Trace Oswald

Since the server update, when using mobile view, I can't get to the next page on the forum. Clicking the "2" at the bottom takes me to the forum listing rather than the next page of threads. Clicking to desktop view doesn't work anymore, so there isn't a way I can see to get past the first page of recent topics.

Eric Hanson wrote:a $5000 surgery!  
Eric

Yep, that's the price tag.  I'm glad to hear your dog is doing well.

Carla Burke wrote: Yikes, Trace. Poor baby. Hopefully, he'll heal fast & painlessly, and your lives can get back to normal, soon.

Thank you Carla, I appreciate that.

Christopher Weeks wrote:Poor puppy! (And poor wallet...)

It was expensive, but I'm grateful I'm in a position that I could afford to do it, even if it does put a couple other things on the back burner for a few months.  She doesn't seem to be in too much pain, so I'm very grateful for that as well.

In dogs, it's actually CCL, but the human equivalent is ACL, so most people just call it that.  Anyway, a couple weeks ago, two very brave, very stupid, or very hungry, coyotes decided that the very edge of our yard, right where it meets the wood line, would be a good place to be when I let the dogs out in the morning.  I didn't see the yotes at first, but the dogs did.  In true canine fashion, the dogs went tearing ass across the yard and into the woods after them.  10 or 15 minutes later the dogs came back, and the LGD was on three legs.  I was pretty much certain what the issue was, having seen our mastiff tear both of hers last year, but I brought her into the vet for x-rays.  Sure enough, complete tear of the ligament.  Very expensive surgery, two weeks of laser treatments three days a week, four weeks of rehab.  The poor dog is dying of boredom being confined to the house all day, and with a cone on her head.   Argh.

My biggest mistake was starting with too large an area.  I would recommend people start with a really small area that is easy to keep on top of until it is fully established.  If not, it's very easy to end up with some trees surrounded by grass.

I can't help you with finding your space in the world, but I can tell you there are people on this forum battling cancer that would love to hear your thoughts on curing it.

Best of luck on your path.

Christopher Weeks wrote:

Josh Hoffman wrote:Being a Veteran is a result of a thing you accomplished. Being born a certain color is not.

So, your assertion is factually correct, but if the point of opposing diversity-enhancement programs is wanting the person most qualified for the job to get the job, why wouldn't the same logic apply to vets?

For the sake of clarification, veteran's preference adds 5 points to the overall score towards hiring, unless you are hiring a disabled vet that is at least 30% disabled, in which case the preference is 10 points. It isn't an automatic hire card to be played.

As Josh said, I see veteran's preference in hiring as different then DEI. Military service involves sacrifice. Remote assignments, being paid less than civilian counterparts for the same job, 24 hour duty days, being sent to war zones, and on and on. People die in military service. That program bears no resemblance to being given a job or some other benefit strictly because you were born a certain color, sex, or sexual identity.

As far as your other example of the inner city doctor, you may make a valid point if it were implemented that way. That hasn't been my experience. I have only seen DEI implemented as a quota system, where you must hire some percentage of X, X of course being a certain race, sex, gender, whatever. It isn't possible to set a percentage of X you must meet and still hire the most qualified people. I don't think it's unfair to say the most qualified person is the person I want for the job. I owned a small business for a number of years. I hired smart, hard working, motivated people, and that was my only criteria. I had different races and both sexes. I have no idea about their sexual preferences or identities, because I didn't ask and don't care. It's irrelevant to me. Taking diversity to it's extreme, I would have had to hire some not so smart, lazy, unmotivated workers to round out my team. A silly example of course, but that's why I believe in hiring for merit only.

I'm personally against DEI programs. If I were king, there would be no place on a job application for sex, race, gender, religion, nationality. I would base hiring purely and exclusively on merit.  I would prefer hiring officials couldn't even see or hear the applicants, so even unconscious bias could not come into play. I think most, maybe not all, but most, people that are facing something like a dangerous surgery or an airplane trip would prefer that the absolute best qualified person were doing the surgery or flying the plane. I care not at all if my surgeon is white, brown, yellow, red, male, female, what country they are from, what religion they are, or any other diversity you can come up with.

Em Nichols wrote:

Tish Toren wrote:The problem with "new breeds", especially crosses of breeds with wildly different histories and selected working balances, is predictability.

Genetics are not like cooking, where you can add a little of this or that and get a uniform blend of "flavors" in a litter the way you would in a pot of soup. In dogs, the F1 cross will get a more predictable balance of traits, simply because the 2 fullblooded  parents will each contribute roughly 50%. Once you breed on with crossbred parents the proportions of traits can vary wildly. Even within the LGD breed group there will be variation, add in and akc pet breed like St Bernard and it's a crapshoot, add a highly prey/chase driven breed, like GSD, and any chance of predictability goes out the window. LGD/herding crosses are everywhere now, they are the most common farm oops breeding, and are often downright dangerous.

I just wanted to speak up here, in case others that are researching this breed (or any LGD breed, really) happen to find this page.

First of all, I want to say up front that I love ALL dogs.  All dogs deserve loving and safe homes.  I do have my own preferences when it comes to the dogs I choose for myself and for our homestead.  I love the creativity that *can* go into breeding dogs.  However, this is where we start to teeter on that slippery slope...

I absolutely agree with what Tish said.  Genetics are tricky and it's not just a matter of mixing one beautiful breed with another beautiful and hardworking breed to create a new wonderful breed.   There is no way to determine how you will get the traits you want (less barking or less wandering) versus keeping the traits such as heightened alertness and unnerving courage facing predators that we want to see in our livestock guardians.  To breed for these wanted qualities will take several generations.  In the meantime, what will become of the puppies that are made along the way?  Sure, they can be general farm dogs, family dogs, therapy dogs or companions.

I really am trying to find the words to explain how this makes me feel without offending anyone.  

I fully understand that this is how the present day dog breeds we have came to be.  As the humans in this equation, we have a responsibility to these dogs to promote the best version of these dogs and this is why ethical breeders adhere to strict breeding guidelines set by our specific breed clubs.  Read about the St Bernard, their history and previous experimental breeding efforts here: https://saintbernardclubofamerica.club/breed-history/  I found it interesting that they attempted to breed OUT the long hair because the weight of the ice that formed in the long hair would incapacitate the dogs.  I am VERY well aware that wonderful dogs can be bred without health testing or adhering to breed standards.  That is a whole other discussion and for the purpose of this post, I don't think we need to go down the AKC/CKC registry rabbit hole.

My advice for anyone researching LGDs for their farm or homestead is to 1) research all breeds (breed club sites, YouTube, etc.) and their specific characteristics.  There is a specific purpose for each and every attribute of dogs (coat, ears, eyes, shape of head, eye color, shape of tail, dewclaws, etc.) 2) visit and observe as many dogs and breeds in their own environment as you possibly can 3) talk to LGD owners and ask them about their experiences; why they chose their specific dogs, what challenges they faced 4) build your fences NOW and 5) recognize that anyone that talks to you about their dogs probably has a bias for specific breeds.

I prefer to see everyone set up for success including the dogs and the dog owners.  Can this mix of two breeds make wonderful LGDs?  I would cautiously say "yes."  It may not be a breed for me, but it can work for someone else.  I just don't particularly like the idea of mixing breeds, hoping for the best and promoting this as a new designer breed (:ahem: ...Labradoodles.)  Like I said, it's a slippery slope between creating good working dogs versus the concern for diluting pure working dog breeds.

Oh boy, I'm ready for the very emotional responses to this post!  I tried to be as respectful as possible to have a mature conversation while stating my personal concerns.    

Like you,  I love dogs.  We start to diverge in our opinions right about here:  "As the humans in this equation, we have a responsibility to these dogs to promote the best version of these dogs and this is why ethical breeders adhere to strict breeding guidelines set by our specific breed clubs. "  Breeding guidelines are open to interpretation, and in many cases, flat out ignored by "ethical breeders".  Throw in the whims of the show dog world, and you have an immediate recipe for disaster.  My own opinion is that if you are breeding for anything at all other than function, you are missing the boat.  That function, of course, depends on the person and their wants and needs.  Any number of breeds have been entirely ruined by breeding to a "standard".  One of the saddest examples is the Neopolitan Mastiff.  The Rottweiler is being ruined as well, the German Shepherd already has been, Dobermans have been, Great Danes have been.  There are dozens of examples.  And by ruined, I don't mean made to look a way I personally don't like.  I mean bred to the point that the dog can't even function as a canine should.  I attached a few of the many examples.  The pictures on the left are early examples of the breed when used for their intended function.  Some of those are current dogs still being used for their original purpose.  The "after" pictures are award winning show dogs.  The last pictures are an example of what can happen to a breed in just a few years, The American Bully.

I would add that I agree with this completely:  "My advice for anyone researching LGDs for their farm or homestead is to 1) research all breeds (breed club sites, YouTube, etc.) and their specific characteristics.  There is a specific purpose for each and every attribute of dogs (coat, ears, eyes, shape of head, eye color, shape of tail, dewclaws, etc.) 2) visit and observe as many dogs and breeds in their own environment as you possibly can 3) talk to LGD owners and ask them about their experiences; why they chose their specific dogs, what challenges they faced 4) build your fences NOW and 5) recognize that anyone that talks to you about their dogs probably has a bias for specific breeds."