blissirritated

Hi all. George (8.5yr old Lab /Staff Cross) has been put on fish oil tablets for his arthritis. And I love our vet, he is an absolute magician - however the Antinol Rapid he’s recommended seems insanely expensive for what it is. 
 

Are there other fish/mussel oil extracts that people are using for their dogs in place of Antinol?

I would Google… but I’ve chosen to reactivate a decade old forum account instead… so I guess that shows how much success I’m having with the Google machine 
 

Thanks! I've given My Silver Wombat a go 

Hey guys, has anyone ordered dog tags online before?

I've googled but most of the sites I'm seeing look a bit dodgy.

I'm just looking for a bog standard laser engraved tag that I can hang off a collar - and being the incredibly social butterfly I am, would prefer to do that online so I don't have to stand in a shop while they dust off the machine and make small talk about how they don't know how to operate it. 

Steve if you actually *disable* PMs on the board then (to my knowledge) people get a different error message when they try to PM you (that PMing you is disabled and not just that your inbox is full). If you do that and pop a message to that effect in your signature (with your email address) you might stop some of the confusion.

What actually happens with the ignore button anyway??

I have never pressed it but am dying to know.

ooppss Sorry if I have gone off topic

It shows

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Username.

· View this post

· Un-ignore Username

Instead of the post. I find it almost more irritating than just skimming over the post because you *know* they've said something stupid under it. And you *know* that you'll waste time clicking again to view the post. And you *know* you'll be more irritated when you find out that you were right and it was just rubbish. And then you have to fight the additional urge to reply because they've just annoyed you even more :D

Anaaaad it doesn't seem to work on the lo-fi version of the board.

Once upon a time when standards were set it was basically a case of a handful of people stating their own colour preferences what traits and characteristics, including but not limited to shape, size and colour were required to perform the task for which the dog was bred and so originated what colours among other attributes would be accepted and others disqualified. Time has passed and it is a shame that the preferences of those individuals still have to be upheld....time to move on continue to be slandered by people who either have not taken the time to understand why those decisions were made or who are deliberately ignorant of the same and I am sure that quite a few people would agree. There are such beautiful dogs in both type and conformation but simply because they are born of a colour that is not standard approved they are frowned upon..... There are a large number of beautiful, healthy and well bred dogs of all colours and types that it's highly unfortunate that the ones that are rare or disqualified are so appealing to people who would love to see particular breeds or traits which 'made' those breeds wiped out in favour of a 'different' pretty face.

Interesting the colour mismatch in the panda shep.

The bottom one is a very heavily biscuited white shep.

Lot of argument at the time about how "purebred" the panda shepherd was.

The middle shepherd was a dilute (liver) blanket black/tan. Can also get a slate dilute colour in them where the black becomes a blue colour.

BF, 300 books, of which 100 were ordered by Troy. So 200 are being taken to the P.O. by Steve, in "batches" of one-six books

Geez Troy's keen for cooking isn't he?

Portable cat enclosure $34.95 +P&H --> http://www.dealsdirect.com.au/p/cat-fun-house/

Portable cat tunnel $49.95 + P&H --> http://www.dealsdirect.com.au/p/deluxe-outdoor-cat-walk-run/

I wouldn't read much into 'received treatment at hospital". Any break in skin - a graze - would 'receive treatment at hospital'.

If you don't give the council the tag numbers, they can't contact the owner until the ranger gets out to collect the dogs and find the tags themselves...?

"Oh Edmund, can it be true? That I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest Green?"

Wish my garden was... well, alive like that.

Did you find it absolutely imperative to name names?

Maybe he didn't?

This -->

that you keep repeating, isn't written as a direct quote of what Mr Linke said.

It could well have been that he said that it may not have been an APBT and was asked directly by the writer whether it could have been a mastiff or staffordshire. He might have replied to that "Yes, it could have been any type of dog, even a crossbreed". Paraphrased by a writer it could end up being written "Mr Linke said the dogs could have been mastiffs, staffordshires or crossbreeds".

Yes, you are quite right in that I changed the question firstly and then deleted the 2nd question as my quote above stipulates clearly. AS I SAID, I MISTAKENLY FORGOT TO DELETE THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WHEN I TYPED IN THE CURRENT QUESTION THEREBY THE POLL HAD TWO QUESTIONS IN PLACE WHICH ONLY CONFUSED PEOPLE!

YES, OF COURSE I WOULD BE JUST AS ANNOYED IF MR. LINKE HAD NAMED ANOTHER BREED OF DOG IN ORDER TO STEER PEOPLE FROM BLAMING A PARTICULAR BREED GIVEN THAT I DONT HAPPEN TO OWN A STAFFIE OR A MASTIFF, I THOUGHT THAT WAS RATHER OBVIOUS.

OKAY. I was just clarifying because you were saying that you'd changed it ONCE AND ONLY THE ONCE!!! and I read it that you'd changed it at least twice from your previous post.

As for being OBVIOUS, I honestly have no idea what your point is. It's sort of like someone has said "Have a free pony" and everyone else is saying "Ooh! A free pony! I don't have to pay! By jove what a brilliant state of affairs!" and you're standing in the corner bashing out "I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THE PONY, THIS IS CONFUSING, WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR THE PONY". I'm not sure that you've understood what was said by Mr Linke or the context he said it in?

Mr. Linke's implicating crossbreeds does not exactly prove detrimental now, does it?

Then how does it prove detrimental to the pure breeds he mentioned?

I tried to make a change once and only the once!

That's a fib, you've changed it at least twice.

I had worded it wrong in the 1st place and when I made the changes to the current question I failed to delete the original question

Once to change the question, a second time to remove a question. ETA: And how could you add the results of a previous poll to this one if they were answers to a different question?

Why exactly do you think saying "it could have been x, y or z breed" is detrimental to any of them? If he'd said "It could have been a poodle or a maltese or a crossbreed" would you be so worked up over it?

Do you believe that Mr. Linke's statement could prove to be of detriment to the staffy or mastiff?

Only if people misinterpret what was said or take it out of context - either deliberately or through ignorance.

I'm glad things are looking up for you Jed You're one of the consistently sensible posters on here and I've always admired that.

Steve says that some people didn't wish me well

Perhaps she just meant that not everyone posted wishing you well? That doesn't mean you weren't in their thoughts or that they meant any malice towards you, just that they didn't know what to say. FWIW, I didn't see anyone 'not' wishing you well, if that makes sense.

Prior to people using the breed to finish off their bad ass image, with a hand gun in the house and a pit chained to the front door, they were not viewed as 'agressive' dogs. I did watch this for 20 years, it was very sad to see the first time the breed was banned due to these people who had miss used these poor dogs. Sorry you see humor in it.

It was a needlessly dramatic and ridiculous thing to say. Of course I saw humour in it. Evidently we're all doomed to be eaten alive by 'attack dogs' anyway, so why not have a giggle before my arms are ripped off?

You talk about BSL like you were the sole person fighting against it, but it was over-emotive, deliberately ignorant and uninformed dribble (of similar calibre to what you're spouting about 'attack dogs' now) that drove the legislation in the first place. You don't seem to be taking in any of the posts made by people who are actually involved in the fields of protection and associated dog sports, so much as twisting them to suit your own warped perception that anything described as drivier than an unconscious pug is a killer.

The word 'aggressive' isn't just a description for hostile or violent behaviour. Thesaurus.com (for want of a better example) also offers assertory, bold, brassy, cheeky*, cocky*, come on, domineering, dynamic, energetic, enterprising, flip*, forceful, fresh*, get up and go, go after, hard sell, imperious, masterful, militant, nervy, pushing, pushy, sassy, shooting from the hip, smart alecky, smart*, strenuous, tough, vigorous, zealous...

Schutzhund and other areas of so-called "protection training" revolve around insanely high levels of obedience and control over the dog before they move onto bite work - which makes up a tiny fraction of what they're trained to do. One of the most important aspects of bite work is teaching the dog to let go. A dog that's aggressive in the way you keep describing would not be able to do that.

What you're describing as an 'attack dog' is no more a protection trained animal than my local butcher is a dentist. *Any* dog in the hands of an idiot could be "trained" to be the sort of 'attack' animal you keep describing. That's not an issue with GSDs, protection work, the ANKC or any other topic raised here except for irresponsible dog ownership.

I watched as the pitbull was discovered in the hood.

What, like David Attenborough? Peering through gaps in a broken, graffiti covered fence? "... and here we see the bogan discovering the 'pitbull' for the first time... he immediately commences 'attack training' on the untamed beast..."

There's a whole world of difference between a well bred dog trained properly in protection (or any other sport) and a malcontent in "the hood" with an uncontrolled snarling mutt.

'Aggression' doesn't just mean 'wants to kill everything in its path'. I can be rather aggressive in my pursuit of chocolate, but it's very rare that anyone gets hurt in the process.

The context of that ad in the OP reads to me that they're referring more to a tenacious, hard-headed type of dog. If it said "guard dog, very aggressive, ate three children for breakfast this morning then mauled a granny and her shopping cart", that'd be different.

There's nothing to be gained in dumbing down the language of an advertisement to make them less offensive or more appealing to the 'public'. They're not the sort of dog that is suitable for the average owner and to make the ad sound that way would be misleading (and potentially dangerous) to all parties involved.

Erny, I don't mean to sound rude or dense (but that'd only make me the average DOLer anyway *boom tish*) but maybe the reason you haven't had much real response to this thread is because the OP doesn't... make much sense? Is it a carry-on thread from another subforum? It assumes that the reader knows that the "proposed law" exists and what it is and something about a report, but I'm guessing that the problem is that people don't know and aren't aware (which is why this thread is here to tell them to write in to their local gov members about it?)

She's likely to be in hospital (and probably homeless) for some time given the extent or her injuries and the damage to the house. In the short term the money would probably be better to fund the care of the animals in the current locations. They don't really need beds etc, but they do need food and veterinary care.

The woman immediately picked up the swf (that was growling and barking at Archie),

Would you have let Archie "bound" up to a bigger dog that was growling back at him?

There are a million and one threads here about people going to off-leash parks and other dogs running up into their dogs faces while the owner says "Oh but he's friendly". Those threads never end well, regardless of the dog's intentions.

I would be worried if the story was given to the paper that it could possibly change from being a "Bad Owner" story, to a "all pit bulls are evil" story.

Given The Muckery's recent articles on BSL, I would put my money on it turning into a "all pit bulls are evil" story. It won't stop the owner of the aggressive dog from taking it out and letting it loose, it would only be another boot to responsible pit bull-type dog owners (and they're going to be getting more than their share over the next twelve months).

I hope your Aunt's dogs recover without too many ill effects.