gooeydog

I went to Target with my aunt the other night and they had those little remote control mice for cats for 9.99, so I decided to get one and see how the cats liked it. Well, that was a complete bomb, one isn't the least interested, the other is afraid of it. However, Haley and Annie are both entirely too amused by it. Haley goes completely into "critter mode" when she hears the wheels whirring, and Annie seems to think its a motorized ball for retrieving. I've had more fun in the past week playing with them with this thing than I have in a month :lol: And they can chase it around in the house, so I don't have to spend all evening out in the freezing cold exercising dogs... love it! Here's a really poor quality (but funny!) video clip of Haley with the mouse... it's pretty dark, but if you have Media Player, you can go to "video settings" and adjust the brightness to see better. I'll try to get some better ones tomorrow when it's light outside. [url]http://home.comcast.net/~twobullydogs/MOV07075.MPG[/url] Also, please ignore the crud on the floor, our yard is nothing but mud right now and with my nephews here full time, it's wasted effort to try and keep the floor clean :oops:

You can see the collars on some of his dogs in the show. The eps I saw were between 17 and 22, and I noticed the collars on several different dogs on different eps (even replayed it to be sure). The walking a dog aggressive dog thing, he knew that the dog he was working (I think a rotty?) with hated his GSD, and was walking the two of them together, both on short leads so that they were right next to each other. The dog aggro dog just turned around and snagged the other, nothing he could do to prevent it, and all it takes is one good bite and shake to cause serious tissue damage. It's different when you have one dog and someone else has another, but he was walking both himself. That'd be like me walking Haley and Casey together, and surely if Haley turned around and grabbed Casey, I'd be getting a good lecture about what an idiot I was for trying to walk two dogs that don't get along by myself. Dumb is dumb, no matter who you are.

Just a few things I want to toss in here, then I'll be returning to my "under rock" home :) First, I've noticed that several of Cesar's dogs at his compound have on e-collars. Granted, they could be bark collars, but the fact that a dozen other dogs are also barking makes that seem unlikely. The issue I have isn't even with him using the collars for control if that's what he's doing, but that it's never mentioned, and if that is something he's doing, novice pet owners won't even notice. They'll be thinking that with enough assertivness, they can run packs of aggressive dogs, and we all know what that can lead to. Second, I haven't even seen many of the shows, but I've seen at least two occasions where one of his personal dogs got nailed by a dog he was training. During one, he was walking both dogs on lead... who walks a dog aggressive dog with another dog you know they don't like? And why would you risk your own dog being attacked to do so? One more thing... [quote]Ive done the same thing with a pit bull who was showing aggression towards Duke, the crazy boxer. I brought her to him put her in s it and corrected her with the choke chain when ever she showed signs of aggression.[/quote] The problem with doing this is that you're only correcting the signs of aggression, and with a smart dog, they'll just forego those next time and skip right into beating the snot out of the other dog. By the time the dog is showing aggression, you've already missed the best time to correct, and you'll have to correct twice as hard to get their attention, if you can get it at all.

[quote]I dont get it. I only read a few posts, so correct me if I am wrong. You guys are advocating taking aggressive dogs to Petco, as long as they are on-leash and "under control?"[/quote] I don't think they mean screaming, lunging dog aggressive dogs (I have one who occasionally engages in such things, and she doesn't go to petsmart. Ever), that sort of behavior is scary for the general dog owning public, annoying in the respect that no one wants to have a dog lunging and vocalizing at theirs as they try to shop, and paints whatever the breed of the dog acting that way in a bad light. I don't see much reason however, for the other two under control, (reasonably at least) well trained, and human friendly dogs we own not to be able to go. One would like to snark any dog she meets on sight, but knows there are better options, and generally restrains herself well even if other dogs invade her space. The other is not outwardly dog aggressive, but has some prey drive directed at smaller dogs (just mild interest, though I wouldn't trust her still), and would pick a fight with most larger dogs if given half a chance. They're walked on normal collars (unless we're there to work on a specific behavior, for which I expect them to need corrections, in which case they may have on a prong collar) or harnesses, and generally on a loose lead, if we see another dog, we either turn and head back the way we came from, or I put them in a sit and let the people know that my dog is not dog friendly, and to give us some room when they pass. I am extra vigilant in watching for out of control dogs, but have never encountered a situation where I couldn't put adequate space between them and my own dogs. You (general "you", not you personally) probably wouldn't know they were dog aggressive unless I told you they were, most people don't guess it by their behavior. Even when told, they generally take the explanation that they do not like other dogs, but are fine with people well, especially after seeing Haley's numerous methods of human magnetism. After all, many dogs of many breeds are or can be dog aggressive. Anyone who owns dog aggressive dog(s) takes a risk anytime they allow their dogs in a situation where they may encounter other dogs. I could just as easily have someone walking their dog on flexi lead down our street let their dog run up and get bitten by one of mine (granted, in 12 yrs of dog aggressive dogs, they've maimed exactly 0 dogs while out in public). Should I forsake their walks, since I can't guarantee that other owners will exercise common sense? Or skip vet visits since you never can tell if some fool will think its a good idea to let their dog roam in a room full of strange dogs? It's even a risk to let them interact with your other pets at times, but that doesn't stop many people from owning multiple dog aggressive dogs. It's all about measuring and weighing risks and deciding what you feel safe doing with your own dogs.

Do you know if that grinder can handle bones as well? That's my main concern since I was hoping to avoid the issues with balancing calcium by feeding meat with bone already there. The grinder I was looking at was about $190 (shipping included), but if this one can do what I need, I sure don't mind saving the money :)

I've decided to take the plunge into mademade food, as I'm tired of trying various foods and never having one with exactly what I want, plus the way I figure I could be feeding decent meat/veggies (not sure if I can afford the organic/free range route right now, though I have been checking out some places) for about the same cost as all the stuff I'm feeding now. I'll be picking up a few books on the subject when I get my next pay, and also have had several people recommend a nutritionalist in case I run into any problems tailoring things to my dogs (actually, if I play my cards right and can get the meat cheap enough, I may even be able to convince my mom to feed her dogs it as well, which would be great for Haley since she's diabetic and I have no doubt that the grain heavy crap food she's currently eating doesn't help that in the least). My plan is to get a meat/bone grinder and vacuum sealer so I can grind and package my own meals for easy prep, and I will be cooking the food (not incinerating it, just lightly cooking it), at least for a while after starting, so not every raw food book will have info that I can use. So, my current plans are: Little to no grain Will feed veggies/fruit, etc Ground to keep my food bolter from killing herself, and to make it possible to cook the meat/bone Lightly cooked Which brings me to the question, what books would best help me out in designing their diets? So far I'm planning on getting Dr. Pitcairns Complete Guide to Natural Health and k9 Kitchen by Monica Segal, also the site I was checking for the books had a booklet of cooked food recipes by the latter that I'll probably get as well. Most of the other books I saw seemed geared more toward raw feeders, so I skipped over them, but if anyone has any other recommendations, I'm open to them.

[quote]but I do have to point out that I frequently see BSL being equated with a BAN, when all it is, in fact, is Breed Specific Legislation.[/quote] BUT, when one breed is singled out and labeled as "dangerous" or "vicious", that label has implications beyond those in the imposed legislation. For example, insurance companies aren't going to jump at the chance to insure a dog already labeled as "dangerous", it just isn't smart for them. And when BSL often includes special insurance clauses, and owners can't get the insurance because of the label, you may as well just ban them outright, since you can't get the insurance and can't legally own the dog without it. Or, spay/neuter laws, if you alter all existing dogs and forbid new ones from being brought in, they'll be just as extinct in a few years as if they had been banned outright. In either case, and in that of outright bans, the problem is still never actually solved, since the person who thinks their human aggressive dog is the best thing ever likely won't care to comply when that dog is illegal or put under restrictions, since after all, they could care less about the dog, so long as their image is intact. And even if they did, the problem would still exist since A. bad owners are a universal problem, and those currently owning pit bulls would simply find another breed to suit their needs, and B. any breed of dog can and will bite, and seriously, and none of these bites should be occurring. [quote]If it stopped all of the dog fighting and torture, baiting, unwanted pit bulls in shelters, took the breed entirely out of the hands of irresponsible, stupid, and/or cruel people, while still allowing responsible owners to have them as pets... then would you support it?[/quote] For their own good... the same argument was used in the past for many "lesser groups" of people (mentally challenged people, for example, many of whom function fine these days with certain accomodations made) to be warehoused or otherwise treated in ways that are considered unfair today. By this line of reasoning, we could also lock all children away in a room until they're 18, since child abduction, molestation, etc is a very real concern, it would be for their own good. Instead, we've chosen to address the real problems at hand (people who do these things to children), and educate children of the dangers involved. Considering that many other breeds are just as abused (look at all the small breeds used in puppymills, left to rot in cages all their lives, in sickness and malnutrition), I think that the "for their own good" argument is often (and not in this discussion, in general) just a handy excuse for trying to make a quick fix on a problem... bandaid on a broken arm if you will.

I did. And while I'll admit the thought did cross my mind that it was an understatement, it was the most simple term that came to mind when trying to label the event (actually, dog attack would be more fitting, but my point remains the same). The point I was trying to make is that someone being maimed in this event is somehow more newsworthy than say, the tales of the hundreds or even thousands of peoples who are maimed or killed in car accidents every day. There was a bad one near my house last week, several people seriously injured, but it didn't even make local news, nevermind national. Why? Surely their tale held some greater lesson, whether it was because their vehicle was defective, or they were not being sensible, or someone else caused it. What exactly makes this story worthy of National news over so many other events (even some in the past involving dog attacks) that have occurred? And further, why weren't the real issues, like maybe human aggressive dogs being improperly contained, or people breeding dogs without regard for temperament, addressed? These sort of concepts are pertinent to all dogs, and would be useful to far more of the audience than the implication that the only reason this incident occurred was because pit bulls were involved. You won't get any of the standard "couldn't have been pit bulls" responses from me (though I do think their labeling is completely useless and distracts from the more important issues), because it's possible that these dogs were pit bulls, you get bad dogs in every breed, and with pit bulls as common as they are, there are bound to be some out there. I just don't see the point of sensationalizing and dramaticizing the story to gain ratings rather than just giving the facts and if anything, ways to prevent history from repeating itself.

I don't know which is worse, that a "pit bull rampage" makes national news because it was pit bulls, or that the situation is such that a dog bite makes national news.... [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051106/ap_on_re_us/pit_bull_rampage[/url]

Of course it's entirely your choice as to what you want in a dog, however I think the idea of crossing four breeds know on various levels for having breathing/heart problems, bad hips, and bad elbows in order to get a "healthy" dog is not among the smartest. All of the breeds involved have high incidences of hip and elbow dysplasia, and the dogs shown as Titan Bulldogs have the same brachycephalic muzzle that causes breathing/cooling problems for other breeds with the same. Couple that with the fact that those developing the breed seemingly do no health clearances, and it makes it even more plausible that the whole "trying to make a bulldog type dog without the health problems" line sound like a bunch of BS.

Research? Pet stores? Could be most anything.

Thanks guys, this is helpful :D [quote]I take it you're switching from kibble to raw/cooked?[/quote] Well, she gets some fresh cooked meat in with some of her meals, though I haven't done it much lately because she'd been having some digestion issues due to food change, and it seemed the fresh meat on top of that was just not helping. I'd like to eventually get a bone/meat grinder and use that to grind fresh meat that I can feed, either raw (not likely to begin with that, as one of the dogs is senior and I worry about her adjusting- I know it shouldn't be an issue, but she's already prone to belly issues, and her age on top of that makes me like all of these put together :o :-? :drinking: ) or lightly cooked as I'm doing now, along with other fresh foods. The time before last that I added any substantial amount of fresh chicken (one of the meats she does well on in foods, and I've fed both with her normal meal and 12 hrs from, makes no difference), she had the runs for several days (and was reluctant to eat during that time, which led to her losing some weight when she's already pretty scrawny), the pumpkin usually helps, but it didn't work at all that time, I had to give her actual meds for it, which I hate to do. The most recent time we've done meat add-ins, I added less meat, and mixed some pumpkin in with her food as I added the meat, so as to stay ahead of the game, and we didn't have any problems, she was eating the food without pumpkin within a few days and had solid poop. I was only feeding that meat to get it used up so I can buy more, but I think that when/if we do make the switch to all fresh foods, it'll be a gradual one, as I worry about her being able to tolerate that sort of thing again, and the worst incident occurred when I gave more chicken than usual without gradually working up to it as I had before, so I can only imagine what it might be like switching cold turkey :o I do have another question though, [quote]many people i know use a mix of canned pumpkin and cultured yogurt as a filling for frozen kongs.[/quote] Doesn't freezing the yogurt kill of the bacteria? So would this be counterproductive since the reason for feeding cultured yogurt is for the probiotics? Just wondering, as I sometimes end up with the dogs' yogurt going bad (Goo doesn't like it, and will refuse her food if I put it in there for more than a day of two in a row, so I have to feed it on different days to fool her), and it'd make it a lot easier if I could just freeze some of it. One more, when I do start adding veggies and fruits, should I feed combos of different things every day, or only one type per day? I'm planning on blending and freezing the veggies/fruits, so either way would be no problem, just curious as to what's considered the norm. I'm thinking a variety, but not quite sure.

I'm in the market for a meat grinder (have to get a better paying job first, as I'm poor at the moment), so I can make the dogs' food, but in the meantime, think I've found a way to switch them from kibble while keeping my nerves intact. They're currently getting soaked kibble with canned food mixed in, occasionally with some fresh, lightly cooked (small-ly cubed and poached) meat in place of some of the kibble. The canned food is Neura 95% meats (made by the people who make wellness), and I've recently upped the amount of that from 1/2 can to 1 can, decreasing their kibble amount. I realized last night that the amount of meat in the canned food isn't that far off from what Goo'd be getting on fresh food (she's right at 50 lbs, so going by the 2% rule, around 1 lb meat, she's already getting 12oz), and that I could probably manage (financially) to feed the Neura food only with fresh veggies, etc, cutting the kibble completely out of the picture. I just don't know if this is an acceptable way to feed, am I right in thinking that I could just substitute the Neura for real meat for now, at the same amount, or is there some other way to figure this out? And is there a concern with too many vitamins/minerals from the food already having "fake" ones in it, then adding real ones from fruits/veggies as well? I'm thinking that if I can pull this off, it would work out well anyway, as I can't see myself packing dead chickens to take on vacation :lol: nor my mom cooking for the dogs when I go away, so even after they're switched, I can keep a few cans around for emergencies when I can't feed them the "real" stuff.

As others have said, improper use of a shock collar can easily cause more problems than a dog started with (how'd you feel if you were being corrected for something and didn't even know what it was you were doing or where the correction was coming from?), you need to have good timing and a good trainer to demonstrate when/how to best use it or you can really screw up your dog's head. I think your expectations are a bit unrealistic (out of 5 dogs, we have ONE that will only go out a door when invited, though the others are usually not door bolters, if they see what they perceive as an invitation, they'll go) with the way your grandfather is behaving. It's your responsibility to keep her safe and out of trouble, irregardless of how you must do it. As an example, I can't leave Goo loose in the house with any windows/doors open when I leave due to her animal aggression, so I either close everything up, or put her in my room, in which windows are opened only from the top, and not enough for her to get out, and the bottom panes are covered with grates in case she should decide to try to go through one again. There are times when she'd probably rather stay lounging on the couch, but if she got out and into trouble, she'd be in a 1000 times worse situation than snoozing in my room waiting for me to get home. This doubly applies to you, as not only is Sassy at risk of being hit by a car, but due to her aggression, other people and their pets are at risk too when she gets out. One of the responsibilities of owning a dog (or human for that matter) aggressive dog is making sure that they're always contained in a manner to keep them from being able to harm others, whether that be kennel, secure yard, room, crate, whatever. Unless you can make absolutely sure that she will not escape from the yard (grandfather?), I would keep her in the kennel, with locks both on it and the gates for the yard, to prevent her from getting out and others from getting in.

I'm one of those who doesn't let their dogs out when I'm not home, and several of them not alone outside at all, so I may be a bit biased, but here's my thoughts anyway. I think the idea of having the door for the room mate to open when he's home and close when he leaves sounds like a pretty good plan, so long as he remembers, and doesn't mind doing so. I too would be concerned about someone tossing something harmful over the fence (even unintentionally, ex: trying to make friends by giving chicken bones), so IMO, if they're going to be out all day long, I'd feel safer with them in an enclosed area out of reach of objects thrown over the fence, could you fence an area around where the door would be? Or even put up a kennel for them if you don't use the door frequently?

Is her crate wire, or one of those closed plastic types? If you decide to use it, I'd be very hesitant to just put her in and try dealing with the spot, as she'll more than likely try to turn back around on you. If the crate is wire, put a lead on her (make SURE her collar is tight enough she can't slip out!), thread it through the back, and then get her in, pulling the lead tight as she moves into the crate. Then you can have someone hold the lead and keep her head forward while someone else puts meds on the spot. You can do the same with a fence (thread the lead through and have someone hold it to keep her head secure), but that won't keep them from moving their back end away from the person and closer to their teeth :o You may want to take her out for a little walk before and after the "event" so that she'll not associate the leash with just getting the hot spot treated. To keep her from licking, either get a collar to keep her off it, or keep her on a lead and stop her everytime she starts. The more she soaks the spot, the worse its going to get.

Good for you, the peace of mind will definitely pay off, knowing you have a permanent ID in place should you be seperated from her by accident. [quote]Good for Dahlila, but don't forget to register it[/quote] No kidding. I had Annie done at the SPCA walk in spring, and was told via email before the event and at the actual booth that they were handling the registration (filled out the form and handed it in right there), and it was included in the fee. I thought that was all there was to it til I tried to access it online to update the contact list and found out she's not even registered. Called the SPCA and they told me that they weren't responsible for registering the chip.... when they'd taken the registration form from me at the stand! So who knows how many other people got their dogs done at the same place and their dogs weren't registered (I'm going to have to get another form sent and pay again).... definitely make sure it gets done.

Sheesh, I can't begin to imagine how it'd feel to just get everyone out safe and then be told you have to be seperated anyway :( Shame on your father-in-law. Do the animals just need fosters until you can get back on your feet? Or permanent homes? I can crosspost to PBP and some other boards, don't know how much help it'd be, but I imagine your time online is limited, and with such a short time to figure things out, anything might help. Sorry you're being put through all this, and hope your family has no more hardships dumped on you. EDIT to add a thread with offers to help pet owners in LA, maybe this person can give you a hand? [url]http://www.pitbullforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24915[/url]

My email, I haven't sent it yet because I still have to dig up the references I want (those ATT:... notes), and I want to make sure it makes sense and isn't too long... thoughts? ******************************* [color=darkred]It has been brought to my attention recently that Plaquemines Parish is considering legislation to restrict specific breeds of dog, in particular, the pit bull breeds. I ask that you please reconsider the effectiveness of this type of law, as it has been proven in many cases to be a costly and ineffective means of reducing dog attacks. Breed specific legislation (BSL) has been estimated to cost upwards of $50,000 per year to enforce in mid-size cities (ATT:1- BMDarticle)-after initial costs of hiring more personnel, adding larger holding facilities, etc to deal with the intake of said dogs. Since there is no accurate means of identifying a given dog's breed, it falls upon human perception, which often varies largely. (ATT:2- PBgame)Add to this confusion the fact that there is no "pit bull" breed, but rather a group of breeds similar in appearance, and it becomes harder for even those experienced with the breeds to identify them accurately. The general public cannot accurately identify a generic "pit bull", which will lead to many false reports filed and non-pit bull dogs/dog owners being persecuted, in addition to adding workload to animal control employees already burdened with other animal related issues. Even if sufficient resources are aquired for enforcing such legislation, there is another issue (which in fact is the root of the dangerous dog problem) of irresponsible dog owners. These people, be they dog fighters, those who encourage aggressive behavior from their dogs, or just people who don't care to take responsibility for their dogs; are not likely to care about whatever legislation you effect, and will simply hide their pit bulls, not even giving second thought to your regulations. If you take their dogs, they will likely get new ones, either more pit bulls or other large, powerful breeds with which they can do the same as they are currently with their pit bulls. It has been proven time and again in other places where BSL has been passed, that it does little, if anything to control irresponsible dog owners, which are where the actual problem lies; not in dogs, or responsible, law abiding dog owners. (ATT: 3- PG report) A final point against BSL is that while it may guard against attacks by pit bulls, it does nothing to prevent attacks by other breeds (even encouraging them in some cases since irresponsible pit bull owners will likely find other breeds to exploit). Fatal dog attacks over the past 30 yrs have been attributed to over 25 different breeds and types of dogs, and an even larger number of breeds have seriously mauled people. As someone who has lost a family member to a (non-pit bull) dog related accident, overlooking this many deaths/injuries is absolutely NOT acceptable, if you want to protect people from dog attacks, protect them from all dogs, not just those most commonly reported on (ATT:4- CDC & ATT:5- other breed bites). Rather than passing ineffective legislation against specific breeds, you would have more impact on the dangerous dog problem if you were to do the following: - Ensure that you have a generic dangerous dog law in place, with responsibility placed on dog owners, and appropriate penalties for improperly keeping vicious dogs. Please see the following state law as an example of a well written dangerous dog law (ATT:6- CAlaw) - Hold dog owners who allow their dogs to harm others liable (ATT:7- SFcase) - Enact and enforce leash laws, and provide funding for low cost spay/neuter (ATT:8- Stats) - Provide/require dog safety classes for school age children (ATT:8) -Mandatory microchipping for all dogs which have bitten or been found roaming at large, so owners may be held accountable for repeated occurances. [/color] ********** notes, not sure which of these will be in here, though I think the list needs trimmed down a good bit... less potatos, more meat :help1: ATT1- article from a Baltimore paper citing costs to effect a ban at that time (2001?) ATT2- find the pit bull game ATT3- report by the PGC MD anti-BSL group, regarding how effective BSL there has been, that they're still overran by pit bulls (and now mastiffs and rotties) almost 10 yrs after it being passed, not sure if I'll be able to get this one or not ATT4- CDC report (not sure if this one's getting included, since I'm sure they'll see the breed stats and disregard all of what I've said) ATT5- photos/reports of attacks by other breeds ATT6- CA state law (pre-SB681) as an example of good dog law ATT7- SF mauling case in which dog owners were tried for murder/manslaughter ATT8- Stats regarding dog attacks, listed percentage of intact vs altered dogs, loose vs at home dogs, adults vs children, etc attacks.

[quote name='__crazy_canine__'][quote]The law is somewhat vague on breeding because it says a pit bull is not recognized under the ban until it is 6 months old. [/quote] Wow, so they expect people are going to breed a dog that is UNDER 6 months old. :o Most females dont even come into heat at that age.[/quote] No. It means that people can breed all they want, so long as the pups are gone by 6 months of age. Not that it matters of course, since by then the people who buy the pups from breeders stupid enough to breed when they're banned will have likely tired of them and dumped them at the shelter anyway. [quote][quote]"These people are extremely lucky that the bites didn't turn into fatalities," Dorson said. Pit bulls "are genetically trained to not let go until the prey surrenders or dies as a result of the injury. They have the strongest jaw strength of any dogs." [/quote] Yeah, but that "prey" isnt humans, its dogs or whatever the animal [i]may be by choice of the owner[/i].[/quote] Two things here. First, your average person doesn't grasp the difference between animal aggression and human aggression. They do not look at a dog lunging at another dog and think... "gee, looks like he's a bit animal aggressive, but I'm sure he loves people :) "... they look and think, "HOLY...! What a MEAN dog!". That's just the way things are, and while you can educate, you don't have a chance of convincing everyone. Second, I don't know if you've noticed, but there are some nasty, ill tempered pit bulls out there, as evidenced by the fact that people are getting bitten. Doesn't mean the majority are like that, but people are breeding without regard for temperament, and in some cases even FOR aggressive temperament, so its bound to result in more dogs with shady temperaments. And when you get a large, powerful, aggressive dog, you have a recipe for disaster. Put it in the hands of an irresponsible owner (who may even be trying to bring out aggression) and you may as well set the timer, as it's only a matter of time before something happens. We cannot argue that no pit bull poses a threat to humans, it's been proven untrue numerous times and only makes us look like fools, so we need to address the problem in the most accurate light and get on with finding a solution. Tammy, do you have any contact info for those supporting the legislation? It seems like most there are pretty indifferent, so maybe if they can be shown how BSL will be an inneffective waste of money and resources, they can be persuaded to reconsider? I won't be around this weekend, but can do some writing when I get back, and I'm sure others here can as well if it might help.

The owner of this dog posts on an email list I'm on, and posted these sites with info on the movie and pics: [url]http://www.dogjackmovie.com/[/url] [url]http://www.sonrisepublications.com/djmoviepics.htm[/url] Definitely good publicity for the breed, and the same for deaf dogs :)

Some concerns on the health testing front... I like that they test hips and elbows, but is PRA a concern in the breed? How about heart defects? I really don't like their health guarantee... only one year (especially with a slow maturing breed, when they won't even be structurally mature until at least 2 or 3 yrs old), and only if the defect is bad enough for the dog to be euth'ed. Crappy if your dog has "mild" HD at a year old, and by age 5, is crippled by arthiritis and DJD. Other than that, they look to be decent breeders, I like that they are doing testing, and that they do prove their dogs' temperments and in some, working ability. EDIT: Also don't like the clause in their contract about them being able to refuse the return of adult dogs. IMO, when a breeder brings dogs into existance, they are responsible for LIFE of the dog.

Well, things went just about right, we were in at 10, had the work done at 12, and were home by 12:45, after hanging out there for a bit to make sure she was waking up ok. Didn't have a chance to update til now because she's in the living room gated away from Haley and I wanted to keep a close eye on her. She's spent most of the afternoon snoozing, and when I took her out to pee just now, she was walking like a drunk :drinking: but the more she moves around, the more normal she becomes. She actually only needed a tooth cleaning, the vet said to leave the broken teeth unless they cause her problems, and just to monitor her bumps for any changes. So, thanks again for thinking about us, looks like it paid off! :) K, I don't think she's quite ready to show off her pearlies yet :lol: but give it a few days... in the meantime I have some lovely drunken Goo pics that I'll have up within a couple days :wink:

Thanks, I really do appreciate it, its helped everytime so far so why break the streak! :) We have to be there by 10am for pre-op bloodwork, then we're just going to stay there with her until she can leave, so probably won't be home to update until afternoon sometime, but as soon as I can I will, hopefully with news that everything went great.

Goo goes in to get a dentistry tomorrow morning, and with her being old I'm worried out of my mind, so would appreciate any good thoughts you might want to offer up :)