[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: showgsd-l Digest V4 #2663

  • From: "Madeleine Legault" <malegaul@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:08:33 -0400

Hey, je ne sais pas ce qui s'est passé, mais je ne voulais pas t'envoyer
toutes ces photos là, plusieurs parmi celles là je te les avais déjà
envoyées.  Excuse-moi, mon ordi capote.

Madeleine
----- Original Message -----
From: <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "showgsd-l digest users" <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: showgsd-l Digest V4 #2663


> showgsd-l Digest Wed, 11 Jul 2007 Volume: 04  Issue: 2663
>
> In This Issue:
> #1: From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Here's what Ireland did
> #2: From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: while I was reading the list.....
> #3: From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: while I was reading the list.....
> #4: From: Stormy435@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Political Action Committee (PAC)
> #5: From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [WARNING NOT VIRUS SCANNED] Re: Re: while I was
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Msg: #1 in digest
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:36:39 -0400
> From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Here's what Ireland did
>
>     I don't know about Ireland, but "council housing" has been pretty
> much phased out in England (the whole UK?) as far as I know.
> Also  "HUD housing" is a big misnomer.  HUD housing is usually what
> people call public housing.   There is assisted housing, which is usually
> Section 8 housing (vouchers, usually) and there is public housing.,
> which is completely different.
>     Public housing in this country allows pets...I take full credit for
> that, since it was my pet project when I worked at HUD.
> Council housing in the UK was comparable to the "projects" in our larger
> cities...in other words, public housing...administered locally.  In our
> country,
> most public housing can equate to slums...but not all of it...just as in
> the UK, council housing was the dregs...but over time, it's either
> improved or been
> torn down in most places.  The stigma attached to people who lived in
> council housing was as bad as it is here to public housing.
>    However...the term "HUD housing" is tossed about without a real
> understanding of what it is...and it is NOT necessarily "project" housing.
> Peggy
>
> Ginger Cleary wrote:
>
> >They must be "rehomed" or they will be removed and destroyed.  Just a
> >note... this applies to "council property"  That would be akin to HUD
> >housing here in the US.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Msg: #2 in digest
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:37:37 -0400
> From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: while I was reading the list.....
>
> As I said...idiots.
> P
> Stormy435@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > This is something that has been bandied about by the ARistas (I can
> > start using that again:-).
> >
> >
> > They count the first Bitch and #1, then presume all of her litter are
> > bitches and They reproduce. etc.
> >
> >
> > Usually, the number is WAY higher.  I was surprised that it was "only"
> > 7000.
> >
> >
> > Stormy
> > In a message dated 7/11/07 3:11:00 PM, pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> >
> >>     I'd like to see the dog that could produce 7000 puppies, wouldn't
> >> you?  Even if the dog had 15 puppies in every litter...that would mean
> >> over 400 litters...(466) and
> >> considering that the average bitch is breedable only twice a year, and
> >> MIGHT (not shouldn't) be bred twice a year from age 6 months to 10
> >> years, you can't
> >> come up with 400 litters no matter WHAT language you count in.  Then go
> >> back...15 is far from the number of puppies in an average litter.  Say
> >> the average bitch running loose
> >> manages to have 20 litters (and that would not happen, either) of 5 (I
> >> believe the average litter, when one considers all breeds, is
> >> 4.5)...even that is only 100 puppies...
> >> and any bitch breeding like that wouldn't have a great survival rate
> >> amongst her get..........how stupid!.
> >>     Mary Tyler Moore is an idiot........if you follow her thinking,
most
> >> of us women have missed the boat by not having 4 or 5 children each.
> >> EACH.  Sheeeezzzzzzzzzzzz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~
> > Stormy Hope
> > California Federation of Dog Clubs
> > www.cfodconline.org
> > S.P. Region GSDCA RALEEF Representative
> >
> >
> >
> > **************************************
> > Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
> > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007
5:44 PM
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Msg: #3 in digest
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:41:18 -0400
> From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: while I was reading the list.....
>
> Then they should say (or Miss Moore should have said) that one bitch
> COULD BE RESPONSIBLE for......and picked her silly number out of the
> air...but to say that a bitch
> (any bitch) can produce 7000 puppies is just plain stupid.
>           Those stats lie, just like Levine's.
> Peggy
> tsaligsds@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >They use an old formula 2 litters per year producing 8 pups per litter
with 1/2 girls
> >first genreation:  1 bitch X 2 breedings = 16 puppies 1/2 female = 8
girls + mom for next generation
> >Next generation : 9 bitches X 2 litters = [16 x 9 ] = 144 pups 1/2 girls
= 72 bitches + 9 = 81 bitches
> >Next generation; 81 x 2 litters = [16 x 81] = 1296 pups 1/2 female = 653
+ 81 = 734 bitches
> >Next generation: 734 x 2 litters = [16 x 734]  ...........
> >See how quickly it grows.....
> >
> >The numbers for cats are even more astronomical since queens can have 3
litters per year but usually only 6 kittens per litter calculated.  What
they don't take into consideration is that every bitch doesn't produce 8
pups per litter, 1/2 are not always girls, and most of these figure on a 7
year breeding span.  the average life expectancy of an animal even in a
feral supported colony is only two years so the numbers just don't jive.
> >
> >Many years ago a friend of mine taught a class called Lying with
Statistics.  It was a REAL eye opener.....
> >
> >Suzanne
> >www.tsalishepherds.com
> >Home of BIS/BISS Ch Yancy HIC HT PT RA CD TC CGC BH, Helios SchH3, Ch
Flair, Tess [150 PLUS ROM points/40 ATAA points], Lil' Miss Gilli RN[Mjr Res
Winner] and all the others waiting at the bridge. Website updated 06/07
> >
> >-------------- Original message --------------
> >From: Kate Syssoloff <rockannand@xxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Content-Type: Text/Plain;
> >>charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >>One of the first things Mary Tyler Moore said was regarding how many
dogs
> >>just one female can produce ... Something like 7,000 or more. How does
s=
> >>he
> >>forecast that? How does she know there will be any female puppies
produc=
> >>ed
> >>at all? This kind of generalization bugs me. Such blanket statements ge=
> >>ts
> >>to the public and because it's said on air, by dim witted celebraties,
it=
> >>'s
> >>believed.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>===========================================================================
=
> >POST is Copyrighted 2007.  All material remains the property of the
original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS
of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author
AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
> >
> >ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
> >
> >For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
>
>===========================================================================
=
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Msg: #4 in digest
> From: Stormy435@xxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:41:42 EDT
> Subject: Re: Political Action Committee (PAC)
>
> Jack, please contact Bill Hemby of PETPac.   I believe it's
> bhemby@xxxxxxxxxx, but can find out for sure or give you his phone number.
They didn't form a
> PAC this time for many reasons (One, there wasn't time and needed to get
> going).   But they definitely plan on forming a PAC, and may have one in
the works
> already.   The oversight of PETPac is already in place and availble for
> public scrutiny.   I have learned of the many steps that you must go
through while
> forming a PAC, and it's formidable.   We don't need to invent the wheel,
it's
> already invented, they need the funds to keep it greased and turning.    I
> won't go into my thoughts about AKC's plan, other to say they are about 60
years
> too late.
>
>
> For those who are confused about PETPac and PAC.   A PAC must register
with
> the state and has ALL sorts of scrutiny regarding their finances and to
whom
> contributions are paid, and who gives the PAC money.   Very regulated in
> California, especially since some of our less (ahem) honest legislators
have been
> "outed".    PETPac took the name with the Pac as lowercase to
differentiate.
>
>
>
> Right now, CFODC will be changing gears and heading towards education and
> community involvement, keeping in close contact with PETPac for political
advice
> and forewarning (besides our own knowledgeable members).   We (CFoDC) need
to
> also start building our treasury (finally, cried the treasurer...ME!) and
> building our membership after delaying much in order to back PETPac.    We
do need
> political awareness, but beyond that we need a PROGRAM.   There have been
> some great ideas bandied about, and the best one so far (IMNSHO) is to
develop a
> state wide TNR for the feral cats.   Since they account for more than 60%
of
> euthanasias and intake at shelters, it would be a big coup to reduce those
> numbers remarkably and quickly.
>
>
> Getting the veterinarians to donate time to the shelters, gettin US to
donate
> time t the shelters.   developing enough credibility with the shelters to
> allow us to identify breeds, also allowing reputable breed rescues to pull
the
> animals immediately after the mandated hold time.
>
>
> Starting SOMEHOW German Shepherd Dog Rescue (rehoming) shelters.   GSDs
are
> way too numerous in shelters and there are only TWO rescues in the
southland
> that I know of, and one of them supported AB1634.
>
>
> Those are positive forward moving steps we can take and the criticism that
> was leveled at us was correct.   There are steps that we as a dog fancy
haven't
> been active enough in.   Some of us have, many haven't.
> In a message dated 7/11/07 2:33:41 PM, CARALAND@xxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> > Now that AB1634 has been shelved we must not go back to sleep. Pushed by
> > the
> > AR groups it will keep raising it's ugly head in one way or another.
> > Sponsored by Levine or someone like him. Those of us in the "Dog World"
need
> > to
> > organize a Political Action Committee (PAC) and operate it on an ongoing
> > basis.
> > To be successful we would need professional guidance from people that
know
> > and
> > operate in the political world. Ideally the PAC would be managed by
people
> > in the dog fancy who would raise the funds to operate it and make
campaign
> > donations to suitable political candidates who need our help. The ones
of us
> > in
> > California have had our warning and we must heed it or we will be
attacked
> > again further down the road. If we form a PAC we must be willing to
> > support
> > it actively and financially. There are enough dog fanciers in California
> > to
> > make it a formidable organization.
> >
> > I would be interested in your thoughts.
> >
> > Jack Newton
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~
> Stormy Hope
> California Federation of Dog Clubs
> www.cfodconline.org
> S.P. Region GSDCA RALEEF Representative
>
>
>
> **************************************
>  Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Msg: #5 in digest
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:44:40 -0400
> From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [WARNING NOT VIRUS SCANNED] Re: Re: while I was
>
> Her claim to fame in the dog world is that she bought a Golden Retriever
> and a PBGV from Jeff Pepper...while he still lived in New York.  Then,
> of course, she attended the
> Westminster show and was photographed by the TV
> cameras..........apparently that's all it takes to be an expert!   Pity
> they didn't catch Rod Stewart...who also attends the
> Garden every year if he's in town...and he doesn't sit in expensive box
> seats, either, but out with the rest of the poor people.  Besides that,
> he's friendly!
>    Peggy
> Kate Syssoloff wrote:
>
> > Well, thank heavens everyone was talking at the same time and drowned
> > out Mary Tyler Moore.......  It was thankfully a poor interview with
> > spay and neuter briefly being mentioned but the fact that there were 4
> > puppies...  Most of the conversation was about them.  Mary came across
> > (Imo), without merit or skill at making her argument.  Kate
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
============================================================================
> >
> >
============================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Free Animations for your email - By IncrediMail!
> > <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=102281>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007
5:44 PM
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of showgsd-l Digest V4 #2663
> ********************************
>
>


============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007.  All material remains the property of the original 
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind 
are permitted without prior permission of the original author  AND of the 
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY 
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS 
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY 
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE 
PROSECUTED. 

For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================

Other related posts: