Corgi Boxer hybrid

16 years before Pedigree Dogs Exposed, there was a cross done in Britain between a Welsh Corgi and a Boxer Dog.

The puppies grew up very cute. They had short legs, but not real short like a corgi.

Two of these puppies were females with naturally short tails like the Corgi parent. They were bred to a male Boxer dog.

One of these 3/4 Boxer, 1/4 Corgi puppies looked like a purebred Boxer (not show quality) and was named Jane.

Later, Jane was bred to another purebred Boxer dog, and her descendants have gone on to be registered as Boxer dogs with the UK's kennel club.

The British succeeded in doing for Boxers dogs, what was tried in the US for Dalmatian dogs.

However, in the US, while the LUA Dalmatians looked just like other Dalmatians but were healthy, the club would NOT accept them.

Really, what the British did was more bold, because Dalmatian dogs and a Pointer dog look alike, while Corgi Dogs and Boxer Dogs look nothing alike.

I remember this when it came out. Spectacular! It turned out very well. Now Boxer Dogs in the UK can be born with short tails, instead of surgically amputated tails.

It was an ice breaker. And it could be hoped that more of these well planned and successful crosses would eliminate diseases in purebred dogs.

Unfortunately, the hybridizing seems to have stalled, despite this really successful start.

Takes a bit more nerve to walk cross country than to stay on the well worn trail.

You can read about this hybridization and see the photos if you click on "genetics" and then "genetics can be fun" at this link:

http://www.steynmere.com/PEDIGREE-EXPOSED.html

I have to agree with the author, breeding dogs in the era when cross breeding was allowed would have been so much more fun. Note: cross-breeding was allowed - not demanded.

I am linking to his re-action to Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which I find refreshingly mild compared to that of some other show dog breeders. I agree with what he said, some people got so use to the problems that they no longer noticed them. "inured".

Although, I believe that many people here, knew very well what they were doing in breeding unhealthy dogs, many other people were like the boiled frog.

(A pan of water was setting on a stove, the flame under it left on simmer. Along came a frog who hopped into the pan and enjoyed the warm water. As time passed the water, ever so slowly, got warmer and warmer, but the frog did not notice because the change was so slow.

When the water was way hotter than what the frog would have jumped into, he was still happy in the now dangerously hot water. Sadly, although he could of hopped out of the water at any time, the frog was boiled and died because the change was too gradual for him to notice.)

Bigfoot & retrieverman

If a Bigfoot is standing in the road, and its mate walks up to it, are they Bigfoots or Bigfeet?

Or would that be the rare case where we could call them Bigfeets?

Sasquatch, sasquatchs, Sasquatches, sasquatchz?

Big hairy apes? No, that's what you find in bars after work lets out. Like Harry and the Henderson's, no matter how cute they are, you probably shouldn't let them into your car, even if they are laying on the ground passed out.

I love retrieverman's blog. It's fun. He has dogs. He has knowledge and opinions on dogs but is still upbeat. He has fun history - not war history. He has bigfeet and cupracabras.

Most people NEED a little of the mystical in their lives. Fiction, fantasy, and bigfooters.

Wasn't Chewbacca a Bigfoot?

See, that's the interesting thing about speculation. We can discuss if Chewbacca was a Sasquatch or not.

We can compare heights, like: male Bigfoots are taller than what Chewbacca is, so was Chewbacca really a girl Bigfoot?

And people know the rules for such discussion, only a real wet blanket says "We can't talk about if Chewbacca was a Bigfoot, because he was really an actor in a monkey suit."

We know that we are talking in the abstract, about "what ifs", and "what could be".

And people often NEED that - they don't just want it, they need it. People who don't delve into the improbable and the "what ifs" of life, will sometimes mis-understand reality instead.

It is perhaps in our genes to sit and listen to the campfire stories instead of wondering the woods at night, because there were saber tooth tigers, and woolly mammoths. And in some parts of the world their still are big cats, wild canine packs, rabid animals, and monsters in the dark.

It is latent in us to feel these things, we do this with fantasy, or we risk these archetypes of the subcontious superimposing themselves onto reality.

In the books, Tarzan was not raised by gorillas or chimps, but by a tribe of Bigfoots, called the Mangani. They were described as tall bipedal apes, who spoke.

The Yeti, or Abominable Snowman, is another Ape Man.

http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/

Terrierman & the Vets

Reading terrierman daily dose, about veterinarians that rip people off:

I had a teacher who quoted:
"All professions are a conspiracy against the public."

When people learn a skill, keep their knowledge among themselves, form unions or professional clubs, and prevent competition through licenses and laws - the public often becomes the sheep they shear.

Why would one think there would be whole professions who would be exceptions? Stereotypes?
IMO, honest professions, with ethics that the public expects them to have, are a minority.

I worked in a veterinarian office. I know what other people who worked for other vets said.

If you work for a repair shop that pads the bill, do you think that you can quit, and expect the next one to be honest - despite the fact that most of the other employees report the same type of things about the repair shop that they work for?

There is a difference between knowing the truth and telling the truth.
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com

Genius Quiz for dog people.

I have watched veterinarians do tail docking and ear cropping (although I am against both).

Ear cropping is clearly the worst.

I once heard: "All anesthesia is a poison strong enough to knock a dog out. In higher dosages, it can kill. Somewhere between is the balance needed. Use as much as you have to, but not a drop more, because it is a poison, and can permanently damage the internal organs."

1. Tails are done on very young puppies without anesthesia.
Ears are done on puppies old enough that they need anesthesia, but too young to have a fully developed liver. Very very bad.

2. Ears often involve getting it "just so", therefor, a longer time under anesthesia.

3. Ears are taped and re-taped for weeks so that the ear heals and grows standing up, not flopping down.

Dogs clearly are bothered by the itch, and have to be prevented from removing the tape.

Some people leave an Elizabethan Collar (big plastic cone) around the puppy's head all day, to keep the puppy from scratching, other people train the dog not to scratch by punishing him for it.

I've seen a puppy with the big plastic cone on his head who could not eat or drink, until the owner removed it when they got home. At least the tail is over and done with quicker.

But I read a site where someone made the opposite case - that tail docking was worse than ear cropping. An odd statement. I had never heard anyone who knew about both to say that.

Why would she say that? I don't know. Then someone said that I should be able to figure out her breed just by knowing that she is more against tails being cut off than ears being cut off.

What? I already know her breed. But I understand the logic of the statement, but I think a person would have too be a genius to guess this one.

Have a go at it!

Guess which breed is hers, knowing only that she is more against tail docking than ear cropping.

But to be fair, I offer these tips:

1. Her breed is recognized by both the UK's kennel club, and America's largest multi-breed club.

2. It is NOT a new breed. It is NOT a rare breed.

3. Her dogs are shown without either their ears or tails cut off.

4. Assume a strong breed bias, to figure it out.

5. Assume that she believes that another breed is frequently shown docked, instead of naturally short tailed.

6. In America, I believe that her dogs only compete against other dogs with natural tails and ears, like her dogs - at least in regular classes.

Trusting the breeders

One day, I thought up an idea for a dog club based on an event. It wouldn't have been hard to get people to show up for the event with their dogs, and pay to enter, but a club needs at least 3 people as officers, who are trustworthy.

I couldn't think of 3 people who I felt were unbiased, honest, and who were into dogs enough to want to join.

Deciding that one has to go with the best they have, not what they want, I approached 2 people who I thought might be alright.

But, they thought the club would need even more officers and, they too, couldn't think of enough people who could be relied upon to not favor dogs from their own kennel, or people they liked.

And both of them later turned out to be untrustworthy themselves.

Dog shows are a competition, but not like racing where the winner is clear to all before the judges says anything.

I think of judging dog shows, like judging art paintings. Different people have different favorites, so even if everything is honest, it still isn't the same as contests where every knows the score and who is winning.

In a dog show on TV, do you know which dog will win, before the judge picks one?

Friends

I use to breed dogs. There are lots of people who use to breed dogs. They got into it, and they got out of it.

Naturally, once you breed dogs, you meet other dog breeders, especially if you go to dog shows.

This really can make for odd relationships. There are people who always did see other breeders as competitors, no matter how friendly they might seem.

Without listing all the tricks, lies, intimidations, social pressures, scams, and things which should be illegal, let me say:

"These are your competitors, and there are people who can't turn off their urge to compete when they leave the ring."

Breeders often gang together in clubs.

Did you ever wonder why they call it a "club" like in the oldest of war weapons? the caveman's club.

What really is a club? What about when a club is made up of people who deal in dogs for money? Does that make it a union?

I think of them as "gangs".

Grasshopper Hunters!

I grew up wanting a hawk. I'm not sure why. I just always wanted one. Maybe it was from flying kites? Maybe from the attention that my father gave the rare hawk that might pass by? Maybe from some long forgotten movie or story?

Whatever the reason, I wanted to have a hawk when I grew up. Of course, things aren't so simple. Like: if you want a horse, you also want a place to ride your horse.

The law wont let you keep a horse in your backyard (I don't know why), and horses tend to poop huge volumes of horse poop when you ride them - and in many places, you just can't leave the droppings on the sidewalk or in the street, where flies will find it, and will breed more files in it, and where the horse poop will become a slippery or stinking mess in the rain.

Same with hawks. You can't turn them loose where they will catch and kill cats, pet rabbits, or chickens or ducklings.

But I wanted a hawk - and a place to fly one.

Then I read Farley Mowat, and I wanted a pet owl too. Heck, while I was at it, why not grow up to have my own mews? Might as well have a stable, while I am at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farley_Mowat

Hmmm? marry a person with a farm? Because jobs are usually in the city - but horses and hawks, and the woodlands I wanted to explore, are all in the countryside.

Dogs and cats can live in a house. Horses and hawks need a barn. I had cats and dogs, no barn, no horse, no hawk, no owl.

But I did read on falconry. Something seemed to be missing. There was not a link between stories of hawks, and the books on falconry. Then I found the link - the Harris Hawk. A more tamable type of hawk.

Like some dogs can be kept as 'pets' by people whose demeanor intimidates those around them, some wild animals must be handled by those who are FIRM but Kind foster Parents to their animals.

But I am with the majority of pet lovers, who want a best friends relationship with our pets, not a Lord-peasant, or even Parent-child relationship with our animals. And to do that, you need pets who don't try to eat anything that doesn't look like it could eat them.

To have a nice relationship with a pet, you need pets that are tame, who don't try to dominate, and yet are not terrified of the world.

You need pets that don't spend their time trying to manipulate and out smart you, and get around your rules. You do want pets that are cooperative with you, not competitive with you.

Once, (in Mexico or Central America - I forget which) when I stopped and stared at a hawk, it's falconer spoke to me. He said he felt sorry for falconers in the US and Europe, as their birds of prey were cold and easily angered, while "all" of the native hawks where he was were easily tamed and could be pets that you hunt with, not wild animals that you must control and keep training.

I agree with his idea of what a good pet is, but I am not convinced that everyone feels the same way. (Some people are such control freaks that they shop for horses that resist being ridden, not truely domesticated dogs, or 'pets' they have to constanly watch).

For example: I have learned to ride what is called "Western" and "English". These aren't just different saddles, they are parts of whole different cultures, with their own trappings, history, books, and activities.

English riding is based on controlling the horse. Western riding usually has looser reins, and the horse is expected to figure out what it suppose to do - it is not micro-managed.

English riding tries to teach being "one with the horse", or being in constant touch with the horses mouth (these are NOT the same thing).

(The conparison here is the constant micro-managing of some 'pet' dogs and big cats, vs the best friends type relationship possible with tamer and less over-reactive animals.)

The horses used for English riding (in America - I don't know about in England) are horses that are more emotional (hot blooded) often with race horse genes, or from gaited show horse lines - they require more effort to control and are also rode in situations that take more control (like jumping fences in a ring).

Strangely, they often have neck lengths and neck carriages (angle of the neck) which makes them harder to control.

English riding has two main splits, often identified by the type of saddle used - hunt, or show.

While there are some people who ride on foxhunts, there is also show jumping - that is exactly how Christopher Reeves became paralyzed form the neck down - he fell off of his horse while show jumping. Quickly ending any interest I might have had in mounted fox hunting, show jumping or hunt seat.

Roy's (of Sigmund & Roy) bite from a tiger, squelched my interest in big cats. Watching film of Roy in physical therapy was hard on me.

And the video "cat dancers" absolutely ended my interest in all dangerous pets by setting, yet another example of bad ideas in pets who can never be trusted around people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Dancers

Now I prefer dog pound (rescued) trained pet cat acts on video, like the guy with the trained white cats who do circus tricks. (deaf cats might be better street performers).

I like videos best, if it is something I might want to do, or some place I might like to go.

When I was a kid, being a lion tamer in the circus sounded fun. Now, training pet cats for youtube videos, sounds more fun.

Western riders have their splits too. There are horses for use in a ring (or arena) and trail horses.

There are competitive show event riders - barrel racing and rodeos, which are, to me, more about shows and competition, than about, nature and bonding with horses.

(If a horse owner, owns a farm, they can keep the horse there, and put it in a horse trailer, and drive it to good riding spots on the weekends).

Trail riding is what it sounds like. You stable your horse in the country near paths in the woods, and go on weekends to ride (you pay the stable to feed the horse and cares for it).

You can also not own your own horse, but get to know the various horses for rent at a riding stable. But riding horses is seasonal. And keeping horses during the winter to rent or lease out in the summer is a waste of a stable's money.

So, traditionally, all or most of the horses (in some riding stables) were sold to slaughter houses for dog food at the end of the season. And new horses bought at the beginning of the next season, for slaughter house prices.

So if at the end of the riding season, if you didn't want your favorite horses sold for slaughter, you had to buy them, and pay for them to be boarded during the off season.

The stable might buy them back for what you paid for them, at the start of the next riding season, but come lay off time for the horses next year - are you going to do? buy them again, and pay for their upkeep in the off season?

Or keep paying for the upkeep of more horses than what you can ride - you can only ride one horse at a time - unless, maybe you have a really really big behind????

Now that horses are not slaughtered here in the US, what happens to the hired out horses at the end of the riding season? Are they kept until the next season? Or shipped to places where they can be legally slaughtered? Sold to big cat keepers for cat food? shot?

I don't know. But if it costs more to feed and stable a horse during the off season, than what it cost to buy new horses at the beginning of the next season, a business that has 40 or 50 for hire horses has motive to not keep the same horses.

But, of course, many stable love their horses and keep them until they are old. But, like dogs breeders, many of them do not. Shop around if you care.

People who ride Western often will not even look at English horse stuff, and English riders often pretend that Western does not exist.

Culturally, I am more of a bareback rider - but I prefer trail rides and comfy Western saddles. (Eclectic again.)

Yeah, I said two cultures, not three, or four, or five - well there are two MAIN horse cultures in the US - each with their various sub-divisions and many people specialize in just their own little sub culture - like "show Hackney ponies" or "trail riding mustangs" or "Thoroughbred race horses" or "breeding to try to get the tiniest horse possible".

(Background note: falcons are harder to manage, hawks said to be a bit easier. But the Harris 'Hawk' is no more a hawk than a jackrabbit is a rabbit (they are hares). Harris 'Hawks' are totally different,

and appeal to people willing to trade Romantic History and daring plunges for more of a relationship with their bird. Birds of Prey, like horses, have followings even among people who do not, and sometimes never did, own one - because they are not kept in the suburbs.)

What does this have to do with grasshoppers?
Are grasshoppers giant mean beasts? - well there was a cover on World Weekly News once which showed a giant grasshopper but . . .

Are grasshoppers eaten the fields of grain? Yes, that is what they do, and are the "locust" mentioned as one of the plagues of Egypt.

But my real reason, is that I was looking at hawk blogs, found one over on terrierman, and the guy had a ------ Red-Tailed hawk who tried to nail him for getting too close to it's killed rabbit. Nasty blow.

Suddenly, hunting grasshoppers with an American kestrel, did not seem like such a bad way to learn hawking. Matter of fact, grasshopper hunting was sounding like a good sport.

Yeah, I know, they are just grasshoppers, not trophy elk, 150 pound giant wolves, or even rabbits that I could kill, clean, skin, bleed out, lug home, butcher up, and cook up.

Grasshopper hunting would just yield grasshoppers to feed the kestrel - I am not going to eat grasshoppers. So I would NOT have to kill, clean, skin, bleed out, lug home, butcher up, and cook them. That's what grocery stores are for.

And an American kestrel sounds like a lot easier to care for than a Harris Hawk. Maybe I should dream of American kestrels?

What would PETA say about hunting grasshoppers? Would we start reading articles about the poor grasshoppers being killed by birds of prey, and the mean hunters who go out in the country on weekends to let their birds kill grasshoppers?

PS: Reason I couldn't find the link? It wasn't a Harris Hawk, it was on a Harris Hawk blog though. Still, my conclusion (the part that actually remembered) was correct. And, as a novice bird, I'd still go with a kestrel over a Red Tail. Puny talons over OHG nails!

The Photo of his eye:
http://hawkingharrisblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-forgot.html

How it happened:
http://hawkingharrisblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-most-serious-hunting-injury.html

Kestrel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestrel

sorry about all the post-edits, i did not realise how many points could be read different ways.

And what is the big deal with a "trophy elk"? Surely something that big and slow is not that hard to shoot - wouldn't being able to shoot running rabbits or tiny mice, be something more to brag about?

Change

It is said that the Internet allows information to be passed around. True, but . . .

It also lets propaganda get spread around.

I hope the people like terrierman (Patrick Burns), Margaret Carter, and Jemima Harrison, will keep telling the truth about what is happening to the canine gene pool, purebred dogs, and at dog shows.

I hope that a younger generation will understand not to breed dogs for dog shows or to be used in other competitive sports.

I hope the public will understand to not accept dogs bred for shows and sports, over dogs bred to be good pets.

I hope that even the show breeders will acknowledge that:

If Mary breeds dogs that are good with children, she can't truthfully label those puppies who are not good with children as "show quality".

If Sue breeds dogs to win dog shows, she can't truthfully label those puppies who are not good show dogs as "pet quality".

Mary's puppies can be divided into 2 groups: "Good with Children" and "Not good with Children".

Sue's puppies can be divided into 2 groups "Potential show dogs" and "Not potential show dogs".

It would be exactly as much false advertising for Mary to label her pet puppies that are not good with children as "Show Quality" as it would be for Sue to advertise her show dog puppies who are not going to win, as "pet quality".

A puppy who is not good with children is NOT automatically "show quality".

And a puppy who is not built to win in the show ring, is NOT automatically "pet quality".

I am NOT impressed by claims that telling a lie for 40 years, makes it true.

And calling lions "house cats" for 40 years will not make them house cats - they will still be lions.

A reject from the show ring might be a good pet, just like a puppy bred to be a good pet, but who is not good with kids, MIGHT be a good show dog.

But dogs have instincts. It is easier to teach a pointer to point, than to try to teach a bloodhound to point. It is easier to teach a border collie to work sheep, than to try to train a foxhound to herd sheep.

Why do so many dogs not work out as pets? I believe that it is because they were not bred to be good pets, so it is no surprise that they fail.

You can try to baby all kinds of animals. But there is a huge difference between having a pet dog that naturally adapts to your house, loves your kids, and whose whole life is centered around trying to please his family, vs -

- a 'pet' dog who requires constant updates on his training, and requires that his owner project mastery over him to keep him in line, and that the kids have to learn to handle in a way to prevent the dog from becoming aggressive.

Tasmanian Tiger

The thylacine is not seen anymore, but was found on the island of Tasmania, and was called the Tasmanian Wolf because it looked like a dog, and a Tasmanian Tiger because it was striped like a Tiger.

Thylacines were actually a marsupial like the kangaroo, and did, in an even earlier time, live in Australia. Today, the are found in Museums, where they are taxidermied (stuffed mounted skins).

Although some people place them in with UFOs, bigfoot, cupracabra, Nessie the Loch Ness Monster, and wild panthers in the British countryside, thylacines were real, and unlike the dinosaurs, thylacines were around running wild and in zoos until the 1930s and there are black & white photos of them.

One of my favorite books was one about jungles by Ivan T. Sanderson - Sanderson was quite the explorer and walked long distances through jungles studying the plants and animals.

Ivan T. Sanderson was a tropical backpacker before they had backpacks.

His travel adventures were at a time when travel was travel! Not like today, when you go to the other end of the Earth and they have the same type of buildings, the same brands of cars, the very same fast food restaurants.

He was also a good writer, and I loved his book. I was aghast to find that he also wrote on topics that I did NOT believe in, cryptozoology, the paranormal, alternate planes of existence (a religious belief to some), and things like that.

But since Sanderson, my hero at that time, had written them, I read them. And like many another person who eases into a new topic, I became interested.

I am still much the sceptic.

But I had enjoyed Edgar Rice Burroughs (Author of: Tarzan, Pellucidar, the Barsoom series -John Carter of Mars, and what was the one on Venus?) and I read crypotozoology the same way -

- like History as Fantasy for people who don't like fantasy, I view crypotozoology as Fantasy For Those Who Must Call It Science - until the subject of the Thylacine comes up.

The thylacine was real, it could still be real, and therefor, could other primitive animals lurk about? An occasional sterile cross between a deer and a horse, whose gametes usually don't unite? (unicorn).

A rare take between wild cat and rabbit, which drops out genes not common to them both, thereby producing a primitive beast?

A Lake Monster? ("Loch Ness Monster" - "Loch" is just Scottish for "Lake", and they name their lakes like we do, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, etc. So it just means: Monster of Lake Ness.)

Could two fish that can not normally be interfertile, be under the influence of a virus, and produce an occasional throw back? (A "throw back" to an earlier point in evolution.)? Sure.

Most of our old genes are NOT deleted, which is why some mammal fetuses have gill slits. The unneeded genes are simply turned off.

A "throw back" is a lay term for an animal whose old genes fail to turn off.

So, a "monster" need not even be an interspecies cross, just where a virus slips into an egg or embryo and 'opens a long closed genetic file'.

Thylacine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_tiger

Cryptozoology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_T._Sanderson

Edgar Rice Burroughs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Rice_Burroughs
At the bottom of the Burroughs entry, you will find the pot of gold - The Gutenberg Project.

tip - Disney is said to be making one of the Barsoom novels - John Carter of Mars? A Princess of Mars?

The whole Barsoom series ("Barsoom is Martian for their planet, Mars) is very good, and as a series you might want to start with the first one.

Great stuff, would make great action comics or Manga. Full of other worlds. Much like Avatar?

Barf Dog Food

Can you think of a less appealing name for a dog food diet than "barf"?

When I first heard about the "barf diet" for dogs, I thought it was a joke.

It sounds like anorexic girls puking up their food to try to look like a bean pole.

Actually, puppies like to eat puke, it is what wolves feed their young cubs.

But the image of feeding your kids good food and them having them puke it up for the dog - it's just gross.

I'm not sure if wolves have some way of not puking up digestive juices too. That would not be good for the puppy's mouths. Would they have to really wolf the chunks down quickly to not mess up more delicate tissues?

But that is not what the barf diet is about - read below, several posts earlier, where I explain my reasons why, even though the barf diet MIGHT be good for your particular dog -

I wouldn't buy a puppy from from a breeder whose dogs needed a special diet -

And I don't think that breeding dogs with deficient digestive systems is a good idea.