Thursday, December 31, 2009

Busy day

Well, this time Sam beat me to it when it comes to posting pictures and video about what is going on around here. To make matters worse, grind salt in my wounds and all that sort of thing, while they were in the training studio having so much fun, I was so tired I had fallen asleep and missed it all.

On the one hand I'm mad that I got left out. On the other hand I'm so proud of all of them I could just about bust. Does that qualify as being in balance?

Go here to see what I'm fussing about:
http://misterrugby7.blogspot.com/2009/12/where-do-i-even-start.html

And now with a toast from the past I bid you all a Happy New Year and may it be healthy and more prosperous than last year.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The Mighty Maltese

Sometimes a person just has to do what a person must do. In this case, Sam, Rugby and I got together and shot this quick video as a protest.

Yep! That's right. We are all protesting the misconception people seem to have about toy breed dogs and perhaps Maltese toys in particularly. Sam ordered a dumbbell for Rugby and had to deal with being told what she was ordering was too big. It wasn't.

Several months of hard use later it broke. One of the bells just fell apart during a training session. Since Mr. Rugby has also been taught to retrieve all sorts of things besides the dumbbell he "borrowed" a dumbbell from his friend Ellie the Yorkie. Meanwhile, Sam ordered not one, but two new dumbbells, thinking to have one to use and one for a spare. Again, she was told the size she was ordering was too big. Shoot, it wasn't too big the first time around and it sure isn't too big now.

She complained to me about the problem. I found I was most annoyed about this issue. See, just a couple of months ago I ordered a dumbbell for Ellie only to have the wrong size sent to me because what I had ordered was "too big". Not so.

Sam and I both filed a protest and Rugby's new dumbbells are on the way. Meanwhile a guy's gotta keep on training. So Rugby asked Sanity if he could borrow her dumbbell. She said yes. Here is Rugby, hard at work. As you can see, he's no shrinking violet, hot-house, sissy, purse dog. Nope, this is a serious working dog that just happens to come in a very small package.




I don't know about you, but I think Rugby is one super and very special, not-toy, dog. Wonder if his diet of raw, meaty bones has anything to do with his jaw and neck strength?

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Rescind HSUS' tax exempt charity status

Subject: Please join the campaign to rescind HSUS' tax exempt charity status

PERMISSION TO FORWARD and CROSSPOST is granted!!!!

I apologize to any who have already received this message but feel it is critical to reach everyone at this time.

As all of you know, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is perhaps the largest and most powerful anti-pet breeding organization that we face. They are behind much, and possibly most, of the adverse pet breeding legislation on the state and federal level throughout the United States. Those of you involved in Illinois pet ownership and breeding issues this past year know that the IL chapter of HSUS was directly supportive of legislation - and even helped in drafting several bills - that would have taken away our rights to own and breed our pets, such as HB 198 and SB 53, as well as other bills very harmful to our cause.

HSUS performs this heavy lobbying and legislative activity by masquerading itself as a 501(c)3 charitable organization and soliciting donations based upon this tax exempt status.

Under IRS regulations, lobbying, while not prohibited entirely, is heavily restricted for organizations receiving this tax-exempt status. HSUS has gone far beyond this boundary. It is time that we expose the HSUS for who they truly are.

With that in mind, there is a drive spearheaded by Mr. Frank Losey of Missouri Professional Pet Breeders Association that will put pressure on the IRS to thoroughly investigate the HSUS' tax exempt charitable status, and we are hopeful that such an investigation would have the result of removing HSUS' tax exempt status.

Mr. Losey is a long-time professional lobbyist in Washington DC, who represents animal ownership interests (in other words, us!), and has a very strong knowledge regarding what is - and is not - allowed in professional lobbying activities. He has amassed this information in the comprehensive and well-researched document entitled "Overview Summary of the Scope and Magnitude of the Lobbying Activities of the Humane Society of the United States, a Tax-Exempt Public Charity" (see link below to article below at which you can access this document.)

The first step for the plan to disarm the HSUS is for each of you to write a letter to the IRS asking that this be done, if you have not done so already. Also please write a letter for any groups that you may represent. Be certain to send a separate letter for each adult member of your household, as well!

The letter can be very simple - just ask the IRS to investigate HSUS' activities with regards to their 501(3)c tax exempt public charity status, based upon evidence you have seen showing that this tax exempt status is not justified. A sample letter is as follows:

Dear Tax Fraud Investigator,
We (I) respectfully request that you investigate the Humane Society of the United States ( tax identification number EIN 530225390 ) for their excessive lobbying using charitable donations.

Please keep the identity of my company ( or my identity ) private.
Thank you for your consideration in this urgent matter.

Respectfully,
(Sign your name or company name)
Type your name or company name
Address
  
Please place in a separate envelope for each letter sent, and mail to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA. 93888
(No street address or box number is needed)

Please mail this CERTIFIED MAIL. You will get a receipt from the post office when you send by certified mail. Please make a copy of the certified mail receipt and e-mail, fax or mail to:

Frank Losey
2029 Tampa Blvd.
Navarre, Florida 32566

or fax to: 1 (479) -299 - 4417

Mr. Losey MUST have copies of the certified receipt plan. If the IRS fails to act, Mr. Losey will go above them and demand that an investigation take place. It is vital that we follow the steps provided so that Mr. Losey has evidence, through the certified mail receipts, of the importance and urgency for the IRS to take action based upon public interest in this matter.

Please take this action by January 1, since we want a flood of letters to be received by the IRS during a short period of time.

Mr. Losey informs us that there will be additional steps to be taken in this campaign to remove HSUS' tax exempt status, so stay tuned for future reports on this subject.

The Cattle Network has information on this campaign which they are distributing to their members. This article has links to additional information on the SAOVA website, including the great amount of evidence that Mr.Losey has accumulated against the HSUS. You can access the Cattle Network article here:
"New Campaign Investigates HSUS Lobbying Activities" (Dec 23 2009)
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/New-Campaign-Investigates-HSUS-Lobbying-Activities/2009-12-23/Article_HotTopics.aspx?oid=969967&fid=VN-HOT_TOPICS
 
http://tinyurl.com/ybs36oy

Will this campaign work?

Does my letter count?

Below is an item off the national pet-law list, written by the list moderator Walt Hutchens, who asked just these questions of a tax expert. After reading it, you will see the importance of participating in these efforts yourself. (This item may also be forwarded and cross posted, as well.)

Thanks

The following was just posted on pet-law by the list moderator, and may be crossposted.

If you haven't gotten that letter out to the IRS, please do it today!
crossposted message below:

I expect some of us are wondering how worthwhile it is to do this. I
can answer that question.

As it happens, we have a contact, a professional who is an expert on
exactly this issue -- the tax status of non-profit corporations. Trust
me, this person KNOWS how these things work.

We asked this individual about this campaign. Here are paraphrases of
the responses to several specific questions:
============ ========
Q. Does the IRS care about these things?
A. Yes, ABSOLUTELY. EVERY complaint about abuse of the tax code must
be investigated.

Q. Isn't it enough to just poke the IRS once or twice and let them
take it from there?
A. NO, that isn't a good approach. With one or two complaints it can
be like cleaning up your bathroom closet: You know you ought to do it,
but if you don't get to it today, nothing ter rible will happen and
you've got more important stuff to do. But then tomorrow, some other
crisis comes along ... maybe you'll never get to hanging up the toilet
brush and picking up the Tidy Bowl bottle at all ....
The more letters the IRS gets complaining about a specific problem
corporation, the more likely they are to take action.

Q. So more complaints means more certain and faster action.
A. Yes. But it goes beyond 'more certain and faster.' The more
complaints there are, the higher the level at which the problems will
be considered.

If there is a serious problem, you WANT high level attention because
that's where the big decisions get made. Get those top managers on
board with thousands of letters and if the complaint is found to be
justified, the top levels can and will do more.
It is the IRS's job to collect taxes. Nothing pleases them more than
to find a real tax cheat, turn him upside down and shake. Top
management shakes a lot harder than lower levels.

Q. Do we have to get our contacts (letters, etc.) exactly right?
A. The IRS are professionals. Tell them about the problems (in this
case your view that a corporation claiming to be a charity is nothing
of the sort), give them whatever you have, and they will take it from
there.

Even stories are good, as long as they describe significant actions by
the corporation that do not represent a valid charitable purpose. When
telling stories, DO focus on the specific corporation and be as clear
as you can about what they're doing, but DON'T feel that if your
format isn't perfect or a word is misspelled, they'll toss your
complaint.

Q. What if I don't have any new facts?
A. Then just tell the IRS that in your opinion this corporation does not
meet the guidelines for a charitable exemption. Again, NUMBERS COUNT.
One letter ought to be enough to get basic checks done, someday.
Thousands, however, WILL get a serious investigation started.
============ ======
SEND THAT LETTER, folks. Do it now. If you can't or don't want to
write your own letter, then go to:

http://www.saova.%20org/SpayNeuterHS%20US.html

OR

http://www.adoa.org/documents/overview_summary_excessive_lobbying.doc

http://www.adoa/.org/documents/cover_letter_irs_fraud_division.doc

And print and send the 'cover letter' form letter -- second item on
both lists, above, edited to provide your personal information.

Frank Losey says: "The most important priority is for letters to be
sent to the IRS Office in Fresno,CA (The two line address is the
address - - no street address.)

"Ideally, the letters should be sent by Certified Mail, and a copy of
the certified mail receipt should be sent to me by E-Mail or to 2029
Tampa Blvd, Navarre, FL 32566 or FAXED to 479-299-4417. "



Finally, please FORWARD THIS INFORMATION to other lists

Thursday, December 24, 2009

More Snow Daze


















Sanity starts a hunt.

So how is she doing it? Scent or hearing? For sure it isn't sight. Not unless the "look of eagles" means X-ray vision.



Sadly or not so sadly, just depending on your point of view, she never did manage to catch whatever it was under all that snow.












Wednesday, December 23, 2009

A December snow day

We really do have lots of snow on the ground. I had to pay a guy to come in with his snow plow and plow out the driveway and a big section of the old parking lot just so the dogs would have a place the "go" that wasn't butt high or over your head high.

Rugby had never met Black and Blue until now. Never mind Rugby's size since he seems to be of the opinion that somehow he is in-charge. Most of the time he turns out to be a wonderful icebreaker and then there are other times when he runs into some minor glitches. This is one of those glitch times.

Black and Blue are more than a little bit puzzled as exactly why this strange creature is trying to get them to do something. Anything. Some of the problem seems to be that Rugby's accent is different.
After all, they were here long before this strange looking snowball.He really should show more respect toward his elders.

Not to be deterred in the least Rugby continues to invite them to join him in a wonderful game. Blue just wants him to GO AWAY and Black isn't sure what to make of the entire matter.

Finally, Rugby gives up on them and heads off looking for someone else to play chase and be chased. Because he didn't stay around to coax them, they are just curious enough to follow him.

Sorry you two, but I'm outta here.

That's Ellie up ahead. Hurry! Hurry, Hurry! Gotta fly.

Hello, sweet thing. Chase or contact sport?

That's great! Contact sport it is. And Blue stands there wondering what on earth is going on.

All photos by Sam Daley. Thank you, Sam.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Shell Game Continues

I'm pretty sure I've blogged about this before. Well I'm going to do it yet again.

I really was going to do my own research and write my own opinion, but the truth is someone else has already done a bang-up good job and I am a hardcore believer in never, ever wasting time trying to re-invent a perfectly good wheel.
So go here: http://ar-hr.com/2009/10/29/paving-the-way/and read what E. Saunders of Animal Rights or Human Responsibility (AR-HR) has to say on the topic.

Also go here: http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/hu-pretends-to-be-police-expose-by-carrol-cox-show/

And now for the skivvy on the latest H$U$ and their version of "The Art of Stealing under Cover of Law".

Since I watch as little TV as I possibly can I personally haven't seen any of these commercials on Fox, but I am willing to trust those who are reporting on having seem them.

First came two commercials, complete with sobbing music, sad puppy eyes, sick animals and the plead to care enough to donate to the Humane Society of US along with a web page address for where to send you money.

Couple of days pass and the same Fox News commercial appears only this time it has the ASPCA listed as needing your money. A web page address is list telling you where to send your money.

Couple of days pass and, you guessed it. The very same commercial appears yet again. Only this time the web page address listed is for Rescue Animals Now.org. Confused yet?

The all three web page addresses are owned by, you guessed it: Humane Society of US sometimes also known as H$U$)owned per the domain registration:
Registrant Organization:The Humane Society of the United States
Registrant Street1:2100 L Street, NW Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:District of Columbia Registrant Postal
Code:20037 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.2024521100
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:hsusdomain@HSUS.ORG

The registrar used is godaddy.com.


A poster to pet-law@yahoogroups.com as this to say about what H$U$ in all its hundreds of different dresses is actually saying:

Perhaps we're going about this all the wrong way. Instead of working towards educating the public and being the voice of reason, we should just pretend to be PETA and HSUS supporters and really get out there in the public and demand things that we can prove they support:

  1. Taking away your Constitutional rights to own pets
  2. Legislating your pet-related business out of existence
  3. Insisting that lab rats are more valuable than the life of your sick child
  4. Destroying the American economy by ending all livestock farming, ranching, animal or animal product transportation, the sale of any animal product or by-product, the regulation of all food industries including groceries and restaurants.
  5. The mandatory enforcement of veganism regardless of whether or not it is a healthy lifestyle choice for you
  6. The extinction of ALL domestic animals (from cats to cows).
  7. The closing of all zoos, aquariums, wildlife parks and circuses
  8. Mandating the immediate end of all hunting, trapping and fishing.
  9. Making it illegal to harm any animal for any reason whatsoever, including striking a deer with your car when it runs out on the road, killing a wolf, bear or wild boar that's taken up residence in your yard and is now trying to gain entrance to your home.
  10. Rewriting the bible, torah & koran to insist that all the leaders of the world's major religions were really vegans.
  11. Gaining full legal rights for all animals, which will then (logically) be able to vote, hold jobs and be elected (having the benefit that you'll finally know the politician you're voting for is a real ass BEFORE you cast your ballot).

Vegan anyone? Not me. My dog votes and so do I. We really must start working on voting all the bums out and voting in some people understand the difference between welfare and rights.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Rugby Photo shoot

All of these pictures and the video is brought to you by a person who NEVER allows a dog on her quilts. Now all I have to figure out is just how Rugby managed to get that person to waive the law for the length of time it took for this photo shoot.





Wednesday, December 09, 2009

After thought

This is an example of what sane, thoughtful, caring animal owners are up against.
http://nathanwinograd.com/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/expo2006.wav

I don't even know what to say in response to that sort of crap. And yes, that is the nicest thing I am presently able to say.

It's like losing a filling in a tooth and you just can't seem to keep your tongue out of the hole, I just can't seem to let this bit go. So for those who would like to read more about what is really going on I recommend you head for this blog: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=2318

What is a Puppy Mill?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

A reader says,

"I personally will continue to support groups that spread the awareness of puppy
mills."

To which I am forced to reply, "and what pray tell, exactly is the "puppy mill" clamor to be against?" Is it the breeder who has 25 dogs of which 5 are retired seniors and neuters, 5 are being shown, 3 are being used for breeding, 2 are puppies from previous litters that were returned as adults and 5 are puppies in training. This breeder produces or used to produce one or two litters per year. Is that the puppy mill?

Or is it that breeder who has 100 or more and really is commercial in nature? With the majority of canines being bitches being bred, in whelp or nursing? Is that your puppy mill? After all they actually raise and sell puppies as a cash crop. When did it become illegal or immoral to earn a living doing something you actually enjoy doing?

The real rub comes when the "anti-puppy mill" bill that calls for a limit of 50 dogs is passed and then a couple of years later that limit is quietly lowered to 25 dogs and the following year is lowered to 10 dogs and the next goal will be 5 dogs and finally the true goal is reached. Zero dogs.

From asking for a legal definition of "puppy mill" I jump to this quote:
"Laws against inhumane treatment never bother those who do not act inhumanely."
To this I am forced to reply, "HUH?" And then I say please go back to http://sanityshome.blogspot.com/2009/11/murder-hollow-basset-pack-update.html
and
http://sanityshome.blogspot.com/2008/11/are-you-next.html
or how about
http://www.animalcontrolwatch.com/?p=3

There is yet another problem with the word 'puppy mill'. The loudest squeaky wheel just happens to be H$U$ along with it's various minions. Their repeatedly stated goal for dog and cat breeders continues to be stop them all:

"Producing animals for sale is a greedy and callous business in a world where there is a critical and chronic shortage of good homes for dogs, cats, and other animals, and the only "responsible breeders" are ones who, upon learning
about their contribution to the overpopulation crisis, spay or neuter their
animals, and get out of the business altogether." - PETA, "Animal Rights
Uncompromised: There's No Such Thing as a 'Responsible Breeder'

One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993


"Breeders must be eliminated! As long as there is a surplus of companion animals in the concentration camps referred to as "shelters", and they are killing them because they are homeless, one should not be allowed to produce more for their own amusement and profit. If you know of a breeder in the Los Angeles area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number so people can write them letters telling them 'Don't Breed or Buy, While Others DIE.'" "Breeders! Let's get rid of them too!" Campaign on Animal Defense League's website, September 2, 2003.
Meanwhile, in the interest of speeding up the removal of our pets,

From July 1998 through the end of 2005, PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.



How about this? A breeder is just that, a breeder. Makes no difference whether there is one bitch bred once in 10 years or 200 bitches who are bred every season until they are 7, a breeder is a breeder. To that you might add the adjective commercial, hobby, pet.

Oh, my! Now there is a call for defining those three terms. Well how about this? A commercial breeder is someone who earns their living breeding and selling dogs. Numbers don't count. A hobby breeder is someone who doesn't earn their living breeding and selling dogs.Again, numbers don't count. And that brings us to the pet breeder. The pet breeder breeds one or two litters over the course of the lifetime of one bitch and never does it again, because they just learned how expensive it is and just how much work is involved. Let us not forget that Snoopy was born at the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm and that was originally considered to be a good thing.

This is just an interesting afterword:
Snoopy had been born and raised at the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm. His father used to run with hunting dogs, but would secretly run ahead and warn the rabbits. His mother is famous for her tapioca pudding, and in a 1990s Peanuts strip, came over on a World War I-era troopship to visit Snoopy and Spike, who had been ill with the flu. Out of all his siblings, Snoopy's brother Olaf was sold last. Before they were sold, Snoopy and his brothers and sister made a band and one by one each was sold. Snoopy's original owner was a little girl named Lila, who had to return him to Daisy Hill after her family moved to an apartment where dogs were forbidden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoopy

I think it also shows us just how far down a twisted path leading to the death and loss of all our pets, H$U$/PETA has taken most of us. Pink Koolaide, anyone?

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The new naughty words

Take the time to watch the video before you read what I have to say about new naughty words.

We all know what the old naughty words were. They were the Anglo-Saxon expletives that are now heard routinely on TV, in the movies, on the streets and in the schools. They have become so common the only way a person can voice a complaint is when the speaker uses the same two or three of them over and over again to the point where it isn't possible to ascertain what, if anything, the speaker is trying to say.

Those are not the words I write about. The new naughty words are words like:
work
discipline
drill
memorize
leadership
submission
correction
contention
compulsion

The reason why or even how those eight words became the new profanity is totally beyond me. If you watch the above video all the way through and you pay attention to what is really going on there are some things that should jump right out and slap you in the face during the first viewing.

What? The extreme attention the dog is giving the trainer didn't happen through the use of food, toys, games, special training collars or prayer. That attention was earned with hours of hard work over a period of several months. That work didn't just include all of the bad words in the list, it also included both time and duration.

The dog is now at a point where he can concentrate with that level of intensity for up to 10 minutes. By this time next year that will have been pushed to at least 3 times that amount of total focus on the handler, with no lose of attitude. I'll say that part again just in case you missed it the first time. There is no loss of positive, good, upbeat, happy, confident attitude.

Why? Because during his training he was taken to the point of contention and helped to move beyond that point. On the other side of contentiousness lies self confidence, confidence in the trainer, trust, safety, pride of purpose and an entire host of other feelings and sensations that are only experience by those who are willing to practice make full use of all those naughty words and what each of them means.

Pride of purpose means knowing and understanding what the purpose is for starters. Pride of work is the strongest and most powerful reward of all. No food treat nor toy nor game will satisfy a dog who has been lucky enough to join with a trainer that understands leadership, work, discipline, and yes, compulsion.

Now, go back and watch the video a second time. See if you can spot the number of times the dog is corrected for making a mistake. Remember, there are no cookies, no toys and no leash. Then take a look at the background. In the upper left side of the frame you will see two other dogs. They spend some of the time watching and some of the time playing. They are not tied nor restrained in any fashion. When it is their time to work they will come out on the floor with the very same upbeat attitude seen in the Lab.

For those of you who may be wondering, yes the Lab is Pete. Under the table waiting their turn are Rugby and Ellie. Sam is the trainer.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Just a bunch of randoms

I started collecting the quotes used in this blog several weeks ago. Had fine, high-fluting ideas about writing a deeply thoughtful, insightful, monologue on where we stand at the close of this year of Two Thousand and Nine CE. The first problem I ran into was that every single time I would start to write this amazing opus my mind would simply go blank. When I would finally come back to myself I'd be playing Solitaire.

Now I ask you, how is a well-meaning, reasonably thoughtful person like I thought I was supposed to write anything of worth when the blasted computer switched to Solitaire in such a sneaky fashion?

My final solution is what I am now offering you. The entire, current collection of quotes. They are well worth thinking about. They are offered to you with the hopes that you, my reader, will be led into doing some research on your own. I don't know about you, but I know I wouldn't have a life worth living if it was bereft of animals.

In my case, with my current living situation that means dogs, dogs, dogs. I want to continue to train them the way I have always trained them. I want my right to care for them as DOGS! I want to continue to be the owner and to use what is now a unPC term, I want to be the master (well in my case, I guess I need to say mistress).

I don't want to lose them. No, I don't want to be a dog mommy. No, I don't want to have the state allow me guardianship over a group of fur children. No, I'm not willing to live with a bunch of "little people in fur suits". I'm not willing to prevent my dogs from learning the joys of real work.



"Animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy." Walt Hutchens

I continue to wonder if the real problem is that for one reason or another we now have a huge population of mostly women of a certain age and education level who are all suffering from Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) and the poor proxy just happens to be whatever animals they have taken a fancy to. These women also managed to raise a generation of young humans who seem to be pretty much neuters, insist their animals be rendered sexless and who are continuing the MBPS with a vengeance. The goal would appear to make the condition the legal norm. May G*d save all of us from such a fate.


"Animal Extremists and Animal Terrorists. The difference is that anyone falling
into those two groups will gladly deprive you of your civil rights, your
property and even your life in order to get what they want (witness the
story about the fur protesters in Morgan, UT who claim that "God hates fur"
and even carried a poster with a drawing of an automatic weapon and the
words "no compromise") ." barbarajhaines

Now that's another thing I just don't get. Here we are, living in a great country. A country founded on a person's individual freedoms. Pride of our civil rights and our right to own property seems to be falling out of fashion. In it's place is what? Socialism? Something even worse?


The solution begins when we spread the word: "When you donate to HSUS, a shelter
dog dies." Loretta Baughan

Now this is something we should all be saying every single chance we get. Money donated to the Humane Society of the US doesn't go to help any animals. It sure doesn't help the lost, broken, cast off dogs. It sure doesn't help the horses or the cattle or the sheep or the pigs or even the chickens. What it does do is help pass yet another round of human hostile, animal killing bills into law. As a certain TV personality is fond of saying, "How's that working for ya?"


To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly
Bill 241 without my signature.

This measure would make it a crime for
any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or
cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to
prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals.
However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious
problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can
possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices.
Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of
reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in
raising service and assistance dogs.

For these reasons, I am unable to
sign this bill.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

When Gov. Schwarzenegger refused to sign CA 241 into law, I was one of a great many who gave a sigh of relief. Sadly that was just one of hundreds of bills presented to legislative bodies all across this great land of ours. Why? What on earth has gotten into the elected officials? They continue to accept bills written by H$U$ toadies and then vote those anti-animal bills into laws. Laws that will do much harm and do no good. Strange behavior, strange indeed.

Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?
Here are some of the differences:
 
As animal welfare advocates. . .

  • We seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
  • We support the humane treatment of animals that ensures comfort and freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering.

  • We believe we have the right to "own" animals -- they are our
    property.

  • We believe animal owners should provide loving care for the lifetime of
    their animals.

As animal rights activists. . .
  • They seek to end the use and ownership of animals, including the keeping of
    pets.
  • They believe that any use of an animal is exploitation so, not only must we
    stop using animals for food and clothing, but pet ownership must be outlawed as well.
  • They want to obtain legal rights for animals as they believe that animals
    and humans are equal.
  • They use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse to raise
    funds, attract media attention and bring supporters into the movement.
         (The Inhumane Crusade, Daniel T. Oliver – Capital Research Center)

For now I will just ask you to read, think about what you just read and then read it again. I don't know about you, but no way will I ever be willing to believe my dogs are my equals. Well, maybe I could be convinced to change my mind on that matter when the dogs start washing windows. Certainly not before.


The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spent less than 5% of its
$152 MILLION income directly aiding animals. Most of their money went to
executive salaries, travel and political lobbying.

If you really want to give your money away to be used for paying executive salaries, travel and heavy duty political lobbying, hey it's still a free country. It's your hard earned money and you should be free to spend it, give it away, bury it or burn it. In the giving away part, at least know what that money will be spend on. Know it will be spend on eliminating domestic animals. Personally I think that is a really bad idea, but that's just me.

Animal rights laws are another way for government to meddle in your life

We've got way, way too much government as it is, do you really want more?

Even Dobermans enjoy duck hunting and duck eating.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Serious Opinion Needed


I say this is a great picture. I love the expression on both faces. I love the pose. I think the color contrast is nice. Yes, it would have been nicer if Sanity's ear tip hadn't been cut off. Yes, it would have been better if the clutter in the upper right hand side wasn't there. But as dog shots go this one is a keeper for me.

I didn't take it. Yes, I did act as the 'handler' getting the poses, but I wasn't the cameraman. Nope, that skill was left to Sam (Rugby's owner).

Sam's blog is here:http://misterrugby7.blogspot.com/ She has lots of great pictures. Go take a look.

But now back to the voting thing. I already showed you the picture I like the best. Here is Sam's choice and a runner-up. You choose Runner-up



So what say you?

Saturday, December 05, 2009

The perfect dumbbell

I am a "hit and miss" member of an obedience training email group. The reason for my status has to do with my frequent lack of patience and understanding when it comes to the contents of many of the posts.

Recently, this group had a thread running about not just retrieving, but how important the perfectly fitted dumbbell would be to the success or failure of any given retrieve. HUH? I would read one of these posts and all I could think to say was, "Why not train the dog?"

A poster would write, My dog already knows how to retrieve, BUT:

"...DOES chomp on the dumbbell and this is a problem. Can you give me suggestions on how to break this. Do I need to start over from the beginning and ... train her?"
"...only starts chomping when she comes..."
"...has started refusing to pick up the dumbbell some times..."
"...refuses to pick up the dumbbell when it lands in grass..."
"...sometimes drops the dumbbell..."

That is just a sample of excuses/problems that I hear or read about. To one and all, I say, "stop making excuses and train the dog".

So does the retrieve problem show up because the dumbbell is too big? Here is a clear-cut case of that being a problem.

In this case, the dumbbell isn't too big for the dog to handle on a regular basis, it is TOO BIG. The Maltese model who posed for this picture and the following pictures has actually done a retrieve on the flat with this dumbbell. He really does know "fetch" and has the heart and brains of dogs weighing 15 times his size.

Perhaps the refusal to retrieve correctly is being caused by the dumbbell being too small.


Then again, maybe the bit is too long, too short or too thick.

By all means do choose a dumbbell that is a comfortable fit, but not so light, with such a thin bit that the very act of retrieving is moved from useful work to cute trick.









A thank you is due Sam Daley for her great photography skills. And another thank you is due to my canine models, Sanity, Rugby and Jasmine. They are so patient and willing every single time I get the urge to have a photo shoot.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Go! Mink Farmers rock

I had another topic planned for today and decided to shelve it for later. For as long as I can remember I have dreamed of owning a mink coat. At this point in my life I've pretty much given up that dream, BUT it sort of resurfaced when I came across this album posted to Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=130947&id=707803534&l=ac76fdebf8
and
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF11t.htm

Suddenly that dream of mink flared up hot again. Who knows? Maybe the economy will finally get better, the bottom line here will get fat and I'll manage that dream coat.

After years of reading about fur farmers being driven out of business by pasty-faced, plastic coated vegans who come sulking around in the dark of the night to destroy, burn and pillage. The wonderful mink farmers and other residents of Morgan, UT came together and showed a willingness to stand up for their way of life. Good for them! I will just keep on hoping this show of solidarity is a part of a greater beginning.

A beginning of the awakening of all Americans who own, live with, work with, farm or just plain enjoy the company of animals in their lives. The very animals who help to make us human, as well as feed and clothe us.

Way to go, Morgan, UT!!!!

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Forever homes: A myth or just plain cruel

This quote is in response to an earlier entry. I'm quoting first and then will follow with my response. I'm doing it this way because I honestly believe it is a very important point and a way of thinking that needs further consideration.

wow, you are on the roll!
But I have to admit you confused me with this one. Maybe the idea of fostering an animal from the shelter for the holiday is a lame one, but I think you a bit overstretching the consequences.

I doubt lots of people would run into the shelter on Black Friday to get a dog. Life is
not Hollywood. But even if someone does, I doubt the experience will turn him or
her into the animal hater.

The only people I see doing something like this are those who would buy a puppy for Christmas and then take it to the shelter when he becomes big and unmanageable. But those are the people who do not put much thought into anything and I doubt any thought at all will cross their mind after the shelter door closes behind them.
now, do you really don't think that adopting a dog from the shelter is rescue? Maybe from "no kill" shelter it's not, but I think if you save the dogs life it is a rescue.
Here is a story of the dog that our friends had adopted:
http://www.bevhollinsphoto.com/blog/?p=849
It's true that our society overly humanizes animals, but I don't think it's
right to put down the dog just because no one wants it. And I don't think there
is anything wrong with wanting to give that dog home for the rest of it's life.

I have come to believe the constantly voiced/written animal radicals dream of "forever" homes falls in either the myth or cruelty category. We live at a point in this country's history where the majority of adults either don't bother to ever form long term relationships with other humans or think a long term relationship is 10 years or less. When two humans come to a point in their lives where their interests have completely diverged they don't start stressing about "forever marriage" anymore. They just pick up the phone and make a appointment with a good divorce attorney and get on with the business of moving on with life.

So what I want to know is why, please someone tell me why, must dogs and cats be forced to remain in a "forever home" that is not a good fit? How much kinder and more realistic is to to admit that the puppy you had such glowing plans for has grown up to just flat out hate those plans? I think about all the times over the years that an owner has come to me for help, because of the problems they were having with their dog not fitting into the roll planned for them. I could just as easily turn that around and say they were the driver and the payer of fees, but it was the dog who was complaining about the problems he was having with the humans.

Either way, the real solution, the thing that worked the very best for all parties was for the humans and dog to get that divorce. This then freed to dog to find a much better set of humans and it freed the humans up to either continue their life dogless or enter into a relationship with a dog that was more suitable.

Don't go getting all fuzzy brained and weepy on me. Consider just these two examples.

First was a young Border Collie. She had the misfortune of landing in a "marriage" with a family that consisted of 7 children under the age of 10. The parents were nice a couple. They were also overwhelmed by the children. The children raced around yelling, crying, laughing, talking, eating and not paying much, if any attention to either parent.

T0 this mess was added a Border Collie. By the time I saw them, she was almost totally insane. Frankly I didn't blame her one bit. I wanted to bark and bite most of those kids myself. To keep my sanity I did end up insisting all 7 of them do a "long sit/stay". Did I mention the reason they came to me was because of the dog's constant barking and the the fact she had now started biting the children?

This Border Collie got lucky. She was the right age and I just happened to know of a farmer who had lost his hard working farm collie to old age. He had ask me to keep my eyes open for a new dog for him. I talked the family out of their dog and she went off to live with the farmer and after a 3 month decompression period turned into what he many years later told me was the very best dog he had ever owned.

Second dog. A very large, male Akita. This fellow was overbearing, suspicious of all new things, hated having to live inside and had zero respect for either of his very well educated, wealthy, over achiever owners. I managed to get him out of that home. A home, I might add, that the radicals labeled as the almost perfect home and one he hated. He went to live, work and pretty much worship the owner of a scrap metal lot. This lot and the building were cold in the winter, hot in the summer, dirty all the time. Here he was free to be as nasty as he pleased to the unwanted and very questionable humans that sometimes came around after dark. He lived a long and very happy life.

I'm going to add a third dog to this list. Some of you know her through this blog and some of you know her in person. I am speaking of Sanity's little Yorkie. I really have no right to say if she was happy in her first home. I have no doubt that she is happy now. The first home said she was dangerously dog aggressive. The first home said she wasn't safe around children. The first home said she was fearful of strangers. Turns out not a one of those things were true. Lucky her, the first "marriage" ended in divorce and she was handed over the fence to me. This marriage sure does look like a keeper.

Bottom line here is the "forever home" claptrap is dooming many dogs to a life of misery and what under other conditions would be a good home is in truth a very bad home.

Many, many times a person gets a puppy or a dog for the right reasons at that time, but time and changes make the choice not so perfect. Why, oh why does a certain part of our population want to insist that the poor dog must be forced to live in a constant state of misery just to meet the requirements of a "forever home".

All this wandering about really does have something to do with the beginning and taking dogs home just because it is Thanksgiving or Christmas. The dogs don't worry about human designated holidays so they will be much happier to got to what might turn out to be a new marriage when the humans have more time to give, have more quiet in the house and fewer guests, no parties and definitely no overly rich foods to make things extra difficult. The time between November 15 to January 2 have got to be the worst time of the year for adding a new animal to the household.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Foster a pet for Christmas? BAH! HUMBUG!

After yesterday's blog I seem to be on something of a roll. Please refrain from reading my comments until after you have read what the below link has to say.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20091125/fosterpets25_st.art.htm

http://tinyurl.com/ydndjpu

Foster a dog for Christmas? What ever happened to the warning, "Never bring home a new animal during the holidays?" Funny thing, that. Seems to me I don't remember at time in the last 40 years when many people thought getting a puppy, kitten, dog, cat between Thanksgiving and New Year's was a good idea.

Well, that may be a tad bit too all encompassing. While it has always been true that those who already know how to handle, train and care for a house pet are able to do so anytime of the year it's still not easy to do during the major holidays at the end of the year.

Just about every place that has an animal control department also seems to have limit laws. What this very efficiently does is make sure the only people available to take part in this harebrained scheme are those who know the very least in the way of practical knowledge of good, honest animal husbandry type care of the fosters they will be taking in.

How many will understand the need to maintain some sort of quarantine to protect the resident dogs/cats from any disease being harbored by the incoming foster? How many will understand how to orchestrate a safe introduction between the resident animals and the incoming foster?

The few questions I just posed hardly touch the tip of the iceberg when it comes to bringing a new animal into a household with resident dogs/cats firmly in place.

Then again, maybe the entire plan is to turn down those who may actually have the experience and know how and replace knowledge with warm fuzzy thinkers who don't have a clue as to what it takes to properly care for, feed, train and exercise a dog or even a cat. When they fail, as a very large majority will, the number of anti-animal people just increased yet again. After all, the thinking goes, if I can't even take care of one dog/cat then there is no way Sally Smith or Jill Jones can take care of 50. Never mind that both Smith and Jones have the proper set-up, coupled with some full time help and a part timer or two. Nope, if Ms. Fuzzybrain Lovesdogs finds it next to impossible to love her just 'rescued' 90 pounds of wild, untrained young, male Lab, then it's a slam-dunk that neither can anyone else.

The entire "Foster a Pet for Christmas" just stinks. If you are just itching to help then actually go do some volunteer work. Take a couple 40# bags of food, bedding, even toys to the local shelter and then should you decide that giving temporary housing is something you want to do, do it AFTER January 1.

Besides which, the generic you needs to remember the reality is you are not strictly speaking engaging in rescue when you go to a shelter, group, pound to pick out a pet. You are doing the equivalent of going to a used car lot, only instead of cars/trucks you are buying a used or what do they call them now? Previously owned. That's right, you are buying a previously owned animal. Mind you there is not a single thing wrong with buying a previously owned animal as long as you admit that is what you have done. You didn't rescue it. You bought and paid for it.

Just do the homing, rehoming stuff after the first of the new year.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Dog Show Victim

I've been sitting on this story for almost a full week now. Much as I wanted to talk about it, I also wanted to wait until it was confirmed and both sides had a chance to weigh in. Well that has now happened and so I'm going to start by posting both sides. Then, I'll follow with my thoughts on the issue. This is one time I really do hope readers will share their thoughts and will also forward a link on to others.


Cross-posted with permission from the author, Margaret Byrd:
 
Everyone needs to know that a dog club member was stopped by police near Birmingham, AL on the way to the Magnolia Classic Trial. The actual law enforcement officer was a sheriff's captain for Jefferson County. They held her for 45 minutes on the side of the road with 6 patrol cars flashing red lights. She was treated like a criminal. She and her daughter were both very frightened by the way they were treated. The policeman asked her if she knew why she was stopped and she told them, "No I don't". He said, "I stopped you because I saw you had dogs in your truck". Her dogs were in secured kennels elevated by a table in the back of her truck to be near the topper windows. Equipment was then stored under the table.

They said she didn't have water in the dog crates. She explained she had just stopped at a rest stop, let all the dogs go to the bath room, offered them water and they didn't do well with water in the cups while the truck moved. Then she poured water in the cups and none of the dogs drank. He then said that the back of the truck was not air-conditioned. She pointed out that the temps were 58 at the time. Then he said she had inadequate ventilation. She told him the dog's hair was moving as they traveled and there was plenty of ventilation.

He wanted to know where she was taking the dogs and why they were in her truck. She told him she was headed to a dog show. He asked where the show was taking place. She stammered and he was sure she was lying. He asked for documentation to prove she was attending a dog show and proof that she was entered as a contestant. She didn't have a flyer so she told him to go the JRTCA web site and the trial would be listed. He called his main office and had someone go on line to view the site. He told her if she was going to a dog show why didn't' she have entry forms with her. She told him that she was going to enter when she arrived.

He looked in the van and asked about the research foundation equipment. She told him what it was and he stated it looked like drug paraphernalia to him. She showed him paper work for the DNA study to prove the equipment was for legitimate purposes.

He told her he wasn't convinced that it was a proper way to carry her dogs and he was going to call animal control to come and investigate. When he called them they said they couldn't come for an hour and a half so he took photos of her truck and dogs to show to animal control so animal control could decide if her set up is acceptable or not. They informed her they had all her information and knew how to contact her if animal control decided her set up was inadequate. Fortunately, animal control couldn't come immediately so they let her go.

She had forgotten her brief case with her rabies certificates in them. It was the greatest good fortune that they failed to ask. You all need to know that in many areas animal terrorist (nothing they do is right) groups are in control of animal welfare and of animal control.

During this event they would not let her daughter get out of the car to smoke a cigarette. One officer went to the side of the car after she asked and stood there to prevent her from leaving the vehicle. She became very frightened and called her father. Then she heard them tell the others to turn off the cameras and she became even more afraid. Both were made to feel like they were in a third world country because they had dogs in the car.

The following are some of the things that are critical to know to keep you & your animals safe:

1. Dog owners need to be alerted to the current climate. Please understand this current outrage may be the direct result of the influence of animal activist groups disguised as animal welfare groups. Law enforcement is on board with them in many areas because they view them as experts. HSUS gives law enforcement positive press. HSUS donates money to many reelection campaigns. Some officials have been given nice jobs with HSUS when they retired from public office.

Animal Terrorists are succeeding in getting laws passed that restrict our freedoms of animal ownership. Their influence is sometimes apparent among public officials at every level including law enforcement and animal control.

If you read Saul Alinsky - "Rules for Radicals" you will see the method they use to enact new laws that seem so warm-and-fuzzy but in reality are aimed directly at each of us. They don't want us to have (pet owners you are not exempt) or breed animals and they are willing to do anything to stop us - lie, cheat, steal.

According to Alinsky "Rules for Radicals", to affect radical change, First: you create a problem (out of thin air). Animal Terrorists have created the language which includes the term "puppy mill", "back yard Breeder", "hobby breeder", "vanity breeder", "basement breeder". The uninformed jump on the band wagon and the next thing you know commercial breeders just breed another litter of pups to offset new costs while you and I are forced to become criminals, give up our dogs, or to sign away our constitutional rights in order to have a dog.

2. Keep your dog papers in your vehicle when you travel with your animals. I can't stress this enough. I've been guilty of driving without them but no more. It could cost you thousands of dollars, or worse you could lose your dogs. Your dogs could be taken into custody to a pound till you could get your papers to show authorities. You would be powerless to stop them. Meanwhile, no telling what they would be subjected to in that environment. Further, some communities/states have laws that state any animal confiscated and taken to a shelter must be spayed or neutered before it is returned. These things might be fought against in court but your animals would already be spayed or neutered, or even euthanized, before you could win in court. It has happened to others. Eventually some others have won in court but their animals were all already dead, spayed, neutered, and/or sold to pet people that "rescued" them from the shelter (who happened to make a chunk of change off your stolen dogs and from the PR of having "rescued" them).

3. Stay Street-Legal. Make sure your car is travel worthy before any trip. No lights burned out, no out-of-date inspection sticker, etc. Give them no reason to stop you for a minor infraction. The constitution still protects us against illegal search and seizure without probable cause. Above all DO NOT SPEED. If you are in a big hurry, leave earlier. Giving the police a right to stop you under color of law has officially just gotten way more expensive. Apparently our fellow club member was stopped unconstitutionally - IMO. Right or wrong, she was victimized only because they could see her dogs in her car. It is a sad state of affairs when our constitutional rights can be violated because we have a visible dog in the car. Sadly, you might have to consider this when you get your next vehicle.

4. Buy or borrow a video camera. Video tape your dogs kennels, the condition of the kennel, your dogs' condition, water containers, bedding, etc. Have a video of your dogs competing at a dog show. If animal control shows up video tape the entire event. If they take your dogs, go to the shelter & video tape the place they take them if possible. One fellow in AL with show pit bulls did this and he got his dogs back.

5. Keep a contact person's number in your cell phone. If you get into a situation like the one that happened near Birmingham you might need someone to call that can send help. We need to develop a system of hot lines through out the country so a volunteer in each state or area could come to help in an emergency.

6. JRTCA members and the Magnolia Group should join with the My Dog My Choice members and contact the elected state officials for AL and the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce &/or Jefferson County officials to lodge a formal written complaint. We need to organize a letter writing campaign. I will create a sample letter and get us addresses to use. Email me at mbyrd@centurytel.net for this information.

If an area gets the reputation of being in an unsafe place for dog owners to travel, exhibitors will not attend events in that area. The person that had been victimized went home through Birmingham after dark and went to a different town to spend the night because she was afraid. Even then she was afraid in the motel so close to the area.

It is bad for the local economy to lose a source of revenue. How many people would go to the GA trial, for instance, if they worried about traveling through AL? Dollars spent in a community roll over 9 times in that area.

Having a dog in the car does not automatically make us criminals and remove our 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.

7. Just so you know, TN is the state where police shot a man's dog and victimized his family when he accidentally left his wallet on top of his car. They thought the money blowing off was evidence that he was a robber. The man has won a suit in court over it but his dog is dead, his wife and children are traumatized and his knee is permanently injured.

In LA a man's pit bulls were taken and killed within 24 hours. He proved he was innocent in court but all his animals were already dead. He is suing.

The newest hype they are introducing as another "First create a problem" is the idea that dogs have a larger carbon foot print than an SUV. Think that is too far out to be believed or to matter? Will you still think so if they pass a law which requires you to pay a Cap and Trade tax to keep your dog, or a national limit on the size and number of dogs you can own?

You can't begin to imagine the things I'm reading about the victimization of animal owners & the loss of our freedom of animal ownership in communities all over the USA. We must all wake up and become proactive before it gets any worse.

Don't be sucked into any of the animal terrorists' agendas (like puppy mill bills etc). And for heaven's sake don't send money to any of them or let your families and friends do so. It's not just the commercial breeder. It's not just the pit bull people. It is not just the other guy. It is your personal freedom of quiet enjoyment with your animals and it is happening TODAY. We can stand together or we can all fall one by one. Think about it please.

And now I finally have a copy of what appears to be "the other side of the story". Here it is.

Here is an email from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and their
version of the traffic stop. Similar but still a bit different and they
felt they had a reason to stop her.



From: Christian, Randy <_christianr@jccal.org_>
Subject: Email circulating about Jefferson County Sheriffs
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 1:31 PM


Thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight. We have a great
reputation for caring for animals and seeing that abusers are brought to
justice and we are very offended that someone would attempt to stain that
good reputation.

The Facts:

She was stopped driving a Truck with a Camper Shell. Multiple dogs were
visible in rear camper window. This Captain is familiar with people who run
"puppy mills" and these were all the same breed and were puppies. The 3
visible in the back window were visible panting.

Our Captain was in an unmarked unit so he called for a marked unit to stop
them. 2 showed up (not the 6 described) and initiated the stop. The Welfare of the dogs was checked and the driver was advised that the stop was to check the welfare of the dogs, plus her car tag was covered by extra dog crates and not visible. Finally, she was found to be in possession of a case of untaxed liquor.

The entire stop lasted 17 minutes (certainly not the 45 minutes described)
as documented via our communications bureau. The delay was because the
driver did not have any documentation showing where the dogs were being
taken, no registration for the show, etc.

Our Captain called the Animal Cruelty Officer who advised that the shows require pre-registration and she should have some type documentation. She provided web site and once it was verified there was a dog show and this person was a participant, then she was only verbally warned about the blocked car tag and the untaxed case of liquor that was stored under the dogs.

The Captain, an actual animal lover, owner of a registered purebred
daschund, and an investigator who has headed up several animal cruelty
investigations, including "cock" fighting was only verifying the well being of the
dogs.

This driver thanked our Captain for caring about the dogs and checking on
them when she left the traffic stop. The Captain even provided her his
business card with his phone number and told her in case she got stopped by
someone else, they could call him to verify she had been checked and warned
about the violations.

All the extraneous information provided by this person is exaggerated and
it is not known why she has decided to change her parting words of thanks
into an obvious attack. It has been my experience that true animal lovers
appreciate that we would take the time to investigate the well being of man's
best friend.

Lt. Randy Christian, Office of Sheriff
Jefferson County
2200 8th Ave north
Birmingham, Al 35203
Office (205) 325-5711
Fax (205) 325-5702

So even if we go with the old saw that says the truth is somewhere in the middle of two reports as far as I am concerned there are still major problems.

Let's just start at the top. Our dog show exhibitors failed to be proactive, or even truly protective of the dogs they were carrying. Specifically, they had no paperwork with them. Granted, I haven't carried a van loaded with dogs and gear to a cluster of trials in many years, but back in the day, when we were trialing almost every single weekend, we CARRIED PAPERWORK with us for every single dog.

That meant we had copies of rabies certificates, current health certificates, entries for each dog, most of the dogs were tattooed, and we had at least one trial premium. The word was there was always a chance you would be stopped when carrying out-of-state tags on your van and traveling in the south.

Since I always had dogs that belonged to other people I felt I had to be especially careful about ID and pretty much stayed away from trials held in outlying areas of the south. Like it or not, it was just a fact. Besides which, there were plenty of trials in other locations that weren't so iffy. Moving on.

What's with risking carrying something that will be called illegal just as soon as you cross a state line? Again, why take the risk? Is it really worth it? A complete case of untaxed liquor? In a southern state? Better if you had been carrying moonshine.

Why have rig set-ups that actually put some or all of the dogs at window height? That always did seem to me to be just asking for trouble. Trouble from the LE. Trouble from busybodies. Trouble from thieves. The same thing goes for bumper stickers that advertise the fact you are carrying dogs, much less show dogs. And those kennel signs, let's hope they are the magnetic type and that you remember to remove them BEFORE you start the trip. Sure, put them back on the van while you are on the trial grounds, then remember to remove them again before you get back on the road.

As to why this person or anyone else would be unfailingly polite until the stop was over and the LE long gone. That is only common sense. To do anything else but basically grovel is to risk serious bodily harm, loss of personal freedom, complete and permanent loss of the dogs and most if not all of your gear. Best believe no matter what you feel, be so polite it hurts and be even more polite. In a word, grovel.

Remember, if you screw up and they do take the dogs YOU WILL LOSE THEM. Should you, by some wild twist of fate, get some of them back you will not get all of them back. The ones returned will be missing body parts for starters. Most will come back in such poor physical and mental condition that you will not be able to save them even if you are willing to spend thousands of dollars in veterinarian care.

The people who wear the Animal Control(AC) hats are not the brightest bulbs in the LE package. They are frequently hard pressed to tell the difference between a dog and a cat, much less the difference between the various pure breeds. They are most definitely not your friend. The LE who doesn't own a dog, owns a mixed breed, or out of control pet dog is not your friend.

While I am sorry this happened, I can't say I'm at all surprised. Frankly, the thing that does surprise me the most is that it hasn't happened sooner and more frequently. If this is what it takes to wake up the complacent kennel club members than I make no apology for what I am about to say.

H$U$ is not your friend. PETA is not your friend. More than likely the local AC wants your dogs. Wake up breeders and owners in this country to the truly awful creeping black death that is coming. A death that will bring an end to dog and cat ownership as we have known it for just about forever. That cloud will also begin to kill off all our farm animals, but that is a topic for another time.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Kids, drugs, training


I think I can claim one more victory that is related to my dog's
aggression. For some bizarre reason every time my dog would get into the fight
with another dog my daughter would be by my side. This must've been really bad
luck because I always was insisting on walking the dog alone as it would give us
"our time" without worrying about anyone else.
As traumatic as it was
for me, and I am not a wimp, watching my dog attacking another dog, I can't even
imaging how 7 year old must've felt then. For two years my daughter would become
hysterical any time we would consider taking Brandy to public or
camping.
When I started going to Margot for private lessons...


To read the rest of this entry please go to the following blog:
http://skyreflection.blogspot.com/2009/11/another-victory.html


Thirty years ago I was warning people that if we didn't do something about teaching children about animals we would stand to lose them. No one wanted to listen. I begged and I pleaded with dog owners I knew to help stop PETA and H$U$. The problem was that everyone just knew PETA believers were just a radical fringe group and no one knew anything at all about H$U$.

Meanwhile for the same thirty years PETA and H$U$ have been in our children's schools handing out comic books like: http://www.furisdead.com/feat-momfur.asp and of course the most recent madness: http://www.petakids.com/sea_kittens/index.asp

So after thirty years of steady brain washing techniques starting in kindergarten and continuing all the way through graduate school is it any wonder we are losing our rights to own animals? Is there anyone, anyone at all reading this blog who can say they live in a city/town/village/county that doesn't have a pet limit? Gone are the days when we could own as many dogs or cats as we could feed and care for. So just what does this rant have to do with the quote from Yuliya's blog and the problems she was facing with her daughter?

Everything. Yuliya knew she needed help with her first dog. She did all the things she was told were the correct things to do. What it did get her was a dog that was pretty much out of control, has a record with the county and a child that was truly terrified of dogs. So what can be done?

I feel really confident in saying that using any form of a "drug cocktail" would not have solved the problems for either dog or child over the long term. Being a "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" sort of person, once I learned just how deep the problem ran it only made sense to have the training include both dog and child.

And so, almost every week we had a 7 year old sitting on the sidelines in a huddle, with tears flowing and most of the time eyes squeezed tight shut. I just kept on insisting both dog and child would heal at about the same rate of speed. And so they did.

One of the things I did was to assign a task each week that a 7 year old could do and be successful at doing. It was when they finished up the private sessions and moved to the group class that is when things started to speed up as far as healing was concerned. For the first month, at least once every single class I had to deal with a 7 year old rushing out on the training floor to place herself between one of the little dogs and Brandy.

As she became more comfortable with doing the examination part when I called for a class stand for exam exercise, there was less and less tension in her. The more she was engaged in helping with other dogs the less time she had to worry about Brandy. I think we were lucky since instead of one child we had 3. Neither of the other two children were worried and that helped to make it more difficult for her to worry.

The thing that finally made a difference was when I told "Miss Worrywart" she had to join a close order drill I was getting ready to start. Sam was generous enough to allow Rugby to help with the changes. Once she got a taste of being responsible for a dog and realized she didn't have time to worry about what either her Mother or Brandy were doing things really started to fall into place. As you watch the short video of the work, take note of the children on the sidelines. The bike and also a scooter are there and being used at my request.

Don't know about anyone else, but I get such a kick out of watching this footage and getting to see just how far not one, but several dogs, one child and a couple of adults have come in just a couple of months.


Wednesday, November 18, 2009

97+ and going strong

Someone sent this video to me, thinking I might be interested. Might be? Good grief! What I really want to know is "how does he do it"?

I was told Mr. Richards is over 97 years young and just earned a 1st place in Utility B with his dog. Watch it here and be truly amazed.

George Richards & Hummel at Dachshund Speciality 2009 from John Richards on Vimeo.

I have watched this video several times now and still find I'm forgetting to breath for rather long periods of time. Hope all of you find it as wonderful as I do.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Murder Hollow Basset Pack Update

UPDATE: If you want to donate a few or many dollars to help this battle along here is what you need to do:


You can donate online at http://www.naiatrust.org/join_us.htm. You can
donate on-line by entering an amount under "Legal Defense Fund Donation, " entering any amount and clicking on the "Donate Now!" button or you can can send it snail mail to:
NAIA Trust
PO Box 66579
Portland, OR 97290



Below is the most recent update in the battle to locate and return the Murder Hollow Basset Hounds that were stolen under cover of "law".

This battle is being fought for all of us. For the person who owns one dog or cat to the person who owns, cares for, trains and works entire packs of dogs this battle is being fought. A win in this case will not only make it possible to find out exactly what has been done to and with the hounds that were taken, but will be an important step in the taking back of the rights of property that has been and is being taken away from all of us.

Please spread the word and if you know of any group that can help with the heavy financial burden, please see the word reaches them. To read some of the back story: http://sanityshome.blogspot.com/2009/08/spca-outrage-in-philadelphia.html

The two noise code violation complaints that were filed against Wendy Willard by
the PSPCA and issued by the City of Philadelphia, Department of Health, alleging
animal noise and excessive animal sounds, under sections 10-105(4) and 10-403(6)
of the Philadelphia Code, respectively, were dismissed at an administrative
hearing today. This victory was the first action on the case. These were the
original charges that lead to PSPCA to want entry to her property.
 
We still are unable find out the whereabouts or condition of the hounds that were
seized by the PSPCA and probably won't until the hearing on the cruelty charges
in January. This is still a complex case and we are spending about $10,000 a
month to get this prepared. If any of you know groups that might want to
support this other than our current supporters (NAIA, Master's of Foxhounds,
Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs, National Beagle Club, National Basset
Club, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance), please let us know because we need to keep the
money coming in to take this to a successful conclusion.
 
A full win on this will overturn the mandatory spay neuter laws for anyone having over 4 dogs in Philadelphia and eliminate the arbitrary limit laws there. This would
establish a precedent based on constitutional grounds and will be useful in
fighting these laws in jurisdictions across the country.

I will keep you posted as the case progresses.
Permission granted to
crosspost.
Julian Prager
NAIA Legislative Coordinator
PFDC Legislative
Chair