"The Peeing Post"

Newsletter for dog lovers who respect the dog's nature

Chief Editor: Mogens Eliasen

You are currently subscribered as
$contact_first_name $contact_last_name
at $contact_email

This newsletter is free and subscription is intended to be by opt-in only.
If you receive it in error or no longer wish to subscribe,
please follow the unsubscribe instructions at the bottom.



 

Dear $contact_first_name,

I feel like digging myself out of a bunch of ruins after a bomb attack on my home...

I was wondering why everything was so quiet. I noticed that I it is quite some time ago I received any mail from my subscribers of The Peeing Post - and that's not what I am used to!

Well, cutting a very long story short, then it all started with my mail server running into some technical problems that resulted in me not always getting my mail - it got "stuck" on the server. The technicians at my web host and I worked on that, and I thought I had the problem isolated and thus reasonably under control, as I could confine the problem to be related exclusively to the domain name caninesuperior.com.

But it was much more than that. It turned out to be related to the domain registrar. I lost some very important communication from them because of this - and the net result is that they sold my domain name to someone else, ignoring my requests for updating it. I have gone through all the hoops to see if I could do something about it, legally, but I can't - because of those emails that are missing.

I had to go over everything on all my web pages and all the previous and current issues of The Peeing Post, first on my own computer, and then have them all transferred and tested back on the server and back to my host. Everything referring to caninesuperior.com had to be changed to k9joy.com - which was far from simple because it involved changes of directories and file names as well, in order to avoid errors on the server. There were about 900 links that had to be changed and a similar number of file names....

I believe I got everything running now - all under the k9joy.com domain name. If you have run into any links that come up with error messages, chances are it was directed to caninesuperior.com. Please replace caninesuperior.com with k9joy.com and keep everything else the same - and there is 90% chance that it will work. If not, please email me at mogens@k9joy.com and I will help you. If the link is in a Peeing Post, you can also check the back issues - I changed all the links in those too.

The worst part is that if you have tried to contact me at any of my email addresses that were related to caninesuperior.com, such as mogens@caninesuperior.com, editor@caninesuperior.com, peeingpost@caninesuperior.com, me@caninesuperior.com, then all those e-mails have disappeared into cyberspace with no trace! This also goes for any replies you have made to The Peeing Post: my host was set up to forward those replies to mogens@caninesuperior.com, so those replies have also vanished...

You might also have noticed that there have been pictures missing in The Peeing post - those pictures were stored under the caninesuperior.com domain...

I am extremely sorry - actually devastated, but the loss of that domain name is a reality I will have to live with. I wasn't trying to ignore you or to be rude - whatever communications you have tried to send me simply never came to me, so please send them again if you still have a copy on your computer.

So, if you feel like referring to Murphy's law, I want to cite O'Toole, who said, "Murphy was an optimist!"

So, K9joy it is - for everything in the future!


Summercamps

I won't say much about them - except that you can still sign up for the one planned for September 13-20. The July camp is no longer open for any additional students.

Please check the information at http://k9joy.com/dogtraining/campcourses.html - I promise we will have fun!


"Brainwork for Smart Dogs"

Yeah, oops - I finally got all the pieces together and redid the ones that got lost in the domain shuffle. It is all finished now and I am having proof-reading done, all 330 pages! Because of all the pictures, it ends up being a huge file - almost 20 Mb. Way too much to send by e-mail, and too much for a single PDF file - I will have to find a technical solution to that.

I want to thank all of you who contributed with comments and suggestions and rating of titles. It has been a great help. My critiquers have selected the finalists among the titles, including several that were suggested by Peeing Post subscribers.

So, in all fairness, I would like to give those finalists a shot of your opinion! The choices are available for review at http://k9joy.com/forms/BookTitleFeedbackForm1.html - and every single response given on that page will be forwarded to me and will I will include you on the list of people who will get the book offered at a 30% discount. Yes, we will still have a winner among all contributors that will get it for free! And there will be a free copy also to the one that first came up with the suggestion that gets chosen.

I may owe someone an appology here: if you have tried to submit suggestions within the last month and you did not get a "Thank you for the contribution" message as confirmation of sending your suggestions, I have not received them - they went into cyberspace with caninesuperior.com... I have to ask you to give it another shot....


New expanded version of "Canine Choice - by Nature"

"Canine Choice - by Nature" really started as a collection of the feeding guides I previously used for my customers and distrubutors for my raw food manufacturing plant (which I no longer have any ownership of). The guide for adult dogs got a thorough discussion added about puppies. Then came an overview of all the reasons why you really seriously should not feed kibble, why canned food is an even worse alternative, why you cannot expect your veterinarian to openly support you on this (even if he/she knows you are darn right!), why you cannot assume anything in regards to government control, how you do the transition without negative side-effects, how you store the food, and how yo check on the stool that your dog is OK in terms of its digestion of the food.

I have shown the result to several holistic veterinarians and asked for their comments. I got many! Mostly recommendations to things they would want me to add! Some of it happened to be stuff I already had in a form that was easy to edit, but some called for quite an extra effort. Nevertheless, I added the requested chapters, including:

On top of that, I did a major revision of the puppy feeding, based on recommendations from several sources, so the meals got split into different categories all after their digestion chemistry. I believe this was a great improvement that actully made it much more clear what the purpose of each meal is - which makes it much simpler to add individual improvisations without risking that things are being brought out of balance. It is not often to have user friendliness combine in one concept with what I believe is the scientifically best way of doing it! But I feel very good about this result!

I also added a lot of comments and examples I normally use in my seminars. I believe they provide good value in terms of making it easier to see "the full picture".

The final result was a book that was more than three times as big as "Canine Choice - by Nature"!

I thought of this as a long-term project, simply because I did not expect to get "my veterinarians" to work as quickly as they have done. But they proved me wrong! With the fast feedback I have got, this book is actually now closer to being published than "Brainwork for Smart Dogs"!

Yes, you guessed it: I need a title - and I need your help! Here is the deal:

Ready? Click! Vote!



A letter to the editor...

I got a response to the last issue of The Peeing Post. From this response, I can understand that not everybody understood what I meant to say about choosing a breeder for your puppy. I know I said that I was sharing my choices and my reasons with you - you might find reasons for making different choices. Some of my choices are definitely based on a belief system that is not shared by everyone. I know that. I also know that parts of this belief are out in areas where scientific proof is impossible or not available - or very difficult for laypeople to understand.

And I most certainly know that there are breeds and individual dogs that for all kinds of reasons are so "far out" in terms of their general health condition that they are unfit for a non-modified "just go natural" approach. If you do not give a French Bulldog a caesarian when she is due to welp, both mother and puppies might die, because the heads of the puppies are too big to get out through the small pelvis... I do not know how you want to deal with that, but my stand is that I don't want such a dog!

Now, if you got such a dog, maybe without knowing this, then please give it the love and care it deserves. But you do not need to ask me about whether or not I think you should breed it...

I have other people telling me that English Bulldogs must be fed at least twice a day, because they cannot handle the variations of their blood sugar. First, I am not really sure about the validity of that evidence, because it is all made on the basis of studies of dogs that are fed kibble, and I would never feed a dog kibble. But, if you have strong support for such a claim, for instance by daily measurements of the blood sugar levels (you can get those small testers diabetics use), then you must make your decisions about feeding, taking also this into account.

However, in these two cases, we are talking about dogs that are not genetically healthy. To me, they deserve to be treated like sick dogs, even though they may not have any infections or other "normal" disease. But their general condition makes it impossible or dangerous to treat them as normal dogs, so we are into putting specific diagnoses together and prescribing specific ways of dealing with their specific problem, outside the rules for what you would do with a fully normal, genetically healthy dog.

I know I have said many times, but obviously not often enough, that I am not competent to discuss medical treatment of any specific sick dogs. You have to do that with your vet, who has a license to practice veterinarian medicine, which includes what to do to help sick animals. I do not have such a license, and I do not want any of my words to be taken as "medical advice" for how exactly someone is to treat his/her dog for a certain sickness or disease that falls outside of what is covered by simple maintenance of good health for a normal dog.

But, here is the letter (the underlinings are mine - each of them link to my comments below):

While I applaud the intent of this issue of your newsletter, I find your application irresponsible and approaching dangerous. This is just crap information. And I say this as a pet care professional who has seriously looked into feeding raw (and who found a workable compromise for my pets) as well as someone who does *not vaccinate* every year. I feed modified raw and am very careful about my dog's vaccinations (my cats, being indoor only, never get vaccinated), and yet I find these sweeping statements and inflammatory statements to be nothing more than fear mongering litmus tests to promote *your* agenda over and above the *real* topic that you purport to be discussing here; responsible breeding practices.

There are, of course, far too many unethical and irresponsible breeders in this country. The sheer volume of these irresponsible breeders cause, directly or indirectly, the vast numbers of unwanted dogs dying in shelters everyday. However, this inflammatory litmus test falls far short of the mark and is indeed fraught with misinformation. It ends up nowhere near covering important factors when looking for a responsible breeder, but instead only furthers an agenda that has literally nothing to do with actual breeding. If you wanted to promote a raw diet and performing titers instead of vaccinations, then do that. But do NOT camouflage it by pretending to discuss proper and ethical breeding practices. As far as that topic went, you did no such thing. In pretending to, you did the people who care for dogs a disservice.

Since you don't even once mention temperament evaluations of the parents through *any* medium (its as though you bought into the notion that the only evaluation of breeding stock is the confirmation ring... a very limited perspective that you do nothing to alter), or mention any genetic screening for devastating congenital illnesses, it sounds as though anyone who has some information about raw diets (or even just the $$$ to pay a local raw feed producer), and who doesn't vaccinate is a good enough breeder to be called "good". What a dangerous and limited perspective! These issues have more to do with one side of the pet *care* argument....not *breeding*. And its not even a balanced argument.

So far, the last several of your newsletters I have read have been bordering on this same skewing of information merely to "prove" a point on your agenda, but this one went too far. I am no longer interested in your opinions on dogs or dog welfare as you apparently place your agenda over the well being of dogs in general. If you really think that the lack of vaccinating (and your misinformation about puppies commonly getting Parvo *from* the vaccine is just wrong and dangerous....and you really should know better than to play with facts at the expense of puppies) is what distinguishes a responsible breeder from an irresponsible one.....well, I know a few breeders that have been huge sources of rescue puppies filling the shelters that you would just LOVE.

Please take me off of your email list. I'm no longer interested in what you have to say.

By the way, I am NOT a breeder, I DO feed a modified raw diet to my pets, and I do NOT vaccinate annually. Just because I see the value in these things does not mean that I see the value in misinformation, fear tactics and creating false (and extremely biased) barometers for breeding quality that doesn't even once take third party evaluations, genetically inherited illness, health guarantees, takebacks, or litter limits into account (some of these being *biggest* reasons for rescue and death in dogs.

(Name withheld)

I honored her request to be taken off my mailing list and she did not respond to my request for printing this letter in The Peeing Post, so I do not want to disclose the name of this person.

I admit, my stand on vaccinations is very confrontational. I have good reasons for that. The thing is, though, that proving it on an individual case basis is next to impossible. But there is more than enough information available that can be put together to form a nice puzzle that tells a very clear story about vaccines being more dangerous than the diseases we try to protect yourselves and our dogs against. A lot of this information is publically available from the big vaccine manufacturers themselves! One day, I will put all this together in an e-book. Till then, I know, my opinion is nothing more than "an opinion". I just have to do one thing at a time - my day has only 24 hours.

But what about this one: The American Veterinarian Association was recently (in April, this year) asked by the US government to stop recommending yearly revaccinations of dogs. It had become evident to even the government that there was indeed no scientific support for that at all - on the contrary, there was a lot of evidence showing a lot of negative effects coming from these revaccinations. (Yes, the government actually stepped in! Very commendable.)

OK, here is the cold water in your face: The Association refused to do it! Reason given: It would cost their members an unacceptable loss of business revenue!

It is less commendable that the government did not do anything about this... Not a single word about our dogs' health...

Anyway, let me address some of the statements in the letter:

"It ends up nowhere near covering important factors when looking for a responsible breeder, but instead only furthers an agenda that has literally nothing to do with actual breeding" is quite a claim... Obviously, this person has not understood that I am seriously trying to advocate breeding of puppies that are mentally and physically healthy and have the greatest possible potential for become those great companions they deserve to become. Personally, I can live well with a dog that is physically handicapped. I have had a great time also with my older dogs, long after they were no longer able to do many things they previously enjoyed. But I could not live with a dog that has no Imprinting on humans. And I do not want to buy a puppy that is not physically healthy. Those were the two main issues I tried to address. I am just wondering what else might be of importance? Not to ask if there could be anything that is of greater importance? If anybody could explain, I would seriously like to know!

The issue of dogs ending up in shelters and getting killed because nobody wants them, is a totally different one that has nothing to do with me looking for a breeder that breeds the dog I want. I actually think that "rescuing" these dogs, however humane and admirable the act itself might be, helps keeping the system in place and contributes to making it too easy for people to "dispose" of a dog they don't want - which is exactly the opposite of the noble intentions behind those "rescue" programs!

About "you don't even once mention temperament evaluations of the parents through *any* medium ", then I know I have discussed this topic so many times that I should not have to repeat it all again. Besides, when we started the series about selecting your puppy, I did announce that I would cover selection of the parents also. It was scheduled for next time. And it will come. How many times do I have to repeat that? Or should I make each Peeing Post a complete e-book?

The show ring is, unfortunately, a very important way for a breeder to earn fame and good prices on his/her puppies. I do not have a problem with shows being used as the beauty contests they truly are, but I do have a problem with them being given the importance most people associate with them. I know there are many responsible breeders, but I also know quite a few for whom winning the show is more important than the dog's ability to produce healthy puppies. But maybe someone can explain to me why the standard for the bulldogs are still maintained as what they are - promoting breeding of animals that get sicker and sicker with every generation? And some also explain to me why the AKC could not accept the Border Collie Club's allowance for unlimited variation in color and coat for their working sheepdogs and accept their performance standards as the primary selection tool in the breeding?

Regarding, "it sounds as though anyone who has some information about raw diets (or even just the $$$ to pay a local raw feed producer), and who doesn't vaccinate is a good enough breeder to be called "good". What a dangerous and limited perspective!" I must agree. It was not my intention to say that if you feed a raw diet and do not vaccinate, then you are a good breeder. I also know I stressed very hard that my primary selection parameter for a "good" breeder was IMPRINTING. A strong imprinting is simply completely incompatible with a lousy care.

Then, "your misinformation about puppies commonly getting Parvo *from* the vaccine is just wrong and dangerous....and you really should know better than to play with facts at the expense of puppies" cannot stand without a comment. There are lots of proof available that vaccinations cause problems. Catherine O'Driscoll presented some "horror data" at a seminar in Vancouver, BC in 1998 where she disclosed the mathematical evidence, gathered from more than 5,000 cases, that some 70-80% of all vet visits that were not a follow-up on any on-going treatment, take place within the first month after vaccination! Well, if vaccines were not part of the problem, this number should be down at about 8% or even lower, when you consider that the vet just saw this dog and presumably gave it a clean bill of health!

Plus: I have seen it in my classes! Time after time again: Puppies that came down with Parvo 1-3 weeks after they got their "shots". What is wrong with that observation - other than most people (including the majority of veterinarians) not liking it? Parvo is given as a modified live vaccine, which means it has the potential of developing into the full disease, if it is given to a body whose immune system is compromised. Now, when given with 4-6 other vaccines at the same time, and considering that it is well documented that the body uses more than 50% of its immune capacity on generating immunity to just one single vaccine, then you actually need to wonder why it isn't much worse....

Finally: my own Bettemuir got her shots from the breeder - and I was furious. Back then (18 plus years ago), I "let it go" - but I almost lost her to Parvo a few weeks later... She was hospitalized for 9 days and lost 40% of her weight - there was hardly any puppy left, just a collection of skin and bones.

Talk about whose advice is "dangerous". To me, it is dangerous to trust the authorities and not think for yourself. You do not have to agree with me - but I hope I can help you understand why you need to think.

 

Cheers and woof,

Mogens Eliasen

 

If you have any suggestions to contributions or contents of The Peeing Post, I will be happy to know about them. (Please no anonymous contacts, though...)

If you have any comments or questions pertaining to this issue or in general pertaining to dogs, please respond - if I can find an answer for you, I will!

 

Even if your question is a "My dog..." question of a personal nature, I will be happy to give you as much advice as I can per e-mail, provided you will give me feedback on how you used my advice and what results you got - and allow me to publish the story. (If I don't get feedback, you get an invoice for my time...)

You can access the back issues at http://k9joy.com/peeingpost/backissues.html

For change of the e-mail address you are subscribing with, or for adding another address, please un-subscribe the old address you do not want to use any more and re-subscribe the new address from http://k9joy.com/peeingpost. You are welcome to subscribe with more than one address, as long as you only use addresses that belong to yourself, but please do not ask me to add any new addresses to the subscriber list!


Got a friend you think would like to receive The Peeing Post?

Simply forward this issue and let him/her sign up at http://k9joy.com/peeingpost

Please do not sign other people up without their consent!

---------------------------------------------------------------

P.S.

Mogens