” Most definitions say:
    fan·cy (fns)
    n. pl. fan·cies
    1. The mental faculty through which whims, visions, and fantasies are summoned up; imagination, especially of a whimsical or fantastic nature. See Synonyms at imagination.
    2. An image or a fantastic invention created by the mind.
    3. A capricious notion; a whim.
    4. A capricious liking or inclination.
    5. Critical sensibility; taste.
    6. Amorous or romantic attachment; love.
    7.
    a. The enthusiasts or fans of a sport or pursuit considered as a group.
    b. The sport or pursuit, such as boxing, engaging the interest of such a group.

    Looks like number 7 would include ALL people who are interested in dogs.. whether it be working dogs, shows dogs or service dogs. Wouldn’t Mc Caig be a part of the “dog fancy” if he trials his dogs?
    Here is the definition for “fancier”:
    b. The sport or pursuit, such as boxing, engaging the interest of such a group.
    adj. fan·ci·er, fan·ci·est
    1. Highly decorated: a fancy hat.
    2. Arising in the fancy; capricious.
    3. Executed with skill; complex or intricate: the fancy footwork of a figure skater.
    4. Of superior grade; fine: fancy preserves.
    5. Excessive or exorbitant: paid a fancy price for the car.
    6. Bred for unusual qualities or special points.

    Wouldn’t all of us fall under number six? Don’t you breed your dogs ( no matter how often) for “special points”.. like working ability.. or hunting ability? Does McCaig breed his dogs for “special points”? I would bet that he does. Does Terreirman breed his dogs for ‘special points”? I would bet that he does. So how does that work out to NOT being a part of the dog fancy.. or being a dog fancier.??
    Perhaps it is the word “fancy” that people don’t want to be associated with… but reading all of these blogs and then defining the “fancy” like this…

    –noun
    1. imagination or fantasy, esp. as exercised in a capricious manner.
    2. the artistic ability of creating unreal or whimsical imagery, decorative detail, etc., as in poetry or drawing.
    3. a mental image or conception: He had happy fancies of being a famous actor.
    4. an idea or opinion with little foundation; illusion: Her belief that she can sing is a mere fancy.
    5. a caprice; whim; vagary: It was his fancy to fly to Paris occasionally for dinner.
    6. capricious preference; inclination; a liking: to take a fancy to walking barefoot in the streets.
    7. critical judgment; taste.
    8. the breeding of animals to develop points of beauty or excellence.
    9. love.
    10. the fancy, Archaic. people deeply interested in a sport, art,

    number 8 points to breeding animals ( any type ) for beauty OR excellence.. I contend that breeding animals for beauty AND excellence is what ALL of us do here.. because we are all number 10…our dogs are our sport.. our art and for most of us.. one of the most important things in our lives..so please don’t try to separate yourselves from the “fancy”..looks as though we are all in this soup together…

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 11:25 am

28. This reminds me of all the nice people in Eire who saw the world in such Manichean terms that they could not wrap their minds around the concept of a Houlahan who is Emphatically Not Catholic, even though her father is.

    “Oh Darlin’, you’re just lapsed.”

    They wanted to claim me, which was really a generous, if persistently annoying, sentiment on their part. But their desire to claim me and my learned tolerance for it did not make me offer any Novenas up for the Holy Father

    Someone who is not a serious caver will argue (Indeed, frequently has) that I am, after all, a “spelunker” because some dictionary somewhere sez I am.

    I am not. I am a caver. Dictionary writers are not.

    Cavers know and care about the difference. Words matter. The first prerogative of any tribe is to define what its members are — and are not. (That does not extend to claiming those who eschew membership.)

    Cave rescuers — a sizable subset of organized cavers — have a bumper sticker/t-shirt/helmet sticker slogan: “Cavers save Spelunkers.” Which kind of sums up the difference between a tribe member and a poseur who is a danger to himself and others and, especially, to the environment and creatures that tribe members respect and protect. A useful field mark of the poseur is the appropriation of an important-sounding label that only serves to identify the lack of skills and ethics of the appropriator.

    I am not a “fancier.” Mr. McCaig has said he is not a “fancier.” Your attempt to “claim” us is quite a bit less generous-minded than that of the lovely Irish.

    Dogs are not and never have been my “sport.” I don’t breed for “beauty AND excellence.” If you or I find my dogs beautiful, well that’s a fine thing, but it’s not why I breed them, and it’s certainly not why I work them or train them or rehab them or rehome them. I don’t “fancy” dogs — they are not a subject of capricious inclination to me.

    If someone who loves and respects his dogs also engages in athletic competition with them, then that sport is his sport, and is his dogs’ sport as well. Not the dogs themselves. (Imagine a youth soccer coach telling the world he’s involved in “the sport of little boys.” Eeewwww!!!)

    Strikes me that real dogmen and women need our own bumper sticker.

    Dogs Are Not A Sport.

    I Don’t “Fancy” My Dog.

    Dogs Are Serious. Dog Shows Are Frivolous.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

29. bestuvall, among working/performance dog handlers, trainers, and breeders, the Dog Fancy is understood to mean devotees of the conformation show system.

    Comment by LauraS — December 28, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

30. the “fancy”..people deeply interested in a sport.. and art.. etc..would you say if you are deeply interested in say.. agility.. that you are a fancier of that sport.. an agility fancier? but not a dog fancier even though you cannot do one without the other..are you a dog training “fancier” .. deeply interested in the art of dog training? Does it seem like you cannot do one without the other..words do matter .. which is why we have dictionaries…and do not just pretend to know what words mean on our own..I am sure you do consider your dogs beautiful.. I know I consider mine GORGEOUS while others do not. The word beauty can mean many things to many people.. just as fancier and fancy do.. I am not putting you in a “fancier” box.. just mentioning that the term is applicable to many people…in many ways..I would guess that McCaig is a “fancier” of border collies..especially after reading his book on the subject and thoroughly enjoying it,, especially interesting were the sections where he was not taken as a serious “fancier” by all of the “fanciers” that turned him down when he tried to buy a dog from them…
    Here’s a pargraph form Eminent Dogs, Dangerous men by D. McCaig.. straight from my book shelf ( not all of my books are about showing and breeding dogs)
    “The trial dog needs great courage ( how would you like to do the most difficult bit of your daily work before two thousand knowledgeable spectators?): a temperament that can handle stress, and finally, style. When an eminent dog joins a dangerous man, they can create a performance that is, by either standard- dog’s or man’s- beautiful.
    That is why dog’s do it : because it is beautiful.”
    so I guess if you breed just for excellence.. you do not create a beautiful thing like the performance mentioned above….I beg to differ..
    Do you breed your dogs for excellence? Do you not find that beautiful?
    If not mea cupla, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

31. Forget semantics. Using mere definitions to pit similar populations against another is a common divide-and-conquer technique. It saves their enemies a lot of time, effort and money.

    Ultimately it’s very simple: if one competes with dogs, one is part of the dog fancy. It is irrelevant whether one actually breeds their animals.

    Ask Mancuso. Ask Pacelle. Ask Newkirk.

    Comment by TrueAgendas — December 28, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

32. re: excellence and beauty - I have to agree with bestuvall. Each of the dogs we own here are beautiful to us, their people. If we exhibit them in any venue, it is because we believe they will perform in an excellent fashion.

    Do not allow mere semantics and word definitions to divide the fancy - everyone who exhibits dogs. Do not give that win to the animal rights industry. Working terriers, working collies, working SAR dogs, working service dogs are all just as endangered by Mancuso and animal rights legislation as conformation exhibitors. We are all dog fanciers.

    Comment by TrueAgendas — December 28, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

33. Thanks Laura.. I knew that. I do find it frustrating that we are put into “little boxes” by words like “fancy’,either by including or excluding ourselves and others.
    The President of our national breed club is:
    1. A renowned dog trainer
    2. A top agility trainer
    3. the owner of a successful a dog training business
    4. a licenesd AKC judge
    5. the owner the only dog of our breed to hold multiple agility titles
    6. the breeder of the only SAR dog of our breed ( that I am aware of)
    7. a breeder of top show dogs bred for BEAUTY and brains
    8. highly involved in the sport of dog showing and judging
    9. highly involved in the art of of dog training
    10.highly involved in the sport of agility ( she even trained her pot bellied pig)
    11. on BOD of Animal Care in her state.
    12. a champion for all dogs including the purebred and the rescue
    Would she call herself a “dog fancier’.. yes she would.. and she is.. so lets’ stop with the name calling and get on with the important job of making sure our dogs and our rights to own them are safe.

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

34. Ultimately it’s very simple: if one competes with dogs, one is part of the dog fancy.

    Not necessarily. Likewise, not all Americans who are religious are Catholics.

    An overwhelming majority of the people in whole segments of what you call “the dog fancy” do not label or consider themselves dog fanciers. They reserve the label for the people who, ya know, call themselves dog fanciers on the basis of their activities with dogs — which AFAIK almost always includes conformation showing.

    Stop trying to slap the “dog fancier” label on people who want nothing to do with it. Attempts to do so do not serve the fight against Mancuso et.al., they instead undermine it.

    Comment by LauraS — December 28, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

35. In the sense of “what words mean literally,” anyone who likes dogs is a dog “fancier.”

    But in practical usage, it’s reserved for those who show dogs in conformation.

    Although Fancy Publications does use the word in a more general sense, so perhaps there is some gray area here…

    Comment by Christie Keith — December 28, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

36. Ultimately it’s very simple: if one competes with dogs, one is part of the dog fancy. It is irrelevant whether one actually breeds their animals.

    Ask Mancuso. Ask Pacelle. Ask Newkirk.

    So we are now allowing Ingrid Newkirk to tell us who we are? Good strategy. Let me know how that works for ya.

    Fortunately, I do not “compete” with my dogs, so I guess I am exempt.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

37. If they were planning to close ALL caves to ALL of the people would you still want to be separated from the “spelunkers”?? Does a “spelunker ” ever become a caver? Or is that relm to lofty.. or lowly.. for them?

    “Some cavers become well-known as speleologists. Others become that strange creature known as a speleopolitician who tries to conserve caves by dealing with the various landowner and cave controlling agencies. And others disdain notoriety, and simply cave because they enjoy it. A great love of caves and their critters drives them—and they work to preserve their private paradise, with no thought or interest in others except for their caving buddies.”

    “preserving their private paradise…with no thought or interest in others.,,” Now I get it..

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

38. I think my resolution for 2010 is going to be to stop reading dog blogs.

    It’s SO damn easy to be negative, to belittle others when we disagree, to make oh-so-witty comments, because, you know, it’s all about the dog.

    Sorry, I call bullshit.

    Let’s stop this right now, and try something else, k?

    I have a question for all those who are against the “dog fancy”, or show breeders, etc.

    What’s your alternative?

    Oddly enough, in the NUMEROUS times I’ve asked this question to such people in the almost 3 years I’ve been a dog owner, I haven’t gotten a real response.

    Not one that includes all breeds of dogs, not just “working” breeds. And if it really is all about the dog, you can’t be excluding all those toy breeds, right? Since they are just as much “dog” as a working breed.

    Not one that takes into account all owners, not just those that truly work their dogs (and there are many self-proclaimed “working dog” owners who think a weekend spent in a field somewhere, every so often, somehow raises them up above us plebs).

    Not one that takes into account working breeds whose work is not acceptable anymore.

    So again, let’s stop trying to score points, and give me some ideas.

    Give me an alternative. ‘Cause I am mightily tired of this argument, which simply goes in circles, never ending, with no real benefit or substance. And really, I have better things to make resolutions about.

    Comment by K.B. — December 28, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

39. I know a resolution of real benefit and substance…work towards a No Kill Nation in 2010 - I hope all can agree on that.

    Comment by mary frances — December 28, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

40. Thanks KB..I agree totally..Looks like Christie is about to become the owner of a puppy from a “dog fancier” whose top ranking Deerhound has proudly won several best in shows.. plus garnered many other awards..so is this not a good thing? I think it is a FABULOUS thing and I wish her many good years ahead with whatever endeavors she chooses with her new pet.. show, breed, work, hunt or just laying the huge gray body on the nearest lap..I resist posting here as I almost always get “flamed” but there are occasions when I cannot keep my terrier nature down or, like in the case of Christie and her soon to be new charge, I cannot resist sharing in the joy of a new puppy..
    again mea culpa..

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

41. K.B., you new here? This has been discussed already. An alternative would be one that:

    1) does not take a tiny arbitrary subset a genetically-diverse breed population and declare the descendants of those dogs, and only those dogs, as “pure” while discarding the rest.

    2) does not build an impenetrable wall around breed populations that prevents ANY outside genes from ever getting inside.

    3) does not discard much/most of the already reduced genetic diversity it starts with using onging strategies of inbreeding and close linebreeding, popular sires, and breeding to a narrowly defined physical “type”

    4) acknowledges that population genetics is a science that applies to dogs, and not just fruit flies.

    5) abandons the discredited notion that function follows form, and accepts the biological fact that form follows function. In other words, it would not use conformation showing to select breeding candidates.

    6) wait to breed dogs until after they are proven to hold up over time, after many late onset diseases have had a chance to manifest themselves. For example, instead of breeding males when they are 2 years old, wait until they are 6+ years old and it’s proven they are still healthy. This age will depend on the breed, and will be older for males than for females. I suspect this practice alone would do more to select for good health than a battery of medical screening tests could accomplish, though we should use health screening tests too.

    7) not make excuses (e.g. poor socialization) for temperament problems. Don’t breed dogs who aren’t rock solid stable in a wide range of
    environments and situations. Select the most confident and stable pups from litters, not the prettiest. Pet dogs who lack confidence can exhibit a range of problems, from shyness to fear biting to training problems.

    8) would incorporate obedience, rally, endurance tests, hunt tests, temperament tests, tracking, hunting, agility, etc into one’s breeding program. These won’t necessarily demonstrate that the dog is suitable for breed-specific work, but in many cases, particularly if not selecting for high level performance, they can demonstrate the temperament, trainability, focus, biddability, health, and/or physical abilities that make dogs more suitable as companion dogs.

    9) makes use of health and genetic screening tests, but doesn’t substitute these for a sound application of population genetics principles.

    10) does not select for unhealthy extremes, like declaring dogs with impaired breeding, or over-angulated rears as “correct”.

    11) last but not least, if breeding mainly for the pet market then put the health and temperament traits required to be a pet dog at the top of one’s list of breeding criteria. We cannot serve two masters without compromise. Discards from working dog breeding programs will not have had pet dog selection criteria near the top, nor will discards from many show
    dog breeding programs.

    Comment by LauraS — December 28, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

42. All of the above makes sense. Unless one is so invested, either ego-wise or financially, in the way things currently are that it would be way too threatening to consider because then one might have to, gasp, change how one does things. And maybe even admit that one was wr…wr…wro…..wro….wrong.

    Comment by Susan Fox — December 28, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

43. If they were planning to close ALL caves to ALL of the people would you still want to be separated from the “spelunkers”?? Does a “spelunker ” ever become a caver? Or is that relm to lofty.. or lowly.. for them?

    A casual “spelunker” or flashlight caver may, indeed, reform his hotdogging ways and stop screwing around endangering himself and others and the environment. Some of my best friends had mis-spent youths. In order to do so, he has to see the error of his ways and to care enough to reform himself. The reason that happens is because he finds the cave worthy of love. The way that happens is by contact with competent cavers who are willing to teach him if he follows the rules and shows by his actions that he is sincere. It does not happen because competent cavers tolerate dangerous and damaging conduct by people who have no business underground.

    Most of those people just want to go someplace dark and drink beer and impress their idiot friends, though. They aren’t interested in preserving the caves or the creatures in them, so they do not make political alliances with anyone. They are the ones who get caves closed.

    FYI, this year, virtually ALL caves in this part of the country were closed on a voluntary basis because of concerns about the white-nose fungus affecting bat colonies. Most local cavers did no caving unless they traveled. I didn’t get underground at all, and I’m sad about that, but not as sad as I’d be if I thought my presence had hurt the bats who make their homes where I only visit.

    Spelunking probably continued unabated wherever the caves are not physically gated. Unless the voluntary closure lifts next year, my best chance of getting back underground is for a rescue of some nimrod who is crawling around with a mini-mag in his mouth when his unprotected skull meets rock. And I’ll be pissed off, because my necessary presence is a risk to the bats.

    “Some cavers become well-known as speleologists. Others become that strange creature known as a speleopolitician who tries to conserve caves by dealing with the various landowner and cave controlling agencies. And others disdain notoriety, and simply cave because they enjoy it. A great love of caves and their critters drives them—and they work to preserve their private paradise, with no thought or interest in others except for their caving buddies.”

    “preserving their private paradise…with no thought or interest in others.,,” Now I get it..

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

    No, clearly you do NOT “get it.” Despite the fact that teh Googles landed you on a very clearly-written page that you chose to quote without attribution:

    http://members.socket.net/~joschaper/wspelunk.html

    You willfully misconstrue and oh-so-selectively quote what Ms. Schaper writes about cavers in order to bolster your notion that people who reject being conscripted into YOUR tribe because its values are not their own are “snobs.”

    (I love the people who are so impressed by silver cups, “championship points” and judges in penguin suits accusing the people who just aren’t of being snobs.)

    The non-public, non-activist cavers that Schaper describes are the equivalent of a normal, conscientious dog lover who trains her dog to be a great citizen and quietly gets on with life. They are the guys who do it right, but aren’t necessarily holding office in their Grottos or organizing surveys. They are generally a lot of fun around the campfire. It was cavers like these who generously introduced me to the underground world, and who make up most of the roster of my Grotto; with the exception of some political action to protect sensitive karst areas and my involvement with cave rescue, I’m one of them.

    Your clever attempt to force an analogy, not so much.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

44. I think my resolution for 2010 is going to be to stop reading dog blogs.

    Maybe you’d do better to read them more carefully.

    I have a question for all those who are against the “dog fancy”, or show breeders, etc.

    Do you mean the people who are not “members of The Fancy” and reject those who tell us “Oh, you are part of The Fancy, you own a dog, now shut up and do as you’re told?”

    Are those the ones you’re talking about?

    What’s your alternative?

    Oddly enough, in the NUMEROUS times I’ve asked this question to such people in the almost 3 years I’ve been a dog owner, I haven’t gotten a real response.

    Perhaps you aren’t asking the right people. Perhaps you aren’t listening to the answers because you don’t like what they say.

    I know it’s been Done To Death on this blog.

    Or you could start here:

    http://cynography.blogspot.com.....-show.html

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

45. I have no “discards’ from my show breeding program. All of my dogs go to pet homes FIRST.. show homes second. There is NO reason to think that temperment and type cannot be combined. I breed mainly for the “pet market”.. who does not except those who are breeding dogs that “work” and are not “pets”.. I really don’t know any of those anyway.. even guide dogs are “pets” for a portion of their life when they are not working.
    Perhaps Christie could answer why she is buying a dog from a show breeder and not a “pet breeder”.. my guess is that she IS buying from a pet breeder who happens to show dogs.
    If a deer hound is not from a small original and dwindling gene pool, I don’t know what breed is. Certainly deer hounds are bred to a certain “type” or they would not look like deer hounds.
    I don;t mean to “pick on ” Christie because I think she is doing EXACTLY the right thing and buying a dog from a breeder who cares not only for type but also for temperament. You CAN serve two masters.. and it looks like her purchase will be proof of that.

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

46. Are there any worse snobs than the “anti snobs” who deride people for their clothing and choice of activities and proclaim their own membership in elite selective groups?

    Comment by EmilyS — December 28, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

47. Laura, first off, if it’s been discussed so many times, then why does it continually pop up? Why do I see, any time breeding is mentioned, [n] people with [n+1] opinions on what a “good” breeder is? Did we reach a consensus, and no one told me??

    Now, to your list:

    Gee, MANY of those points are done by those damn pesky show breeders. And golly, many of them AREN’T done by “working” dog breeders. How many working border collies do you know that have hound ears? That are black & tan? How many “working” dog owners are you aware of that say they have a mixed breed? Odd, all the “working” dog blogs I read talk about giant schnauzers, Jack Russells, border collies… never about a terrier mix, some random herding dog they adopted from a shelter… I know “working” dog trainers that insist that Malinois make the best working dogs - but not tervs or laekenois (and they insist they don’t care about coat). If purity isn’t an issues, then why does the Australian shepherd club have such an issue with mini aussies? What’s the problem with “stubby” JRTs? With white GSDs? With long-haired GSDs?

    How many “working” dog breeders breed bitches for years? Don’t do health testing? In fact, loudly proclaim that certain health issues aren’t real, but are simply ways for vets to make money?

    But wait! There’s more!! All of the above can ALSO be said about show breeders. And “back-yard” breeders. And the “oops” litter from down the street.

    Other than the closed registry, every point you make distinguishes “good” from “bad” in breeding (and even those are broad categories that no two dog people can seem to agree on). They don’t distinguish “show” from “non-show”.

    But let’s continue to disparage “show” breeders, because….

    Why again? Why are we making a target out of the kennel clubs, instead of trying to educate dog owners in what to look for in a breeder? On how to be aware of the issues of any dog breeding, and what’s important and what’s not so important?

    Oh, right, because it’s so much easier to have a bogey man to point to, and say. “see, THAT’S the problem. If we get rid of that, it will all be okay again”.

    Too bad it’s not true.

    As for not getting a dog from a closed-registry system, what’s the alternative for many of us? I have 2 choices in the breed I’m interested in:

    1. A breeder that does health testing, temperament testing,etc…. but also does conformation under the AKC/CKC system.

    2. A breeder that does nothing more than slap two dogs together.

    And I’m thinking that for most of us “pet” dog owners, those ARE the only choices we have. The perfect breeder that does everything (including sport of some sort, although many of those on your list are available only to purebreds under the KC systems) except conformation, and somehow manages to incorporate other breeds to “improve” health, while maintaining the form and function of the original breed… well, those breeders are off frolicking in Unicornville with the flying monkeys.

    So yeah, when I start looking for my next dog soon, I’ll be contacting breeders from the AKC/CKC. Because while “papers” are far down on my list of “good breeder” characteristics, it’s impossible to find a breeder that fits my other criteria without being a “show” breeder.

    And until a new system is built, there IS no other option.

    Comment by K.B. — December 28, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

48. “Maybe you’d do better to read them more carefully.

    Do you mean the people who are not “members of The Fancy” and reject those who tell us “Oh, you are part of The Fancy, you own a dog, now shut up and do as you’re told?”

    Are those the ones you’re talking about?

    Perhaps you aren’t asking the right people. Perhaps you aren’t listening to the answers because you don’t like what they say

    I know it’s been Done To Death on this blog.

    Or you could start here:

    http://cynography.blogspot.com…..-show.html

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
    “

    Okay, SERIOUSLY, could you be a wee bit more disparaging? Because I love being talked down to. Really. Makes my day.

    Wanna discuss issues? Have at it. Wanna attempt to put me down because I dare to question your “authority”, because I call bullshit on nasty-natured point scoring? Go away.

    YET AGAIN, I’m so tired of shit like this. The whole “my way or the highway” nature of dog people - show, working, pet, trainer, and simple pet owner.

    It’s so much easier to pull down than it is to build up. To point fingers. To sweep everyone with a broad brush, making no space for individuals. To have a scapegoat for everything YOU think is bad in the dog world.

    I’ve read your blog. I’ve read many blogs. I’ve yet to read a VIABLE alternative that encompasses every dog. Lots of “working” breed alternatives, but when it comes to non-working breeds, the attitude seems to be “they aren’t REAL dogs, so who cares”? And yet, it’s all about the dogs, right?

    I laugh over this whole division between “show” and “working”, because it simply isn’t true. “Show” doesn’t equate bad, “working” doesn’t equate good. Never has, never will.

    I also laugh over “new blood”, since for many breeds, there really ISN’T any new blood. Look at Retrieverman’s posts on how closely related the retriever and water-dogs are. So where is this new blood going to come from? Look at how closely related MANY dog breeds are. Look at how wide spread certain genetic issues are. They aren’t limited to show breeders. Dogs from working breeders aren’t somehow magically immune to hip dysplasia, luxating patellas, PRA…

    But yeah, let’s tear down the kennel clubs. Because educating dog owners on what to look for in a breeder, ANY breeder, is somehow less useful.

    You want to talk about breed-specific issues? Great - I’m probably as horrified as you are about certain breeds. You want to talk about specific health issues, and the implications of testing on breeding programs? Fantastic. You want to simply disparage kennel clubs? Sorry, I can’t be bothered.

    Comment by K.B. — December 28, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

49. In your epic THREE WHOLE YEARS of dog ownership, no one has whipped out a silver platter and presented you with some universal and comprehensive system that solves your amorphous understanding of all the genetic and social problems caused by more than a century of “The Fancy” and also empties the shelters, sends Ingrid Newkirk to the eighth circle of Hell, and makes dog crap smell like magnolia blossoms.

    That’s a shame.

    I think you are right. You should really stop reading dog blogs.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

50. Listen, folks: This has to be about ISSUES, not EACH OTHER, or Gina and I are gonna get all aversive on your butts.

    I’m serious. Stop it. ISSUES ONLY.

    Comment by Christie Keith — December 28, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

51. (I love the people who are so impressed by silver cups, “championship points” and judges in penguin suits accusing the people who just aren’t of being snobs.)
    says H. Houlahan
    The accusations seem to be more one way than the other.. I see no accusations about what “working dog people wear’ from those who want to wear a tuxedo to a dog celebration once or twice a year…
    Hmm best you go back and read McCaigs book again.. there are MANY instances where the “border collie fanciers” he visits have shelves of ribbons and multiple silver cups on their mantles.. they have bragged on garnering “points” at their own events and even have dogs they call champions.. and while I don’t imagine any of them wearing a “penguin suit” they do have their own style of dress.. not that I would ever consider them “snobs”.. me thinks thou do protest too much on the clothing issue..since when is what a person wears a measure of their mettle..?
    K.B. you are so right .. what is good for the goose is not surely not good for the gander here..
    The highway that I drive on is WIDE and goes in MANY directions and allows for all sorts of dogs, philosophies and principals.. show.. work.. pet.. service.. whatever..if we do not have a two way street.. we have ONE WAY.. and that my friends will never get to where we need to be…it will only allow us to fall off the edge of the earth.. ..Not on my watch..hopefully not on yours either….

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

52. “In your epic THREE WHOLE YEARS of dog ownership, no one has whipped out a silver platter and presented you with some universal and comprehensive system that solves your amorphous understanding of all the genetic and social problems caused by more than a century of “The Fancy” and also empties the shelters, sends Ingrid Newkirk to the eighth circle of Hell, and makes dog crap smell like magnolia blossoms.

    That’s a shame.

    I think you are right. You should really stop reading dog blogs.”

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

    THREE WHOLE YEARS of dog ownership doesn’t mean only three whole years of having a working brain. Odd that 40 years of having and using a brain (plus 15+ years of science research jobs) years can allow one to quickly grasp the main points of most any topic, as well as being able to see the faults in another’s arguments.

    I do note you don’t seem to want to discuss any issues I’ve raised. Odd that.

    Comment by K.B. — December 28, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

53. Laura, first off, if it’s been discussed so many times, then why does it continually pop up?

    Because a system built on a 19th century breeding model that was discredited by science decades ago continues to be defended by institutions and the individuals who are a part of those institutions.

    Most AKC breed populations are genetically impoverished. They were started with a small number of founders, inbred around an even smaller number of key dogs, and maintained with breeding strategies that over generations continued to discard most of the already narrow genetic diversity they started with. All the while walling them off so that no new genes could enter.

    Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century, breeders have acted like dogs are exempt from the science of population genetics. Many of them explicitly make this foolish claim.

    So now that the inevitable has happened, and dogs are afflicted with increasing rates of diseases and disorders, the cry comes back “But we are using health screening tests! We are funding the development of genetic tests!” There is no recognition that this is treating the symptom of an underlying problem that was caused by our own choices, by choices we continue to defend and adhere to. We are treating gushing wounds with band-aids, all the while we continue to recklessly swing the knife.

    How many working border collies do you know that have hound ears? That are black & tan?

    I’ve seen floppy eared BCs. Border Collies come in a wider array of coat colors and physical type than perhaps any other breed. Bad choice for your example, that one.

    How many “working” dog owners are you aware of that say they have a mixed breed?

    We know there are other breeds in the woodpile of English Shepherds, the breed I work in SAR. Pretty recent in some cases.

    Those Malinois you see working with police officers in America? Most of them are unregistered high percentage Malinois cross breeds. With GSD, Dutch Shepherd, and an assortment of other breeds sprinkled in. Bred in Europe from working lines, and imported to America.

    I’ve been told by stockmen and herding dog experts in California that most of the working herding dogs in California are purpose-bred mixes of Border Collies, Australian Heelers, Kelpies, Australian Shepherds, McNabs, Catahoulas, and others.

    I know “working” dog trainers that insist that Malinois make the best working dogs - but not tervs or laekenois (and they insist they don’t care about coat)

    It’s not the coat that’s the issue, at least not in most cases (I won’t be caught dead working a Terv in wilderness SAR. I don’t have all day to remove burrs). Terv breeders stopped breeding their dogs for work. So working abilities have to a large degree been lost in Tervs. However, because the long coat recessive exists in Malinois, Tervs sometimes pop up in working-bred Malinois litters. And those Tervs are indeed used for work.

    What’s the problem with “stubby” JRTs? With white GSDs? With long-haired GSDs?

    I don’t know enough about JRTs to comment. White GSDs were DQ’d by evolving conformation standards, not by working dog handlers. Long haired GSDs were likewise DQ’d by changes to a conformation show ring standard. But long haired GSDs are sometimes found in working roles, since the long coat recessive is in the breed.

    How many “working” dog breeders breed bitches for years? Don’t do health testing?

    A good mother who is healthy and a good producer should be bred “for years”, though I’m not sure what you meant by that. The dam of my ES SAR dog was bred when she was 4.7, 6.4, and 7.9 years of age. My dog came from her middle litter, by a sire who was 8.6 years old. See item 6 in my post above.

    The working dog breeders I know do health testing. Working GSD breeders make greater use of OFA and similar European systems than AKC show GSD breeders do.

    Comment by LauraS — December 28, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

54. Dog fanciers….and yes that is everyone who fancies their dog, for whatever reason or purpose…must stand together. There were thirty-plus states with restrictive legislation proposed (just in 2009) to limit our ability to own, breed or even simply keep the family dog intact because we so choose.
    The AR groups sponsoring all this legislation are relentless and determined in their campaign to eliminate our rights to decide What we can be allowed to do with our dog. McCaig isn’t worried about PETA? Or Houlihan here who thinks she is exempt because she doesn’t participate in frivolous dog shows? Foolish myopes. Couldn’t see a helicopter (be it black, white or purple) if it landed on their front lawn…and probably wouldn’t hear it either.
    Unfortunately, there exist too many more folks in denial out there who think “oh that’ll never happen”. Meanwhile, in cities and states all across the nation, the noose of ever-increasing levels of restrictions tightens even as we speak. It is impossible, in the practical sense of the word, to breed dogs legally in this state…unless you are already doing so as a licensed commercial venture. Do you think we reached that state of affairs accidentally?

    Comment by Time4Dogs — December 28, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

55. We know there are other breeds in the woodpile of English Shepherds, the breed I work in SAR. Pretty recent in some cases.

    Pip, Moe, Rosie, Jasmine, and probably Cole are part border collie. Especially Moe and Jasmine.

    Damn mutts.

    The only English shepherd here who does not go back to Rags & Patches — based on our best guesses in the case of the rescues — is the inimitable Barry White.

    I don’t think there’s any of that Beauceron or cur in any of them, but could be wrong.

    It keeps me up nights, let me tell you.

    Just like I’m sure the blind people who are led by golden x Labs are endlessly vexed.

    Pip was bred “for years.” She had a litter at three and another at seven.

    We do genetic and phenotype tests, but as it happens, there aren’t quite so many problems to test for.

    Of six working dogs I’ve acquired or kept with half an eye to breeding as well as being my partner, I’ve so far bred one, with one 30-month-old animal still under consideration. Two had unacceptable hip radiographs, though I now know that one of those was a mistake. One has a temperament I would rather not reproduce, though she’s a fine working dog, another possibly has an immune system that is not as robust as I’d like, possibly is just a victim of bad luck. We went with caution when we neutered him.

    I think I’m not unusual among working dog breeders, though there are wide variations among breeds, individuals, and work venues, and they should all feel free to answer for themselves.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 28, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

56. well if you listen to Ar’s .. HSUS and the like.. NO bitch should be bred more than once and CERTAINLY not THREE times.. unless you are of course.. a “puppy mill scum bag”.. and breeding a bitch over seven years old.. how could you torment a dog like that??? WHAT CRUELTY.. WHAT ABUSE..of course I agree with you ..a GOOD mother SHOULD produce as many puppies as possible to add to the gene pool so where does the “middle ground lie”?

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

57. “How many “working” dog owners are you aware of that say they have a mixed breed?

    We know there are other breeds in the woodpile of English Shepherds, the breed I work in SAR. Pretty recent in some cases. “

    so how can you call them English Sheperds.. why not just call the working cross breds..what is an English Shepherd exactly

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

58. “Dog fanciers….and yes that is everyone who fancies their dog, for whatever reason or purpose…must stand together. There were thirty-plus states with restrictive legislation proposed (just in 2009) to limit our ability to own, breed or even simply keep the family dog intact because we so choose.
    The AR groups sponsoring all this legislation are relentless and determined in their campaign to eliminate our rights to decide What we can be allowed to do with our dog. McCaig isn’t worried about PETA? Or Houlihan here who thinks she is exempt because she doesn’t participate in frivolous dog shows? Foolish myopes. Couldn’t see a helicopter (be it black, white or purple) if it landed on their front lawn…and probably wouldn’t hear it either.
    Unfortunately, there exist too many more folks in denial out there who think “oh that’ll never happen”. Meanwhile, in cities and states all across the nation, the noose of ever-increasing levels of restrictions tightens even as we speak. It is impossible, in the practical sense of the word, to breed dogs legally in this state…unless you are already doing so as a licensed commercial venture. Do you think we reached that state of affairs accidentally?”
    Posted for someone who was “blocked”

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

59. The English Shepherd is a non-AKC breed that, despite its name, was developed in the USA. It was developed to work on small farms in the midwestern and eastern states. With the demise of the small farm in America, the ES breed became rare.

    Dog breeds have existed for thousands of years without the closed studbooks that were invented in the 19th century. The closed studbook model was created out of flawed notions about how breeds are maintained. The thought was that dogs would “breed true” this way. In fact they do not, as few former working breeds being bred through the closed studbook model retain the breed working abilities they once had.

    Breeds are maintained by selection, not by walling them off from any and all contamination by outside genes. In open studbook or landrace breeds, dogs from other breeds were/are occasionally brought into breed populations. This was, and is, part of how they are selected for breed working abilities and health.

    FCI kennel clubs allows cross breeding. After 3 generations of backcrossing, the offspring are declared — by FCI kennel clubs — to again be purebreds.

    Even the AKC agreed to allow cross breeding in at least one case, to correct a genetic disorder in one breed. The breed club would have none of it though.

    My ES and Heather’s ES are English Shepherds because of selection.

    Who cares if Heather’s Moe has a Border Collie 5 generations back in his pedigree? Even the FCI would declare Moe an ES after that many generations of backcrossing.

    Comment by LauraS — December 28, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

60. I know “working” dog trainers that insist that Malinois make the best working dogs - but not tervs or laekenois (and they insist they don’t care about coat)

    It’s not the coat that’s the issue, at least not in most cases (I won’t be caught dead working a Terv in wilderness SAR. I don’t have all day to remove burrs). Terv breeders stopped breeding their dogs for work. So working abilities have to a large degree been lost in Tervs. However, because the long coat recessive exists in Malinois, Tervs sometimes pop up in working-bred Malinois litters. And those Tervs are indeed used for work’
    HUH??? I don’t get this at all..so if a “terv’ shows up they are they not going to to ‘work it’ due to burrs..or is it that if “tervs’pop up they can be used because they are not really ‘tervs..

    Comment by bestuvall — December 28, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

61. bestuvall — what I said is that I am not going to work a Terv or other dog with a huge coat in wilderness SAR because of burrs. I don’t have time to mess with that. My ES SAR dog is a longcoat but he doesn’t have the huge coat that most Tervs have. I have enough trouble with burrs already even with my dog’s more modest coat.

    Other working dog handlers are willing to work dogs with huge coats. Either because burrs aren’t an issue for what they are doing, are less of an issue, or they don’t care.

    On the plus side, my dog doesn’t seem to ever get cold. Some of the shortcoat SAR dogs I work with are quite prone to getting cold.

    Comment by LauraS — December 28, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

62. Longcoats that pop up in Malinois litters are considered Tervs in the breed’s home country of Belgium, and by the FCI.

    Tervs that pop up in working bred Malinois litters are capable of work because of the working selection in their background. Tervs born in nearly all Terv litters are less capable of work because they are not working bred.

    Comment by LauraS — December 28, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

63. thanks for that explanation Laura ..so long coated Malinios are considered Tervs but short coated Tervs are not considered Malinois .. or is there such a thing as a short coated Terv? If tervs are not ‘working bred” then the ones from Malinois are..? hmm ..This stuff gets complicated.. LOL..

    Comment by bestuvall — December 29, 2009 @ 10:30 am

64. bestuvall, the four Belgian shep breeds are defined by their coats. If a long-coated puppy is born to two Lakenois parents, he’s a Terv. If a short-coated puppy is born to two Tervs, he’s a Malinois.

    Comment by Christie Keith — December 29, 2009 @ 10:38 am

65. If a short-coated puppy is born to two Tervs, he’s a Malinois.

    That shouldn’t be possible. Tervs are homozygous for the longcoat recessive (l/l). A Malinois is either homozygous for the dominant shortcoat (L/L), or else hetereozygous (L/l). Two l/l dogs cannot produce an L/l or L/L dog.

    The opposite can happen though, longcoats can be born out of shortcoat litters, as long as both parents carry the shortcoat recessive.

    Comment by LauraS — December 29, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

66. bestuvall, the four Belgian shep breeds are defined by their coats. If a long-coated puppy is born to two Lakenois parents, he’s a Terv. If a short-coated puppy is born to two Tervs, he’s a Malinois.

    In Europe, and I think in most of the world. The four Belgians are considered varieties of one breed, the Belgian shepherd.

    Only the AKC (AFAIK) defines them as distinct “breeds” and forbids their commingling.

    The varieties may be interbred in the ROW, though I understand that this is less common than it once was. There has been significant divergence in the temperament, working ability, and physical structure of the varieties due to different selection priorities worldwide. That divergence is more pronounced in the US AKC-registered populations. But not as pronounced as the divergence between show-ring Malinois — which look like fawn smooth collies to me — and the working dogs that LauraS and I see in SAR and police work, as well as Schutzhund competition.

    In the US, a long-coated pup born to two Malinois parents is an “incorrect Malinois.”

    You would not have a short-coated pup born to two long-coated parents, as the long coat gene is recessive.

    The color genetics are less cut and dried, and there are black Malinois, for example.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 29, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

67. thanks for that explanation Laura ..so long coated Malinios are considered Tervs but short coated Tervs are not considered Malinois .. or is there such a thing as a short coated Terv?

    Yes, long coated Malinois are Tervs in AFAIK everybody’s book except the AKC’s, where they are considered faulty Malinois.

    There’s no such thing as a short coated Terv, since shortcoats cannot be produced out of longcoat litters. See my post above.

    Comment by LauraS — December 29, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

68. LOL, PLEASE, one thing I will never delve into is the genetics of color and coat length. There is a reason I have deerhounds, where if you breed the shaggy gray ones to the shaggy gray ones you get shaggy gray ones.

    The point is — you can get a puppy of one “breed” out of two parents of “another breed” when talking about the Belg Shep breeds, because they are defined by their coats.

    The details make me cry. ;)

    Comment by Christie Keith — December 29, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

69. The color genetics are less cut and dried, and there are black Malinois, for example.

    In the working lines, black Malinois exist though I have only seen a few. AFAIK, most such cases exist due to crosses with Groenendael. Black might have been introduced to Malinois from crosses to GSDs if they brought in recessive black.

    I believe these crosses were intended to make black Malinois for protection work, because black makes for a more intimidating and therefore more respected police dog. When a dog is more respected, he doesn’t need to be deployed to bite as often.

    Comment by LauraS — December 29, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

70. Wow, oh WOW! Some meat I can sink my teeth into after the Holiday!!

    A little story: Years ago, I knew a famous American Show GSD breeder who offered her “best” GSD bitch to a level novice who wanted to get into “showing dogs”. After years of allegiance to this one famous breeder, the trainee in all things “show” started her own work and breeding program, with the famous breeder’s bitch as the foundation for a successful breeding program of champeen show dogs. The famous breeder became a “pillar” in the breed. For Decades.

    As the acolyte’s breeding for show wins declined, in a fit of anger, the famous breeder exclaimed that her former acolyte “Started out with Show Dogs, and ended up with PETS”. Quite the insult.

    The acolyte learned some very valuable things about the breedings she was doing and ventured away from the close in-breeding and restricted gene pools of the dogs of the day, all former foundation sires and dams within the breed’s history in this country from the sixties throughout the 70’s. What she thought she had learned from the famous breeder failed her in her attempts to breed the very best.

    She took this woman’s insult as a complement.

    Her dogs were healthier, lived longer, had better temperaments and were actually able to ‘function’ in their original scope.

    Alas, many people start out in obedience or field trials and gravitate towards the pretty dogs. It’s less effort to show a dog in conformation than it is to campaign it to the advanced titles of obedience, field trials or other competitive venues where dogs are pitted against skill sets determined by their breed’s original purpose.

    Now I am not disparaging the efforts of people who show their dogs, I know what it’s like to run whole strings of 16 to 36 dogs in foreign places in less than the best conditions, like Virginia during a hurricane and all the dogs are hair breeds that need to be carried to the ring regardless of size, the money, the time, the handlers fees and so on. Been there, done that, divorced my first husband over it.

    I worked for professional handlers for years. I showed dogs professionally in conformation, went to the Garden a few times, even showed at the American Kennel Club’s Centennial event in the ‘80’s. All the glitz and pageantry is nice.

    But…

    I found it soulless. Seeing dogs in such an artificial way, contributing to the deception of some very top BiS winners and watched the steady decline of my favorite thing. Dogs.

    Yes, there is a middle ground, a compromise that can be reached.

    There are still registries that deliberately exclude a conformation championship until a performance title is achieved. It would not be difficult for a registry to be created, or given over to the parent clubs to oversee the rewarding of performance over physical attributes.

    If there are people who value the anatomical attributes over working performance, let them be so designated.

    But there’s something else.

    In the vast majority of even show bred litters, the percentage of dogs capable of attaining the highest honors even in that venue are so small that the vast majority of dogs produced are sold to a pet market.

    Selection testing for good pets doesn’t come from producing show dogs, it comes from producing dogs that are temperamentally sound, free of genetic defect and functional AS PETS. They should be able to walk without orthopedic issues, free of hereditary predispositions that make it difficult to live a normal, healthy life.

    The fallacy comes from the numbers themselves; although the AKC may have registered over 100,000 Labs in 2006, not all of those dogs were bred by show-only breeders. As the most popular breed in the US, it’s a pretty safe assumption that the show bred dogs make up less than a quarter of that number considering the number of labs entered in dog shows the following year (2007). I am awaiting conformation of those numbers from the statistics department of the AKC as I write this, however the TOTAL number of entries (all breeds/all venues) in AKC events was less than 900 thousand.

    All of this proves nothing of course, exceptin that the numbers just don’t jive.

    The population of dogs is governed by many things, favored pet as a child, that statuesque beauty at the local dog show, the fond memory of a pet owned by a friend and so on.

    Do show breeders damage dogs? Yes, when the indiscriminate breeding practices devolve a dogs’ purpose into a caricature of what a dog LOOKS LIKE and not what a dog DOES.

    But the guy down the road who bought a pure lab that happens to be AKC registered and wants to make some pocket change is more the culprit on both counts. Saturating a market with no thought to what he’s actually doing, no health checks, no plan but a litter of pups to sell for a couple hunnert bux in the local newspapers conveniently just in time for the holidays.

    Performance Labs make up even a smaller market. People who run in Hunt Tests, breed to dogs who perform in Hunt Tests. People who run in Field Trials, breed to dogs who establish themselves in the hierarchy of Field Trials. People who breed for the show ring, breed to dogs who excel there.

    Genetic testing is another issue, when testing in closed pools for markers known to afflict certain breeds. So, they find them, then what? Where are they going to go to eliminate the marker and save the breed? Can’t go back, eliminating all of the affected dogs from the gene pool only helps to create other bottlenecks in an EVER DECREASING collection of genetic variety.

    What then?

    I may not be as gifted a writer as Heather or Laura, but they have a point. They have made the argument more cohesively than I, but speaking from years of contributing to both the conformation ring as a handler, groomer and trainer, I prefer the measure of a dog by the value of his work.

    Beauty is as beauty does.

    I started out with show dogs and, well, you know the rest.

    Comment by Linda Kaim — December 29, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

71. I found it soulless. Seeing dogs in such an artificial way, contributing to the deception of some very top BiS winners and watched the steady decline of my favorite thing. Dogs.

    Comment by Linda Kaim — December 29, 2009

    I think I’m getting to that place, too, Linda. I am finding myself less and less interested in “dog sports” and more and more interested in “dogs, working.” (And working as part of a life I’m trying to get to, one of sustainable farming.)

    The weekend after Heather died I was entered in two hunt tests and a two-day seminar with a top field-trial trainer. After that weekend, I called Christie and said: “I don’t want to do this anymore. It’s just not fun.” And that’s field competition, which I used to really enjoy. I find myself with even less enthusiasm for FayBee going to shows. (My other two flatcoats are already champions, so they don’t have to.)

    What I AM enjoying these days is BEING with my dogs, training, communicating with and working my dogs. I am also more likely to actually hunt (not hunt “test”) with them someday than “compete” again. And I LOVED raising McKenzie’s litter, even though it was more work than anything I’ve ever done before. Hearing from the owners of those puppies about how smart and well-socialized they are, how happy they are and how happy they make their families — well, it’s just a rush.

    It could be that 2009 was just a horrid, horrid year and I need to take a break while everything sorts out. Or it may mean that what used the matter to me has changed forever. I just don’t know.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 29, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

72. Both, Gina. It’s both.

    I have a lovely Pointer dog named Cotton. He has one point to his credit, but as a sire, he has proven to be quite the catch. Multiple CH’s from his first litter, multiple CH’s from successive generations.

    I stopped showing him for two reasons. He was getting smeared by his progeny (a good thing) and he HATED it. This lovely, animated, hard runnin’ hard workin’ huntin dawg just Didn’t. See. The. Point. No pun intended…

    I didn’t either, seeing good dogs that I knew to be good dogs outside the ring get beat by the flavor-of-the-day handler’s dog, by the guy who got the judge the gig with his crippled GSD, the attrition, the nepotism, the bullshit.

    I did it for years and years and I just woke up one day and decided that if I never saw another dog show, it would not kill me.

    I torture myself every year watching the Garden and being saddened over the passing of good friends, seeing the faces of the people I spent much of my younger years with huddled up in mobile homes laughing and drinking and…stuff…and my how they have…changed…

    But I bleed over the dogs.

    I personally love the training, it’s all I ever really wanted to do, and now it’s all I do.

    Comment by Linda Kaim — December 29, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

73. Motor homes, that should read motor homes.

    Comment by Linda Kaim — December 29, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

74. Hey Gina, you might want to check out K9 SAR. It’s a way to “hunt” in a very natural way that engages your dog as a true working partner, while also giving back to the community. There’s no competition, though like any endeavour involving human beings, there’s egos.

    SAR differs from dogsports in a number of ways, but one of the key differences is the expectation of a very serious commitment to SAR. With dogsports one can dabble in them or have one’s life revolve around them, and that’s OK either way.

    K9 SAR is mostly middle-aged women and their nice working-bred dogs. You and FayBee would fit right in :-)

    Comment by LauraS — December 29, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

75. “Genetic testing is another issue, when testing in closed pools for markers known to afflict certain breeds. So, they find them, then what? Where are they going to go to eliminate the marker and save the breed? Can’t go back, eliminating all of the affected dogs from the gene pool only helps to create other bottlenecks in an EVER DECREASING collection of genetic variety”

    actually I thought that by finding the markers and testing you could widen the gene pool as dogs who are “carriers” can be bred to clears… rather than just guessing.. The marker for lens luxation has been found.. it affects mini bulls ( the smaller version of my breed)among other breeds so now carriers can be bred to clears with the knowledge that none of them will luxate.. and then those can be carriers can be bred to clears .. and so on.. does that not INCREASE the gene pool? hasn’t the same thing been done in Bedlingtons with copper problems ( not sure of the correct medical term?)

    Comment by bestuvall — December 29, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

76. bestuvall-I have a mini bull from god knows where, hooked out of a shelter as a starved-almost-to-death 3 month old pup. She’s a laugh riot.

    My point is that if there are only a finite number of dogs to begin with in any genetic ‘bank’, removal of any of them (affected dogs SHOULD be removed) still diminishes the overall number of available genes.

    So, with the reduction of any number, say from the even more obscure breeds like Field Spaniels where it is purported that only about 3000 exist worldwide, there are a host of problems that present themselves to such a limited gene pool. (http://kaper.home.comcast.net/~kaper/)

    On the website I offered, the individual claims that all of the current FS’s stem from the same four dogs.

    I do know that there is a genetic predisposition in Field Spaniels for cancers that kill dogs at very young ages.

    It’s the number one killer (as of this writing in 2008).

    Where are they to go, if the genetic testing proves a marker for carrier and afflicted dogs?

    If every dog in the available gene pool is somehow related, that pretty much narrows the gene pool, wouldn’t it? It could conceivably be that virtually every dog carries a marker for cancer. That would effectively put an end to the current breeding plans of FS breeders with the current genetic availability.

    What would the crime be of importing a little Boykin or other working breed of field type spaniel to increase that vigor and increase the genetic diversity?

    Being able to identify markers is a good thing. But when applied to already jeopardized numbers of rare breeds, it offers only identification and no real answers.

    One of the other issues with this is the “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” syndrome.

    Donald McCaig has even stated that amongst stock dog breeders, they don’t screen for hip dysplasia unless a problem surfaces. Yet, there is a high degree of hip dysplasia in Border Collies.

    There is a thing as functionally dysplastic, but if care is not taken, from either end of the spectrum, the virtue of all of the other qualities may be irrevocably lost with that decision to not breed to a dog who won’t pass a radiograph. despite all of the other virtues he may possess that his breed may lack, or worse yet, lose altogether.

    EIC has been identified in Labs. It affects field dogs and show dogs indiscriminately.

    Lab breeders can now identify affected vs carriers and breed accordingly. Labs have a varied and diverse genetic pool from which to choose. Many of whom carry no markers, either carrier or affected.

    Show bred greyhounds are starting to crop up with a whole host of problems, as the genetic diversity of the racing greyhounds are excluded from show bred populations, that which makes the greyhound diminishes, one of the most ancient breeds of dogs in existence stands a good chance of an inability to recover from the genetic bottleneck created by breeding for a look as opposed to the ability to course game. The show breeders are aghast at the prospect of corrupting their hallowed bloodlines with those horrid little un-remarkable track dogs. Like they had some sort of disease.

    What they have is the answer.

    There are others, but I leave it to the committed caretakers of the breeds to decide what they wish to do about it.

    Comment by Linda Kaim — December 29, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

77. One of my three retrievers is Swedish (Woody); one is half Swedish (McKenzie) and, of course, that would make the youngest retriever (Faith) one-quarter Swedish since she’s McKenzie’s kid.

    Although I have no way to know if anything “untoward” happened over there, I hope to GOD ALMIGHTY that the Swedish folks have had enough sense to let something else in the flat-coat gene pool, so maybe my dogs will be less likely to have to deal with the genetic bottleneck that has made my lovely little breed a cancer magnet as well.

    I hope over there, once upon a time or two, somebody’s nice field Lab snuck in and had his way with some nice flatcoat girl or even someone’s Munsterlander did or … hell, I’d be happy if a neighbor’s farm collie made sweet music with my dogs’ ancestor or two or three.

    Truly, I would. Accidental or accidentally on purpose and hush hush hush … I’m good with it!

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 29, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

78. I hope so too.

    Would be even better if saving dogs from cancer caused by inbreeding wasn’t a shameful secret, but something that was carefully and openly planned, with the results scrutinized for future lessons.

    The first flatcoat I ever met was a lovely, sweet-natured liver dog who got tumors before he was two years old. I don’t know how long he got to live, as we moved away shortly thereafter. His owner was beside herself.

    We wanted a Bernese mountain dog when looking for our first dog together, almost twenty years ago. Were on the list and approved for a puppy, and the litter had been born. Then the breeder — recommended because her dogs had great temperaments — admitted that she’d never had a dog live past age six, and never personally known one to live longer than eight. If bloat didn’t get them, cancer stepped up to the plate. We passed.

    I learned another question to ask from that.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — December 29, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

79. OK, SO. I have been in contact with the AKC over the numbers issue and I can have the information for 400.00 dollars.

    Uh, No.

    They used to provide the information for free.

    I spoke to an official of the LRCA and they do not compile the information; what information they DO provide is member donated.

    Oh well, can’t fault a girl for being cheap in this economy…

    Comment by Linda Kaim — January 5, 2010 @ 7:26 am

80. Sorry Linda, I missing something in this thread —

    What information is the AKC trying to charge $400 for?

    Comment by H. Houlahan — January 5, 2010 @ 8:13 am

81. I was looking for the registration percentages of dogs of a certain breed that were actually shown in any AKC event. I used the Lab as an example. When I contacted the records department, they told me it would cost anywhere from 100 to 400 dollars for the information;
    Number of litter registrations, number of individual registrations, dogs completing AKC championships, dogs completing the requirements for obedience titles, field titling events and so on.

    Which I find ironic, since they used to give the information away for free.

    Anyway… The Lab Club doesn’t even collect the information.

    Comment by Linda Kaim — January 5, 2010 @ 11:37 am

82. Okay, I thought that might be it.

    AKC stopped publishing raw numbers of registrations, which used to be front and center on their website, in a desperate bid to conceal the swan dive they started in the mid 90’s, which must be accelerating now.

    And it used to be possible to find a really useful spreadsheet of conformation and performance titles by breed. No more. I think they got PO’d when people used it to point out that some so-called “working” and “sporting” breeds are now entirely show and pet dogs.

    I like the attempt to turn their shame into yet another revenue stream.

    AKC — you aren’t fooling anyone.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — January 5, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

83. They used to publish it every year in the addendum to the Gazette, by group then breed. It would be tabulated in time for their February issue.

    I think it’s pretty funny, in a demented, sarcastic sort of way.

    I figured I’s pay for it if it was you know, reasonable. Like fifty bucks or less. But four HUNDRED???? C’mon!!!

    That kind of desperation knows no bounds.

    Comment by Linda Kaim — January 5, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Syndication

• Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
• Subscribe to the Comments RSS

Recent Comments

• Leslie K on: We're enjoying the last blast of summer
• Erich Riesenberg on: Hartz recalls 74,700 bags of pet treats
• Gina Spadafori on: We're enjoying the last blast of summer
• Sandi K on: Iams recalls weight control cat food for salmonella
• Rori on: We're enjoying the last blast of summer
• Carol V on: We're enjoying the last blast of summer
• Carol V on: Iams recalls weight control cat food for salmonella
• Carole on: Booties for dogs: Protect and bandage paws
• K.B. on: Iams recalls weight control cat food for salmonella
• Joy on: Iams recalls weight control cat food for salmonella

Categories

• 2007 food recall
• administration
• animal charities
• animals: pets
  • behavior
  • medical
  • news
• animals:general
• Books
• contest
• Disasters
• dogcars.com
• dogmobiles
• Dr. Marty Becker
• feral cats
• Foreclosure pets
• GoodMorningAmerica
• GPE
• Gratuitous blogging
• Ketamine Recall
• Life
• Media
• No Christmas Puppies
• No Kill
• Pet-lover life
• pit bulls
• polls
• products
• Project Scout
• puppy mills
• Recalls
• Right from the start
• Syndicatedcolumn
• The blogroll
• The Dr. Oz Show
• The Making of a Therapy Dog
• The Pet Doctor
• training
• Ultimatebooks
• Uncategorized
• Westminster
• Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
• Worth a click

Recent Posts

• Hartz recalls 74,700 bags of pet treats
• We’re enjoying the last blast of summer
• A new generation of dog care professionals gets her start
• How to rock your pet adoption listings
• Teh Woodman and the puppies: I love my job
• No green tomatoes: Bashir is a gentleman farmer
• Welcoming a new old friend as life takes a turn
• Who are the activists? Who steps up, and why?
• Iams recalls weight control cat food for salmonella
• Project Scout, er, Sport, er, Spout: Then there were two

• Pet Connection Team

  • Each post is the opinion of the person who wrote it (click for our biographies).

• Search

• Read more from the Pet Connection team

  • -Dr. Marty Becker
  • -Gina Spadafori
  • Christie Keith
  • David Greene
  • Dr. Narda Robinson
  • Dr. Tony Johnson
  • Ericka Basile
  • Kim Campbell Thornton
  • Liz Palika
  • Mikkel Becker Shannon
  • Phyllis DeGioia

• Worth reading

  • Alltop: Pets
  • Ark Animals
  • BadRap
  • BCx4
  • Best In Flock
  • City Stock
  • Did A Cat Shit In Here?
  • Disapproving Rabbits
  • Dog Art Today
  • Dog Spelled Forward
  • Dog Star Daily
  • Dogged
  • Dogster
  • DrawTheDog
  • Food Politics
  • Frogdog Blog
  • Fugly Horse of The Day
  • Full Cry: A Hound Blog
  • Fully Vetted
  • GoodDogz
  • Guinea Pig Connection
  • ICanHasCheezburger
  • KC Dog Blog
  • Land of PureGold
  • Lassie Get Help
  • Nathan Winograd
  • Ohmidog!
  • Patricia McConnell
  • Pawcurious
  • Peggy's Pet Place
  • Pet Health and Nutrition
  • Pete the Vet
  • Petfinder blog
  • PetHobbyist.com
  • PetSitUSA
  • Philly Dawg
  • Raised By Wolves
  • Sarah Andrew’s RockAndRacehorses
  • Sea Spot Run
  • Smartdogs
  • Speaking For Spot
  • Terrierman’s Daily Dose
  • The Cat’s Meow
  • The Conscious Cat
  • The No Kill Nation
  • Three Woofs and a Woo
  • Vet Blog @ Dogster
  • Vet On The Edge
  • Vox Felina
  • Winn Feline Health
  • YesBiscuit!
  • Your Pet’s Best Friend

• Archives

  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009