This is a placeholder text
Group text
by triodegirl on 21 January 2010 - 03:01
My sister sent me this promo video of a possible new show about training the untrainable dogs for the purpose of finding them homes. My sister knows this guy as he is a photographer for the company she works for (Leica) He also does some other, ummm, interesting photography LOL Thought maybe a few here might enjoy watching the video.
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
by Q Man on 21 January 2010 - 15:01
Very interesting...and the more we have of these type of people and these types of shows...they more dogs we can save from their owners....
Very good video...thanks for sharing...
~Bob~
Very good video...thanks for sharing...
~Bob~
by bea teifke on 21 January 2010 - 16:01
very nice
by Two Moons on 21 January 2010 - 17:01
LOL.....
Maybe Zen is the answer.
I'd love to see more of the handcuffs.
Maybe Zen is the answer.
I'd love to see more of the handcuffs.
by triodegirl on 21 January 2010 - 18:01
I did a search for Robert Cabral and found this video interview on youtube. Kind of long but worth watching in my opinion. (Sorry Moons, no handcuffs:-)) www.youtube.com/watch
by GSDtravels on 21 January 2010 - 19:01
I'd like to play devil's advocate here, just for the hell of it (pun intended).
Is the push for rehab for ALL dogs, including those who need intensive therapy, and therefore, expensive and time-consuming resourses, part of the grand scheme of PETA?? Do we really want to save them all? And where are we truly going with this? We wonder why all the legislation is being aimed at responsible owners, while we applaud all of the best resourses being spent on the results of the irresponsible?
The reason I'm asking is because while on my journey last year, I visited and volunteered at "Best Friends" in Utah, setting for the program "DogTown". While there, I was touched by the true caring for all of the rescues, and some had MAJOR issues. BUT, after staying for a few days, I realized their main purpose is to stop the proliferation of purebred dogs! They have shirts, cups, you name it, that say, um, I forget the exact wording because I would never adhere to it, but something along the lines of "If you want a dog, don't go to a breeder, go to a shelter." The message was loud clear that if you own a purebred, you're part of the problem and something they frown upon. The push is for saving EVERY pet, and that is impossible. As we see in the GSD community alone, some are exceptional and some are not, hence pet homes, working homes, culling, etc. Not every dog CAN be saved, so why are we putting all of these resources into saving the "worst of the worst"?? Why can we not focus on saving those that have a better chance from the get-go? We now are seeing all of the latest shows on HUGE rescues, retraining and vetting the hardest cases. Why? Neighborhood shelters are filled with dogs who have had no training but also, no agression, no health problems, no "issues", other than "The family had to move and couldn't take the dog..." .
On the flip side, I can understand "The Dog Whisperer", "It's Me or the Dog", etc., because these are dogs that ALREADY have homes and it gives hope to those who don't know the first thing about training but DO love the dog and don't want the dog to END UP in the shelter.
I dunno, just seems that we should focus more on those that need less in the way of time and money, both of which are in limited supply in so many places. Why don't some of these shows show the dogs who are put to death every second and could have easily walked out the door and been an instant companion with no added assistance? Who is their advocate? One good example was the female with the litter in NC, sweet girl and a whole litter of newborns, slated for the chamber. Who is looking into pulling the ones that would be much easier to home from the beginning?
I would never be able to make the decisions on which live and which die, I'd want to save them all, personally, and would probably become one of those little old lady hoarders who needs to be saved in the end. But, just seems to me that if some have all of these resourses available, why not share the wealth to save the more salavagable instead? Am I alone in this thinking?
Is the push for rehab for ALL dogs, including those who need intensive therapy, and therefore, expensive and time-consuming resourses, part of the grand scheme of PETA?? Do we really want to save them all? And where are we truly going with this? We wonder why all the legislation is being aimed at responsible owners, while we applaud all of the best resourses being spent on the results of the irresponsible?
The reason I'm asking is because while on my journey last year, I visited and volunteered at "Best Friends" in Utah, setting for the program "DogTown". While there, I was touched by the true caring for all of the rescues, and some had MAJOR issues. BUT, after staying for a few days, I realized their main purpose is to stop the proliferation of purebred dogs! They have shirts, cups, you name it, that say, um, I forget the exact wording because I would never adhere to it, but something along the lines of "If you want a dog, don't go to a breeder, go to a shelter." The message was loud clear that if you own a purebred, you're part of the problem and something they frown upon. The push is for saving EVERY pet, and that is impossible. As we see in the GSD community alone, some are exceptional and some are not, hence pet homes, working homes, culling, etc. Not every dog CAN be saved, so why are we putting all of these resources into saving the "worst of the worst"?? Why can we not focus on saving those that have a better chance from the get-go? We now are seeing all of the latest shows on HUGE rescues, retraining and vetting the hardest cases. Why? Neighborhood shelters are filled with dogs who have had no training but also, no agression, no health problems, no "issues", other than "The family had to move and couldn't take the dog..." .
On the flip side, I can understand "The Dog Whisperer", "It's Me or the Dog", etc., because these are dogs that ALREADY have homes and it gives hope to those who don't know the first thing about training but DO love the dog and don't want the dog to END UP in the shelter.
I dunno, just seems that we should focus more on those that need less in the way of time and money, both of which are in limited supply in so many places. Why don't some of these shows show the dogs who are put to death every second and could have easily walked out the door and been an instant companion with no added assistance? Who is their advocate? One good example was the female with the litter in NC, sweet girl and a whole litter of newborns, slated for the chamber. Who is looking into pulling the ones that would be much easier to home from the beginning?
I would never be able to make the decisions on which live and which die, I'd want to save them all, personally, and would probably become one of those little old lady hoarders who needs to be saved in the end. But, just seems to me that if some have all of these resourses available, why not share the wealth to save the more salavagable instead? Am I alone in this thinking?
by triodegirl on 22 January 2010 - 00:01
I'm with you GSDtravels, I could never work at a shelter and make the decision who lives and who dies. I feel sorry for the dogs with issues as it is usually the fault of a previous owner and not the dog. Many breeders are hippocrits when they point fingers at others as being part of the problem but never themselves. My only resolution for 2010 is to do more for the unwanted dogs by either being a temporary foster home or offering whatever financial help I can.Not that I have a whole lot of extra room or money, but I figure every little bit helps.
by Two Moons on 22 January 2010 - 00:01
I'm not impressed by fad trainers or dog whisperers, and I would not have a problem making those decisions.
If dog owners and breeders took their responsibility seriously there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Too many rescues are turning into scams in my opinion and not helping anything.
If dog owners and breeders took their responsibility seriously there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Too many rescues are turning into scams in my opinion and not helping anything.
by Nans gsd on 22 January 2010 - 00:01
It goes back to the reality that ALL dog breeders need to be involved in their breed(s) rescue. That really needs to happen. If they were ALL somehow involved; believe me they would think twice about all THEIR unwanted dogs. And THEIR dogs that end up on death row in the shelters.
by rocknrolla on 22 January 2010 - 02:01
The 2 fields that have the largest amount of Charlatans are Martial Arts and Dog Trainers. This little Fake combined the 2.
How gullible the public is. What a Tool.
How gullible the public is. What a Tool.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top