Terrier

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtqskYAo_ODu8Du8QY1wBJsGBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20100208111744AApoZPA Looking through another forum I stumbled across this and thought some people on here may be well placed to offer suggestions. Thanks.

http://www.fairdealtrading.com/

Their human rights record ensured that they were already boycotted in this household. They've stooped to another low with this one.

Dog with high pray drive: http://www.guzer.com/pictures/boy_dog_pray.php

I can categorically state that my dogs has shown no interest in religion whatsoever whilst he's been in our house. I think pray drive is rare in dogs of all breeds. Prey drive is pretty easy to handle though.

LOL - fair point! Are there no fenced in areas near your home?

Mine too, but if you've worked out how to get yours to go over a fence or stile could you please share the secret? For myself, I'd source any from somewhere that met my ethics and my requirements. At the moment that's something that's best met by the rescue system. I don't rule out going to a (well-researched) breeder at some stage in the future, but my home life is just not suitable for a pup right now. No matter, there's loads of great dogs in the rescue system.

Edit - attempted to reword previous post. I'd say it was worse than sourcing your pet from a BYB. The old "if they can't sell 'em, they'll not breed 'em" still rings true. However, had Joe Bloggs bought these dogs as a pet, there'd be a reasonable chance that they'd stay in that home for the rest of their life and wouldn't be added to the rescue problem. Essentially what you've done is to not only reward a breeder that takes no care to educate prospective owners, then *absolutely guaranteeing* that they end up in the rescue system, when there was a chance that there home could be a permanent one. The message is getting across on here, but education offers no guarantees. I doubt whether any single (or multiple) solution exists. There will still be some long term members of this forum who will "go out and buy a dog" instead of sourcing their next pet from rescue, but I'm pretty sure that without the message going out, there's be more people sourcing their dogs from somewhere unsuitable. Which brings me to another point - there isn't just one message (although this forum is far, far better in this regard than some others I could mention). For example - I and others on this forum (on this very thread!) are not necessarily against the idea of sourcing from a *good* breeder. Even after that, I'm sure we'd have difficulty in coming up with a consensus of what factors make a good dog breeder (If of course, you are of the opinion that such a thing exists). In short, even if we could educate the whole of Jo/Joe Public on the parts we agreed on, there would still be some who made poor decisions. That's one down side of human nature and our ability to make choices - we sometimes still do things even when we know it's wrong. What's good though, is that humans in general do respond, and as people become better informed, the problems would be - I'm sure - more manageable.

I'd say it was worse than sourcing your pet from a BYB. The old "if they can't sell 'em, they'll not breed 'em" still rings true. However, had Joe Bloggs bought these dogs as a pet, there'd be a reasonable chance that they'd stay in that home for the rest of their life and wouldn't be added to the rescue problem. Essentially what you've done is to not only reward a breeder that takes no care to educate prospective owners, then *absolutely guaranteeing* that they end up in the rescue system, when there was a chance that there home could be a permanent one. Education offers no guarantees. There will still be some long term members of this forum who will "go out and buy a dog" instead of sourcing their next pet from rescue, but I'm pretty sure that without the message going out, there's be more people sourcing their dogs from somewhere unsuitable. Which brings me to another point - there isn't just one message (although this forum is far, far better in this regard than some others I could mention). For example - I and others on this forum (on this very thread!) are not necessarily against the idea of sourcing from a *good* breeder. Even after that, I'm sure we'd have difficulty in coming up with a consensus of what factors make a good dog breeder (If of course, you are of the opinion that such a thing exists). In short, even if we could educate the whole of Jo/Joe Public, there would still be some who made poor decisions. There'd be less of them though as people become less naive, and the problems would be - I'm sure - more manageable.

I've only just seen this. Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

I fit the description of a "cat person" better than that of a "dog person". There's no question though, I prefer dogs.

I've been thinking about this. I have to retract that statement above. I wouldn't have the front to claim for things on expenses that I didn't need for my job. I can't say I'm surprised that some do though.

I've been thinking about this. I have to retract that statement above. I wouldn't have the front to claim for things on expenses that I didn't need for my job. I can't say I'm surprised that some do though.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090519/video/...zi-49bfa63.html Claims for travel expenses, fine. £19,000 on FOOD??? Without a receipt?? Apparently that's not excessive. I wonder how many of the people who voted him into office earn that in a year. I don't. More worrying IMO is the fees office helping Dawn Butler to cover up her claim for too much rent.

It's silly, but it seems that most of them were working within the rules. TBH if my employer allowed me to claim for a second home, window cleaner etc - I would. Perhaps I'll put in a claim for a dog-walker on expenses, see how far I get... The problem is more the system that allows politicians to make such claims and have them approved. However, those claims such as for a mortgage that has already been paid. Yeah, pull the other one. Finding a loophole that allows you to make these claims legally is one thing, claiming huge sums of money for a non-existent mortgage looks to me like deliberate fraud. I have to wonder how they relate to their constituents if £16,000 can be claimed "accidentally" and them not notice. For those who made legitimate (albeit excessive) claims, I think handing the money back is acceptable. For those who made spurious claims and just pocketed the cash - I'd hope to see them in court.