Are You Serious Jo

If you have any bits you are having trouble with post them and we can sort it between us all. It is good to also have a lost of Latin words as you can often figure out what something means by looking up its Latin.

I was just about to say they probably mean ventral then saw your second post. Ventral is underside, dorsal is top, so ventral is chest/ belly area.

They don't care how well dogs are treated, they don't think people should ever own them. Their goal is end all forms of pet ownership. They don't actually care about the animals though, they just want to achieve their goal, which is why they are happy to let lab animals out to suffer horrible deaths. Emotion over welfare is the order of the day, so I would have no trouble believing that some PETA nutters would poison dogs to "free" them for their slavery.

There is real evidence that they have a 97% PTS rate, but this isn't illegal. They were taken court for dumping the bodies though, but just got a fine. The problem is they use shock tactics and rely on incorrect evidence and some people believe them. Hard to compete with their big money campaigns, do you know any dog org that has the money to do a multi million dollar counter-campaign? The real damage is done when they manage to get people into positions of power and they are able to make changes that are not in the best interests of dogs or breeders. Complacency is how they have gotten as far as they have so far.

So glad he is getting better, I've been following this thread. Am a bit concerned that he is next to another dog though, my vet has an isolation room and it is like level 5 biosecurity hazard for parvo dogs. They go in gowned up and everything leaving the room is F10ed to buggery. I really hope the little pom doesn't get it as well

Don't say who it is, but I bet I know who you are talking about. I know of one rescue run by a person who is a real nasty pasty when they can't get anything out of you.

You make it hard enough and people just give up, they are chipping away and people just can't see it.

In reply to you, I quote jdavis' well-put post: KKDD -If you are goin to support PETA, perhaps you should re-think your membership of a puerbred dog forum. I know many members here are people who merely own & love dogs, be they purebred or "mutts", but many of us are people who breed and/or show dogs, PAY to belong to DOL and find comments such as yours extremely offensive. Speaking of extremists who go off half-cocked... Out of interest, what has anyone done here that is extremist? Are you saying that people who don't like PETA based on what they themselves have said are going off half cocked? What more evidence can you need about an organisations ideology than their stated beliefs? If they say they want dog breeding to stop, and dog breeders don't support them because of this it makes us extremists? Dog breeders go then pet dogs go as well. Don't you like dogs?

I especially don't get that people come onto a purebred dog forum and show support for an organisation that wants to rid the world of dogs. I can't imagine either what is going through people's minds when they are reading the posts where it is shown PETA want to eliminate pets, then they go on to say this isn't what PETA wants. On one hand some people say PETA is important because people listen to them, but on the other hand they want us to believe that when it comes to their pet ownership campaigns people won't listen to them. So to the people that think they aren't capable of having any impact on pet ownership, do they have any influence or not?

Sounds like it is from The Onion, whereas the post above is from PETA themselves. So you don't believe what PETA themselves say then? Do you need the link to the document proving the euth rate? It's not fake. If PETA themselves say they want to stop any more dogs being bred, why don't people believe them?

They should be praised for what they are doing, it is great they are putting in such a huge effort. But at the same time they need to be honest with the public. If you were the average person and just read the surface information you might think it was a-ok to drop your problem doggie off to find a new home, after all none get killed now. But the overflow get directed away and are still being PTS. So just give the public the full story, just feels like they are being a bit misleading in order to big themselves up.

The actual records verifying this are available online for the skeptics who think people are making it up.

Are you serious? There is plenty of credible info. Are you saying that Ingrid Newkirk herself is lying in interviews, she doesn't hide the fact she wants pet ownership to end. I guess if you can't read the information on PETA and see the real story by now you never will.

So DAS is able to cope with the extra dogs without turning any away? If the RSPCA are running at capacity and they have to send their overflow to DAS, what happens when DAS is at capacity because of the extras? A high rehoming rate is great, no doubt about that, but until the public catch on and stop dumping their dogs and more people buy from shelters the dogs need to go somewhere. Dog geek has made some excellent points, which raise some relevant questions.

Regardless of whether there are no kill wannabes or not, the RSPCA needs to be honest with the public otherwise they remain ignorant to the fact that the same number of dogs are still being PTS. The public are the ones who help shape policy, you don't want them falsely assuming the problem has been solved because of some slick marketing.

This is my biggest beef with the no kill movement, it just seems the dogs are taken elsewhere to die in most cases, they have to be honest that the same number of dogs are dying, just in different places.

I don't like stunts like this though, it just diminishes the importance of welfare because all people see are animal rights nutters. It is hard enough having to qualify everything you do when you meet new people, they are so ready to think looney when you mention animal welfare, this sort of thing doesn't help at all.

A name is only a cue to the dog. I am sure that a lot of dogs respond to any sound the owner makes and come running. Mine do, their name only serves to alert them I am around or I want their attention. I get the same response whether I call out hey Boz or hey dumdum. Dog will easily learn a new name, so it's not wrong or cruel.

I fully agree that we need standards in welfare, it's my line of work as well. I don't agree that domestic animals have a better welfare outcome because the standards are quite low and allow a lot of suffering. Look at meat chickens for example, they aren't protected from disease, because the selection for fast growth actually causes disease. I would like to see invertebrates receive protection and include fish as well. But I don't want to see hand fishing banned because overall the wild fish has lived a much better life in terms of welfare. People are a lot more conscious of fish welfare now, there are barbless hooks and many people are taught how to reduce injury to fish they release back after catching.

But you need to take into account the total time the animal is alive in some cases. A wild caught fish may have a 10 minute fight on the line, but some production animals have a whole lifetime of suffering. Even the trip to the slaughterhouse is longer than 10 minutes, not to mention the catching process. I spend a bit of time thinking about these things too, and a wild fish has a much better life and death than a farmed animal in most cases. Provided suffering is mimimised then I much prefer harvesting from the wild these days to have a better welfare outcome for our meat. I'd love to see kangaroo harvesting increased, much better sense for us than hoof stock.

Chimps hunt colobus monkeys and they get into a very aroused state when doing so. Chimps also form hunting parties and patrol territory boundaries and will kill intruders at times. They are very quiet while patrolling so they can modify their behaviours, even though both outcomes results in death of another individual. With dogs I think the key is remembering that they are not wolves and their behaviours have been changed substantially, so you have to take this into account when training. I'm keen to see how I can improve my dogs herding by training in drive, she is an older dog and a bit weak nerved so it might help her a bit too.

Some primates have hunting behaviours that could be compared to prey drive in dogs.

Corvus, why don't you just swallow your ego and book a lesson with K9. It would be nice to be able to read a training thread and learn more about the topic than what you think based on your dogs and a hare. I have more experience in animal behaviour than you do but I am happy to admit that when it comes to dog training these guys are far superior to me in their knowledge. Maybe open your mind and consider the possibility you are wrong sometimes and learn a little, and we all might get something out of these threads.

I have actually thought the opposite is true just from having feral cats I have trapped and quietened to having cats that are domesticated. When teaching them things, through shaping and luring, I found they learned quicker. The ferals were all from the same family though (just different generations). cheers M-J I too wondered about that comment, a client of mine had a Bengal who was freaky clever. They referred to him as their "dog", even though they also had a dog. The comment is still valid though - in the bigger picture. Remembering that feral cats are domestic cats, their time in the wild even if several generations is just a blink of an eye. A few generations of "natural selection" probably just brings out the best of them. The Bengal was mostly domestic cat, the Asian Leopard Cat has very few of the characteristics that made this particular cat so much fun (as far as I know). Yep, needs a bit more time and selection. I would think that it wouldn't work in the same way that dog domestication did anyway as the starting point is different, wolves were already highly social when domestication started, whereas cats weren't.

What sort of gladiator would he be if he was scared of a wolf, anyone heard of role play