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.

Vampire Dogs

Did you ever think of vampires as nutritionally challenged individuals living in an era without nutritional supplements?

What would a person, a count with wealth eat, if he was dieing of malnutrition?

Might a person who found that he could not digest solid food, switch to blood?

Cattle or horse blood makes more sense.

There is a tribe in Africa, said to only swallow, water, cows milk, and the blood of cattle - which they get from nicking a bull and catching the blood in a gourd, and then stemming the flow from the bull.

The bull doesn't die - he is 'milked' for blood.

Many people could not live on this diet, as they loose the ability to make the enzymes to digest milk after childhood.

But what if a person lost the ability to make other enzymes?

The yuck feeling that people usually get from the idea of eating other people, might be a form of self protection - it is not safe to eat your own species, because their diseases become your diseases.

better dog foods

I once had two dogs of almost the same age. One was a purebred, the other was from the same father dog, but from a mutt mother, so the puppies were half brother and sister.

They were raised in the same environment, I kept them in the same environment.

I noticed that the purebred had looser bowel movements. The veterinarian said that some dogs are just looser than others.

I switched one of the most expensive brands of dog food. The purebred's dropping became firm like the mixed breed dog's always had been.

But the mix breed dog became so constipated, that I had to go out and get him a sack of regular dog food.

I like to free feed my dogs, and let them go in and out the doggie door as they please, so feeding each dog a different food would be difficult.

I tried feeding them separate, and mixing the new food in with the old food for the mixed breed dog.

The end result was that the purebred dog did great on the expensive food, she was lively to the point of being annoying, she had plenty of energy, she was vibrant and active, she seemed much more alive.

But the cute mixed breed dog, seemed depressed, less focused, less active, less happy.

I tried going back to the regular dog food. The mix breed dog perked up, became energetic, and happy.

The purebred did better on a diet high in fats. The mixed breed dog did better on a diet of high in carbs.

They needed different foods.

Barf diet.

Sometimes a person will find an amazing fact, and use it to jump to amazing conclusions.

Sometimes the jump to conclusions is more like transporting into solid rock.

People have made both good and bad out of the study of Pottenger's cats.

I found the link on wikipedia, while searching about the barf diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger,_Jr.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_feeding#Pottenger.27s_cats

I understand that there is a book on it, but I have not read it.

I have heard lots of people talk about the barf diet - unlike what wikipedia says, I was told it stood for "Bones And Raw Foods" - but wikipedia is probably right.

The 'information' gleaned by some breeders from reading about this is that raw meat and raw foods are good and cooked foods are bad. Which then begs the question of why people have been cooking meat since ancient times?

History buffs, is there a recorded time, when people ate their meat raw?

Cooking kill germs. Pasteurizing milk helped end terrible diseases. You don't want to even think about eating raw pork.

On the other side of the coin, cooking does denature (kill or mess up) some proteins and nutrients.

Your body, and that of your animals, SHOULD be able to extract the nutrition that it needs from a variety of sources, including cooked foods.

But "should" is often just another word for "wasn't, didn't, can't".

We have grown crops that are bigger, more plump with starch or sugar, and who yield more per acre - but we have not increased nutrition, and have sometimes decreased nutrition of crops.

We have depleted soils, then 'replenished' them with chemicals that might lack nutrients, especially those not yet named, and those that MOST people or animals don't need.

If you read the links above, you will know that Pottenger removed the adrenal glands of cats.

Normally, such cats would die. But he got too many cats, and so did not bother to cook the food for some of the cats - and those cats did better. The raw food fad was born.

Does it have merit? Yes.
Can it be dangerous or deadly? Yes.

From Pottenger's findings, what would I conclude?
If your cat has had it's adrenal glands cut out, feed it raw meat and raw milk.

(And from common sense, don't exhaust a female cat without adrenal glands, by letting her get pregnant!)

His study has helped people with adrenal disease.

But, it has allowed purebred dogs, who would have normally died before being old enough to mate, to live, and pass their mutations to the next generation.

This is NOT to say, that the generation of dogs with ill health thrived, or lived more than a few years - just that they lived long enough to multiply their problem.

Would I buy a puppy from a breeder who fed her dogs raw foods? NO!

While some people worry about a dog that is eating raw meat, passing on bacteria to people, my bigger worry would be:

If the breeder sees that her dogs are healthier on raw meat, than what they were on dry dog food - then isn't she saying that there is something wrong with her dogs that they can't thrive on dog food like other dogs do?

If you or your dog are sickly, then yes, find help finding a diet which helps you thrive.

But I would not encourage someone to breed dogs that can not live on dog food.

Dog Food

There's a load of stuff posted on dog food. Lots of people will tell you their opinion. But what you need to know WHY a breeder feeds or recommends a certain diet.

I was talking to an older breeder of purebred dogs about the health of her chosen breed.
She mentioned a few problems, so I asked her about a fatal inherited disease that I had read was common in her breed.

She didn't seem to want to answer at first, and asked me a few questions.
Then she said that that was an old dog book that I had read, and that the disease USE TO BE one in her breed.

I asked about the disease.
It was a disease which somehow prevented the puppy from getting the nutrition out of the food that it was eating.

So that, while all the other puppies would thrive on what they were fed, the affected puppies would slowly die of malnutrition -not because the food was bad, but because the dog's digestion was bad.

Shades of Pottenger's cats!

I asked her when the disease was last seen in the breed.
She said breeder's dogs didn't have it anymore, but sometimes a pet puppy would still die of it.

I asked if a person could look at a litter of puppies for sell, and know which were affected?
She said that regular people could not, but that the experienced breeders could, because they had watched it develop and knew what to look for.

I asked if she would be able to make sure that I didn't buy one of these affected puppies, and she said that she wouldn't go shopping for a puppy with me, but if I brought the puppy over to her house, she would tell me if it was affected or not.

She said, because it was a nutritional problem, the puppy slowly got sicker and sicker before dieing.

I could tell, that she didn't want to talk about it, so I didn't push - the conversation was spread out through several conversations. But I did understand, by what she had said, that she must have had dogs that had produced affected puppies.

I got up the nerve to ask: "What happened to the disease?"

She pretended not to understand. I reminded her that she had once said that the disease use to be common, and now was rare. (The disease was 'cured' before genetic testing for dogs.)

She finally said . . .

A dog food company had come out with a new brand of dry dog food. And that affected dogs, fed this food, did NOT die of malnourishment!

So, the disease was NOT cured. It was just controlled.

Although I will not mention a product name here, it is a dry dog food that you that you can buy in most stores that specialize in selling pet foods.

The dog food is NOT marketed for dogs with inherited digestive problems - if it were, could the breeder you bought your puppy from recommend it, without your knowing that she had sold you a puppy with an inherited health problem?

The breeder just says that it is a good dog food brand, and her health guarantee is void if you don't feed this one brand.

When I heard this, I knew that this wasn't the only breed with this problem, because I knew there had to be a reason, like some cover up, for so many breeders insisting that puppies they sell be fed certain foods.

I know that some of these show breeders do not like dogs - they would NOT be doing it out of concern for the future of the puppies that they sell. (To some dog show people, the dog show is a game they play to win, the dogs are just something they use to win the game.)

But then I talked to a dog owner, and she said, that she knew someone whose dog had died of this disease recently.

I mentioned the expensive dog food. She said the dog was fed this, and it still died.

I went back to the older breeder, who said that yes the dog food would save the puppy, but after awhile, the dog usually died of it, and they never were healthy, even on the expensive dog food.

It seems the dog food made up for some of the nutrients that the puppy was unable to extract from it's food, but that other trace elements were not in the food in quantities enough to save the dog. The dog just died slower.

One breeder, at a show, said that affected puppies only died if pregnant - the nutritional strain killed them. (Blame the victim).

Another breeder said that male dogs died of it too. And that spaying, with the stress of surgery, and the sickly dog's inability to recover from the operation, would often kill the female dog.

I tend to believe the last two, as the "Blame the victim" dog breeder once told me that she had little trouble selling affected puppies (with a different inherited disease) because the people who bought the puppy did not know what to look for - they interpreted the puppy's lack of energy and pleading looks as a gentle puppy, not a sick and dying puppy.

And that veterinarians usually didn't know what to look for (like the rare disorders that Dr. House treats - the veterinarian might only see pets with this disease once or twice in his lifetime).

She also said when their puppy's disease got advanced enough and the puppy died, the owners usually thought the dog died from being poisoned.

And that veterinarians sometimes guessed this too, as the symptoms mimicked some kind of poisoning. (Veterinarians are not trained to do the advanced medical tests that hospitals can do for people).

I didn't think that was very nice. But to some people, it's great, they unload a sickly dieing puppy for good money, and then get off free. And nobody can use a dead dog for breeding, and thereby take customers away from them. Grrrrr.

If you think that is a rare case, then you have no idea just how many inherited diseases are in purebred inbred dogs.

Remember the experienced breeder might sell puppies/dogs nearly every weekend - the people buying a puppy might have never bought a puppy before, and might only buy a few dogs ever.

When a breeder recommends a special diet for a puppy, ask "Why?".

Know that breeders may wait until you have bought the puppy, and are leaving before mentioning the special diet the puppy should have.

If you say that you have changed your mind, that with this new information, you don't want the puppy, be prepared to hear the breeder say that she doesn't use regular a receipt, where she can refund your money and sell the puppy to someone else;

-she uses "papers" that only arrive one per puppy, and that she can't take the puppy back because it would take weeks to straighten out the paper work,

-and to get new papers for the puppy that you decided NOT to buy -

-and by that time the puppy would be too old to sell, and she doesn't want to babysit the puppy for another month before selling it - just waiting on the papers.

Might be best to ask the breeder what they feed their dogs, and why? Expect smaller breeds to often be fed more expensive dog food.

Just my opinion, but I'd question large breeds who have to be fed dog food that costs more than steak, or who can not be fed dog food and still survive.

How many?

According to factoidz 1,012,472 animals were used in research laboratories in 2006, this number did NOT include mice rats, and birds.

Although I had thought that AWA covered them all, factoidz says no.

Factoids also says the 2 biggest funders for this are the National Institute of Health and the Department of Defense.

http://factoidz.com/animal-experimentation-is-it-really-neccessary

I have heard that universities use animals. and that cosmetic companies do too.

I don't know if religion is doing it's job. I thought the idea of religion was to make people more compassionate. Guess I was wrong; it often seems to make people angrier and less tolerant.

Look where these breeders/dealers are: in the bible belt.
http://www.okpuppymilltruth.org/comparison.php

(you might want to look up you know which kennel club here too)

I thought that animals were only supposed to be used once, for one experiment, then found homes for - but without positive ID, those animals can be sold down the river again and again.

What? You think that the sort of person who sells dogs and cats into torture, wont re-use them?

This is a different civilization than what it was. It is harder to hide things, now that there is an internet. I think it would be best for this sort of thing to be more transparent.

There are people who would adopt a used animal after it has been experimented on - what was the survival rate for dogs?

And the companies could help by directing breeders to only produce dogs that would be re-home-able.

As for completely shutting down such things - you just about have to find an alternative first.

Where's my doggie?

Well, I wouldn't want a pet FROM at "class A" dealer/breeder.

But your pet doesn't want to go TO a "class B" dealer. Better off dead with a quick injection, than living the life of a 'lab rat'. Dogs are often used as 'lab rats' or 'guinea pigs'.

People have been trying to stop vivisection from the beginning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Dog_affair

If you have been reading, you know that one of PETA's latest is a months long infiltration of a University in Utah - one of the few states that still have pound seizure laws - a law which says that if a shelter receives public money, then it MUST provide animals to experiment type places.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13861593

I am saddened that lost pets can be sold into places of torture and hell.

There are suppose to be laws. But who is enforcing these laws? The gov? Or does it look like PETA is doing the work?

And I have been around dog show breeders far too many times to be trusting. I just read that class B dealers are suppose to get dogs only from certain types of sources and under certain conditions - one of those is from the person who bred the dog.

Isn't that nice, not? And who would have the paper work that says that they are the breeder of your dog? Might it be the person who you bought the dog from?

Funny, I have heard dog breeders say that they only sell puppies with a contract that says the buyer must return the dog if the owner can't keep it anymore, BECAUSE, the breeder doesn't want the dog sold into research.

But if the class B dealer, is suppose to get dogs from breeders . . . just what do breeder do with returned dogs? There are plenty of dogs for sell on petfinders. Not many grown dogs for sell in the newspaper. Where are these dogs ending up?

A list of dog bunchers is good, but it doesn't tell you who is gathering up and selling dogs and cats to the bunchers.
http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/animal-advocacy/dealing-in-dogs

A list of states that have laws that force shelters to sell dogs into research, and a list of states that forbid pounds from selling pet dogs into research, yields interesting results.

Look at how many are in North Carolina? Didn't know NC was that populated! North Carolina? that rings a bell. What is in North Carolina, something that cares about dogs?

Bigger Taboo than Dog Sex

Do you know what is a bigger taboo than exposing those purebred dog breeders like Pedigree Dogs Exposed did?

What is more taboo then showing breeding dogs with skulls too small for their brains?

What is more taboo than showing English Bulldogs that can't mate without a person helping them?

What is more taboo than showing bitches tied in rape stands?

Did you learn anything from watching Pedigree Dogs Exposed? If you missed Pedigree Dogs Exposed, it is online, in 6 parts, Terrierman has the links.
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com

I just read about an expose done by HBO, called "Dealing Dogs" - it's about Class B dog dealers, bunchers, people who sometimes steal dogs and sell them into laboratories.

http://www.hbo.com
(enter "dealing dogs" in the search - it has links to articles, the video itself, etc.

Would you rather buy a dog from a "Class A" breeder, or a "Class B" dealer?

Ignorant fool. Trusting naive puppy person. Learn and be ignorant no more.

Class A ("A" like in A$$?01ez) are people who breed animals to sell them to research facilities, experimental places, and Frankensteinish laboratories. Their animals are sold to be in the lab, on the slab.

It is worse than you think it is. Pedigree Dogs Exposed did not prepare you for the whole truth.

The truth is that the dogs are bought for experiments, and that the laboratories pay more for some types of dogs than for others.

Class A breeders supply animals bred for laboratories.

If a scientist in studying a condition, he wants animals that are bred to suffer from that condition.

If it is a lethal condition, affected animals sometimes can't be used for breeding, especially the females, because they don't always live long enough.

When two carriers are bred, only 1 out of 4 offspring will suffer from the condition.
What do you think the for-profit animal breeder does with the other 75% of the offspring?

What about when the lab only pays $25 for unaffected animals, but the public pays $350 for the unaffected animals? But 2 of every 3 of those unaffected animals, carry the mutant gene.

Everybody is welcome to their own opinion, many people believe that the unhealthy mutations in purebred dogs got there by accident, and spread through the breeds accidentally;

I believe in following the money trail, and I believe that when an industry pays more for mutant dogs than for normal ones, there will be people who deliberately breed for mutations, and middlemen who encourage people to reproduce animals with the desired mutation. It's what I believe, based on a few conversations, and slips of the tongue by show dog breeders.

Every notice how when you enter "Class A breeders", you get hits about type B breeders? Even Wikipedia. Taboo?

Is there any law anywhere that says that a Class A breeder can ONLY sell to industry? That they CAN'T sell extras as pets?

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/reitman.htm

http://wildwend.blogspot.com/2006/02/sir-maam-your-special-corner-of-hell.html

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

NBC today show, pedigree dogs exposed

For those of you not on the east coast, I can give you a heads up, If you want to watch a bit of pedigree dogs exposed and hear what it being said, there is a piece on it towards the very beginning of the today show in NBC.

I don't usually watch morning TV, figured that if it was advertised, it would probably be at the very tail of the show, turned it on after getting coffee, and the pedigree dogs exposed part was almost over.

Still, I heard enough to say that they are telling the truth, the guy talking seems to know the dog problems and speaks well, and they did have some high quality clips - but I don't know what I missed, apparently whatever was in: the video we just saw.

Remember tonight, Dec 10, 2009, pedigree dogs exposed on TV in America.

PDE - Pedigree Dogs Exposed on TV.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - on TV in America, Thursday Dec 10, 2009. Check local listing to see if it will be on in your area. I heard that it will be on at 7Pm and then repeat later in the evening.

If you can't see it on a big screen, you can still watch it on your computer - it is (was?) on YouTube, and terrierman has the links on his blog's front page:

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com

PDE - Pedigree Dogs Exposed

If you like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, try reading the archives of these two groups - you don't have to join or sign in - they both have open archive, and allow cross-posting:

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-treaty/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political_dog_law/messages

Much like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the archives of both groups are full of posts about the problems within the dog breeding industry.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed was not the first time that people exposed pedigree dog breeding and selling, people have been complaining about dog shows since they started.

Pedigree dogs exposed was the first time that somebody got action for their complaints.

Pedigree dogs exposed didn't just talk, it didn't just write, it video taped, edited, and aired.

Jemima Harrison, brave woman, went to dog shows and filmed.

Jemima Harrison, did interviews, and she got the BBC to put her film on the air (TV - telly).

We need to remember Jemima Harrison, and watch her video film, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, so that we never forget, that not everybody is nice, and that not everybody who sells warm fuzzy puppies, are nice warm fuzzy people.

I love the film. I love that finally, somebody was able to speak out for the suffering dogs, and the duped people who bought the puppies, wasted money, and had their family's hearts broken by breeders who were not producing good pets, but who were producing show dog puppies and then selling them as pets.

If you can't watch the film in your area, it is on video in 6 parts; there are links over on terrierman:

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com
(search: Pedigree Dogs Exposed)

Terrierman was also in a film himself about the problems in show dogs.

PDE, Pedigree Dogs Exposed will be on TV tomarrow in America, THURSDAY Dec, 10, 2009.