Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - NoDogNow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
I grew up with little dogs, because Mom isn't a Big Dog person. (Max, my 25 lb. Eskie fur-brother, is the biggest dog she's ever kept longer than 6 months. (If your husband hates hair, DON'T get an Eskie. Max sheds as much as my best friend's Pyr ever did!) Mom's tolerantly fond of my sister's Big Paws, but would never truly love a BP.

So, in MY long experience, since I'm middle aged now:

If your hubby is a total hair hater, a short coat dachshund or a doxie mix may be your answer. Rusty was a doxie/Boston mix and he was just a TANK--he'd go under, over, around or thru anything if it meant kisses and lovies. We had to get a dog door because he kept breaking out the screen in the bottom of the storm door. It didn't matter where we went or what we did, Rusty was right there, keeping up.

Spotty was a farm-bred, 10-pound rat terrier mix, and by far them most velcro-y dog we ever had. If he wasn't in your lap, he was right behind your left ankle--unless, of course, he was out hunting squirrels or mice. Also very short haired. I used to lay out on a blanket under the willow tree and read to him--a whole stack of library books at a time, while he just cuddled under my chin. He was my FIRST dog--Dad got him while Mom was pregnant with my brother, so that when the baby arrived, I had someone to play with--because Tiny (a perfectly snotty long haired Chi) was very DEFINITELY my mother's dog, and didn't care to play with 3-year-old me. (In fact, Tiny never cared to play with anybody but my mother. None of my mother's chi's ever liked any of us kids, that I remember. The terriers, yes; chi's and chi-mixes, never.) Acutal rat terriers are kind of rare these days, but if you live in a more rural area, you're more likely to find one than if you live in a more urban one.

Scotties are great dogs, lots of fun and energy, but very kid friendly. Chip, Dale, and Underdog (hey! we were LITTLE!) were all hugely affectionate and funny, and we more than glad to take a nap with you on the couch or under the blanket tent. Not overly hairy dogs, but they do shed some.

My great aunt and uncle had Schnauzers that they kept close clipped all over--sometimes giants, sometimes standards, sometimes minis, sometimes all three--and all us kids adored them. They don't shed worth beans if they're close clipped, bond really closely to their people, and will bark/alarm at a loud f**t, much less a burglar; but none them was ever anything but kissy-faced with kids. They usually had two or three dogs at a time, and they were by far the most popular dogs in the neighborhood; a dozen families got schauzers over the years, and I never heard of a single dog bite.

Cocker spaniels and cocker mixes are NOT good with kids, at least not any of them that I've ever known. They're bloody-minded, pain resistant little fiends; Walt Disney's Lady is NOT a fair example! Close to half the bitten kids I've known have been bitten by cockers--and most of the others have been bitten by chi's. I've bitten by both, more than once. If it's small, has feathery legs and long, wavy haired ears, run like mad the other direction!

Unless it's a solid red-brown and slobbery--Sussex spaniels are AWESOME kid dogs. Sussies have longer hair and do shed some, but you can keep them in a hunting clip, with their hair quite short. But then, a Sussie isn't a small dog like most cockers. Sussies are short dogs--they're like basset hounds, deliberately bred with short legs. They generally run around 40 or 50 lbs as adults, so they're not really pack-aroundable, but they'll follow anywhere with very little training, because they're naturally close hunters; it plays into their instincts.

And of course, there ARE basset hounds. My aunt's next door neighbor has had bassets for 30 years, and the only complaint I've ever heard about them is that the neighbor doesn't have puppies often enough--every other year or two at most, just enough to keep friends and family in puppies. Short, not small; how could anybody resist a short-legged, 65-lb Big Paw with short hair?

As for helping your daughter learn about dogs--maybe the two of you, or she and her dad could start by going online to the Yahoo Pets site--looking at pictures of dogs, etc. After you've done a some online research, then go to the library and get more detailed info before you go to the shelter or call a breed rescue.

The only thing about going to the shelter is that an overwhelming percentage of the dogs there are going to be either pit bull mixes, shepherd mixes or labrador mixes. All short haired, true, but not really a 'smaller' dog.

ALTHOUGH: I love pit bulls!! I've known a lot of them over the years, and I've never once been even growled at, much less bitten. Yes, they do take more training and socializing than some other breeds because of their very, very boisterous personalities and their strength, but every one I've ever met as been as friendly as a flea. In my experience, I'd take a chance on a pit bull I found in a shelter much quicker than I would a cocker spaniel or a chiahuahua in the cage next to him.  But that's just my experience.

I've been 'sitting' for some friends who are on vaca this week, and their dog has NEVER been walked--Rabbit, a pit/German shepherd mix with a tendency to jump--and what's worked like a charm has been the New Skete/Brother Christopher redirect.

The minute she pulls, barks, anything other than walks nicely at heel--I GO THE OTHER DIRECTION! And don't stop--just keep walking.

Rabbit is almost fully cured since Monday. I didn't even use treats, just "you're so smart" while I rubbed her ears. We didn't get off the block on Monday or Tuesday, but on Wednesday we crossed the street, and yesterday we got all the way to the park almost half a mile away and back with only 3 changes of direction.

I'm not necessarily a believer in the total Monk's philosophy, but the redirect is a workable method.

Bills & Other Legislative Acts / Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
« on: April 27, 2007, 01:52:46 pm »
I'm not against MSN per se; only MSN as envisioned by animal rights radicals who don't think we should have pets at all, and who are doing their best to see to it that we don't.

I'm against THIS bill in specific, because:

#1: As the first item under the permits section, it deliberately EXEMPTS anyone with a BUSINESS license as a breeder from the Show/Competition/Purebreed Registry/Titling or any of the “working dog” requirements imposed on home breeders who try to get intact permits for their dogs. That would be, um, puppy mills, right? So those taxes still get paid, and badly bred puppies/kittens will still show up in the window of your local pet store, and thence to the shelters when they don't work out.

It deliberately leaves the issue of determining reasonable costs up to local jurisdictions or their assigns. This is an open invitation to have animal care and control offices and contract agencies hijacked by radical animal rights activists, giving them the legal right to charge any breeder any amount of money they choose to justify.

It deliberately ignores requiring medical evaluation by a vet as part of the SN process in favor of a wholly arbitrary timeframe. There is NO exception for puppies whose lives/health are endangered by the procedure, only a 75 day delay. So if your puppy has a bad heart and still isn't strong enough at 6 1/2 months, too bad, so sad--better a dead puppy than an unaltered one!

It deliberately leaves the setting of any standards for breeder facilities, etc. to the local jurisdiction, again openly inviting ACC offices to be hijacked by radical animals rights activists, allowing them to set unreasonable/unattainable/potentially arbitrary criteria for whether or not someone will be allowed an exception. There's no provision whatsoever for 'best practices' review of any criteria a local jurisdiction may set down, by person, agency or professional organization. If the ACC Director of Berkeley, California decides that any person who wishes to have an unaltered dog permit in Berkeley must have 1 square mile of open land with a 12 foot fence for dogs/puppies to run free on, there is absolutely NOTHING in this law to stop that ruling, anyone to appeal that ruling to, or any mechanism to get that ruling changed.

It deliberately leaves the granting of 'unaltered' licenses to the local jurisdictions WITHOUT RECOURSE. That means if the PETA people manage to get one of their true believers placed as your local Animal Care and Control Director and he/she decides that your Field Book registered Champion Chesapeake Bay Retriever isn't a ‘show’ dog because you don't compete in AKC conformation shows, you either lose your dog to a breeder in some other state or you have it SN. Period, end of story.

Those are just the BIGGEST and most immediate holes in this bill, on its way to law. The long term consequences are even worse, in my not remotely humble opinion. And yeah, I’m confrontationa l on this point, because I work on a specialty DOG MAGAZINE with national distribution. This is a constant issue around here, with differing laws in differing parts of the country coming up all the time—and the consensus around here is that this is a perfectly dreadful law.

If you want me to support a SN law, then...

Draw up a law that applies to EVERYONE. Breeders with business licenses should have to obey the same set of arbitrary standards as home breeders to get an maintain their intact animal permits. If you’re going to require ‘show/registry/title’ standards or proof of 'working' status, then require them of everyone.

Draw up a law that puts VETS in charge of determining medically sound criteria for MSN standards by breed, to be reviewed based on the best available science at specifically stated intervals. Say every 3-5 years.  Require proof of vet exams to get ANY dog license or permit renewed, not just a one-time spay neuter certificate.

Draw up a law that sets a reasonable MAXIMUM on costs. I can see an intact animal permit costing a couple of hundred dollars, but no more than that—because higher than that will only encourage more commercial breeding, where the costs can be recouped, as BYBs get priced out of the market.

Draw up a law setting very clear, specific, unmistakable boundaries around what local jurisdictions can or can't use as 'additional, more restrictive' criteria for allowing or denying intact permits; and include in that a procedure for appealing any and all of those decisions.

Draw up specific criteria for approving--or rejecting--ANY animal breeds registry, and put in place a process whereby the criteria may evolve over time, in accordance with technology.

A bill will those elements is worth discussing.

But CA AB 1634 is just a badly written bill, with purposeful holes in it that the radical animal rights crowd plan to drive a Mack truck through in their efforts to ‘liberate all animals.’

I'm telling you, don't be fooled by the bait and switch scheme of a law. And don't let them pass one like it where you live, either.

Bills & Other Legislative Acts / Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
« on: April 25, 2007, 04:34:50 pm »
OK, let's start with a PROOF:

Directly from the HSUS website, bottom of the page:

"The Humane Society of the United States does not have animal control capabilities; that is a function of local animal control programs. The HSUS is neither legally nor contractually affiliated with—nor is a parent organization for—local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies. In short, The HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter."

You can read the rest of the page for yourself, but whoever's running that Humane Society shelter in San Diego, it's not HSUS, unless they're lying on their website as well.

I'm not familiar with that shelter in specific, but based on my reading, I would bet it's a completely independent humane society that has paid a very pretty penny to have HSUS personnel come in and review/help design/endorse the place. That appears to be their typical 'consulting' role.

They have a budget of over $100 million a year, and in 2002, they spent/gave less than $150,000 for actual hands on shelter or humane societies, according to one analysis of their IRS returns of that year. I haven't found any more recent information than that, but then I haven't spent more than a few minutes at a time digging at this.

Check out activistcash.c om, though.

They're basically a hardline consumer rights advocacy group, dedicated to identifying and tracking the lobbying efforts and cash flow of a variety of "we know better than you, so shut up and we'll tell you how to live" activist groups, so you have to take their statements with a grain of salt--but if you google their facts, you'll come up with verification of the information, whether you agree with their interpretation of it or not.

Did I mention that even AKC says CA AB 1634 is a bad, dangerous law?

And lord knows I'm no fan of the AKC.

Bills & Other Legislative Acts / Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
« on: April 25, 2007, 01:37:42 pm »
Guys, you are NOT getting it, and that really surprises me.

Stop looking at the pretty window dressing, and look at what this bill DOESN'T HAVE.

There's no limit on cost, period. EVERY JURIDICTION in California is allow to set ANY ANNUAL fee for the 'intact' animal permit that they choose to set, so long as they base in on their purported 'costs.' Cities and counties could decide to fund their entire Animal Control budget on the backs of breeders.

How many really good breeders can afford--given the good breeder are already losing money the vast majority of the time!--an intact animal permit that may very quickly begin to cost thousands per dog?

And there are NO EXCEPTIONS in this bill for non-resident dogs of any kind. Every owner coming to a competition of any kind from anywhere would have to purchase one of these permits for every dog they're bringing to compete, or Animal Control can confiscate their dogs, and will neuter them before returning them. Heck...never mind a competition. You couldn't even bring your dog to the beach on a VACATION.

Local jurisdictions are given TOTAL CARTE BLANCHE to decide to not only grant but revoke these permits annually or upon a single allegation of misconduct--without any recourse. There are NO overarching standards set by this law, other than "S/N by the age of four months." Any jurisdiction can do ANY thing they decide.

And understand very clearly that this law does NOTHING to prevent puppy mills--because the law allows local jurisidictions to recognize or refuse to recognize ANY ADDITIONAL REGISTRY/S THEY CHOOSE TO. That includes the so-called private registries, the various hybrid registries, and so on and so on.  The bill ONLY mentions 4 specific ones, but local jurisdictions to can set any arbitrary standard that they choose, including not setting any standard at all!

A puppy mill could set up a 'private' registry, and afford to pay whatever price the jurisdiction set, because they're going to make the money back on badly breed, sickly puppies sent to pet stores. And they're going to be paying sales tax and other fees to the jurisdiction as well. A puppy mill would be a total windfall for a city or county.

This bill is a disaster.

I've been researching this issue since I first heard about this disaster in the making, and the fact is that NO MANDATORY SPAY NEUTER BILL IN ANY JURISDICTION HAS WORKED.

Not anywhere.

No place, no time, no circumstance.


In point of actual fact, MSN laws have across the board increased numbers of dogs being put down in shelters, in part because confiscated intact animals end up being put down BY THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THEM, when owners can't afford to pay the $20+/day boarding fee for 30-60-90 days until their case comes to court! And because the dogs are involved in a court case, they can't be adopted out or found new homes. So their 'time' runs out, and they're PTS.

MSN bills are provably a failure. To claim otherwise is a lie worthy of Heinrich Himmler.

The radical anti-pet PETA people and the Humane Society of the US (who do not now, or have they ever had anything to do with shelters--that's only the SPCA, so if you're giving the HSUS money, please STOP) are behind this bill.  The Humane Society, in particular, wants to eliminate the ownership of ALL DOMESTIC ANIMALS. Dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, everything.

And what's the easiest way to do that? Keep them from ever being born.

Look, I know how much everyone here loves their dogs, and wants to make sure every dog gets a shot at a home and a family that will love them just as much. I want that, too. I firmly believe that every responsible pet owner should be talking with their vet from the minute they get that puppy about when their puppy should be neutered.

But bills/laws like this are NOT the way to accomplish our goal.

All bills/laws like this are going to do is 1) rip the gonads out of puppies without regard for best medical practice based on a vet's evaluation of each puppy; and 2) make it financially impossible for GOOD, loving, home/hobby breeders to produce well-thought out, well-cared for litters of well-socialized puppies who are as healthy as their genetics allow.

This is the first shot of a war our dogs can't afford for us to lose.

Are you aware that the PETA people have already gotten a law passed in San Diego requiring any breeder who is going to have more than one litter of pups over the life of his/her dog to become licensed as a COMMERCIAL KENNEL? And abide by all the zoning requirements OF said commerical kennel? And if, for example, your backyard is only 700 sq ft instead of 725 sq ft, you can't get a license, and are subject to thousands of dollars of fines if you breed your National Champion Chiahuahua twice in 3 years.

How long do you think it's going to be before there AREN'T any more breeders in San Diego?

And that all started with local spay/neuter legislation.

I suggest that you start where I did several weeks ago:

This guy has done a lot of the initial research and while he sees the worst case scenario, I think his extrapolations are well supported by the data available.

Bills & Other Legislative Acts / HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
« on: April 24, 2007, 04:43:01 pm »
Well, we clearly didn’t send enough angry emails yet to the California legislature, because they’ve passed that horrible bill.

I’m going to cross post something from one of my other forums, because I know that everyone here is as passionate about dogs and breeding and PROPER breeding of dogs as I am. And as this breeder is.

I encourage everyone to check out the website and also the PetLaw group.  Whether your children and grandchildren grow up with the boundless love you all get from your dogs is at stake, IMNSHO.


Permission to crosspost:

CA AB 1634 has passed out of committee. It will now go on to the appropriations committee. If it passes there, the next stop is the full assembly for a vote into law.

If it becomes law, there will effectively be no more breeding in California.

The people who believe we should "work with" the fanatics who want these bills passed should read The Future of Dogs at It can also be ordered as a booklet from that site. These laws are not intended to lower euthanasia rate -- the DOG euthanasia rate has been dropping steadily for 30 years. They are intended to STOP BREEDING ALTOGETHER.

Unless you understand the animal rights agenda, you will never be able to protect your rights. When California develops a dog deficit, which is already happening in many parts of the state, when people cannot buy a quality purebred, guess where the puppies will come from? Over the border, as many are now. They are raised in uninspected, often filthy places that make the breeders we call "puppy mills" look like doggie heaven. Do you think the people who are already supplying puppies illegally ("Meet me in the Walmart parking lot at midnight. Bring cash.") are going to stop doing it when their market doubles and triples?

Since many of those pups will end up in shelters due to health or temperament problems, the ARS will be back in three or four years saying "The law isn't tough enough." And those Responsible Breeders who decided that since the laws would only apply to those Irresponsible Breeders, we should work on a compromise will find themselves caught in the web next. And guess who will NOT be there to help us? Remember those commercial breeders we threw to the lions??

The statistics cited as "horrific euthanasia rates" include:

1) Cats -- there is still a cat overpopulation problem, largely due to feral & "barn cats." Forcing purebred cat breeders to spay and neuter will not touch this problem. How many "excess euthanasias" do you think there are of, say, Abyssinians or even Persians? How many people with purebred cats allow them to roam and breed freely? Purebred cats account for one percent of the overall cat population.

2) Dogs brought to shelters FOR euthanasia. Many people cannot afford to have a vet euthanize an old, even very much loved, pet. Their only choice may be shelter euthanasia, where the perhaps 16-year-old chihuhahua is counted as "ANOTHER UNWANTED PET!!!!"

3) Dogs with no chance of being safe, happy or healthy pets. It's not true that there are no bad dogs, just bad owners. Just like some people, some dogs are just plain wired wrong. Yes, unfortunately they may bounce through a few homes before arriving at the shelter, but they too – even though no one could call them pets -- are counted in the "SKYROCKETING EUTHANASIA NUMBERS." If California goes mandatory spay/neuter, we will lose possibly ten percent of the gene pool of many of our breeds. What will that do for purebred dogs?

Folks, this is war. We are county by county and now state by state losing our right to not only breed, but to even OWN more than two or three dogs.

Compromising is not the answer.

Education is. I am amazed at the number of inquiries I get from people who already KNOW not to buy from pet ships, know what questions to ask, are prepared to pay a fair price for a good puppy. It will not help us to win the education war if we have meanwhile been legislated out of existence. There will always be shelter euthanasia and it will always include some dogs that could have been good pets. There will also always be child abuse, homelessness, and cancer. It happens. Life is not perfect. Passing laws to wipe out breeding as an approach to shelter euthanasia is like limiting couples to two children to prevent child abuse. The issues are not even related except that they both involve children.

We do not have a pet overpopulation problem. We have a pet retention problem, and the answer to that is education. Help people KEEP their pets by offering support and being open to questions. Many people who turn their dogs in to shelters do so because they don't understand the basics of housetraining or dog behavior. And yes, they may turn in their next dog too unless there is intervention. When your neighbor gripes about her Labradoodle peeing in the house, don't roll your eyes and preach about the folly of "designer dogs." Give her a copy of the housetraining paper you send home with puppies. Talk to her about what exactly is going on. Is he marking? Is he confined for too long and just can't hold it? Has he just never been housetrained? As breeders, we have a responsibility to address the owner turn-in part of euthanasia, but it is not fulfilled by cutting back on breeding or supporting laws against "those other guys." It is hands-on, one-on-one education provided in a friendly -- not condescending and bossy, which we all excel in! -- manner. We need to be making friends in the community and doing something to fight the "snobby dog breeder" image we've built over the years.

Okay. Enough. Next time you see something about AB1634 or another bill in someone else's community, find out what you can do to help. Today it's California. Tomorrow it will be your state. You may not think you have time to help. You'd better make time or no one will be left to help you when it's your turn.

-- Sharyn Timbreblue Whippets ~ www.timbreblue .com Sharyn & Walt Hutchens Virginia Pet-Law: Protect Your Rights to Own and Breed Dogs


California Big Paw People: call your assembly rep and THREATEN TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEM if CA AB 1634 is passed.

And email the Governator, telling him to veto this bill if it passes.

This is an extremely bad law, with some extreme long range consequences; and if this bill passes in California, it's going to be put in front of every legislature in the country over the next year or two. We can't let this get past us.

Siberian Husky Discussions / Re: Friends Husky going after baby..
« on: March 20, 2007, 11:41:22 am »
Huskies will get all KINDS of unstable if they're not getting enough exercise--and some of them need a LOT. Like, MILES of exercise. He should also have some kind of pack to carry water or something else in. Huskies were bred to be the 18 wheeler of the 19th century North, remember.

For example, when my brother was distance running, our friend Gavin's sibe used to be entirely happy to run 5-7 miles with my brother at 5 am, another 6 miles to work with Gavin at 7 am, and then run 10 or more miles after Gavin got off work, followed by a late night run with another runner friend. Jack's favorite TREAT was to run marathons, and he wouldn't bat an eye at a 50 mile bike ride, from Provo all the way north to Bountiful and back south home again. Gavin kept running 5 years longer than he probably should have because Jack HAD to run, or he got very depressed and would become frustrated-aggressive. They ran a 5 K just a couple of days before Jack went to the Bridge, and even at 13 (maybe it was 14), Jack was NOT happy to stop.

That's the kind of breeding and mindset your friend is likely dealing with. She's going to have to work on training him to run with a bike, and she might want to look around to see if there's someone who can help with the exercise, because one person may not be able to tire him out.

Until the dog's getting enough exercise, it's likely your friend's going to have issues training him with boundaries, too. He'll be too frustrated to be willing to work at it. Get him running, though, and the toxic behavior will resolve much, much easier.

Here's a link to the text of the bill.

It's essentially a mandatory spay/neuter bill, but there are some very untenable aspects to it for legitimate breeders and show owners, not the least of which is that every local jurisdiction has the ability to 1--set it's OWN arbitrary price for the "intact" permit that every single unaltered dog or cat has to have, without any kind of restriction, and 2--decide for itself what to consider a legitimate registry beyond the 4 that the bill specifies, which are AKC, UKC, Amer Dog Breeders Assoc, & Intl Cat Assoc. That means that that ARBA and some of the other rare breed registries are subject to random discrimination by local officials.

A breeder or show owner with several dogs could end up paying literally THOUSANDS of dollars annually just for the intact animal permits.

Not to mention, someone who has a Catahoula Leopard Dog could find themselves completely out of luck if their local anti-dog nut in the Animal Welfare department decides that they don't like the sound of the American Rare Breed Association. Or a breeder who's working on a small scale with a developing breed could find themselves out in the cold because they've chosen to work with the Animal Research Foundation--which has been around for more than 60 years, but works mostly with very localized breeds, often with developing or 'savior' breeds. I only know about it because it came up here in the office in reference to a story, but it's a legit registry (even if I do question a couple of the 'breeds' under development... :-\)

I'll be calling MY representative s in Sacramento to register my objections to this bill. It's better than the LAST mess, but it's still too random, as far as I'm concerned.

Here is the rare case where the PETA people are acutally useful.

You might also report her to your state Better Business Bureau, or whatever the government consumer agency is called there. 

Great Dane Discussions / Re: Ear Cropping
« on: March 01, 2007, 04:09:50 pm »
Gag, it's been months since was here!

And I only have a minute.

I'm not big fan of the cropping thing, but if your husband's going to insist, I suggest asking the vet for something with a mild topical painkiller for a few days. My friend Kevin used Bactine on his dobie's ears years ago, but I'm sure there's more effective stuff available now.

Transporting & Traveling With Dogs / Re: Hotels that allow big paws??
« on: September 20, 2006, 10:35:35 am »
Are you planning a 'South Rim' Grand Canyon, or a 'North Rim' Grand Canyon? Or have you not decided? It will make a HUGE difference as to how you plan your travel.

Based on my fairly extensive family driving vacations with dogs around the Southwest, here's how to get as far as Denver:

San Diego to Vegas is the longest distance you should plan to drive! NEVER expect to drive more than 350-400 miles in a day except in highly populated areas. For every 2 hours in the car, you have to plan to stop for 20-30 minutes for children and dogs to pee and walk around--plus you have to plan at least 90 minutes for every meal break. And this 350-400 mile plan doesn't include any side stops to see any cool stuff along the way.

Vegas to Grand Canyon--complicated issue, because once you get to GC, you're basically surrounded by wilderness, and there are NO really good roads going east thru the reservations--seriously, N-O-N-E, NONE.  If you're looking for EASY travel, then come back from GC to Vegas and spend the night again; then take I-15 north to Salt Lake City; spend the night in SLC, then go east on I-80 to Denver.

Most mapping software will tell you to turn east on I-70 to get to Denver from Las Vegas--but what the mapping software won't tell you is that I-70 is an EXTREMELY isolated road, with NO SERVICES AT ALL for 200+ miles--and no good services for nearly 500, from Cedar City, UT to Grand Junction, CO!  If you break down on that road with kids or dogs, you could be there for 4-5 hours before the highway patrol gets to you, and then you'll still have to wait for whatever help they're trying to get to you; cell service on 70 is very spotty; not to mention that it's the primary drug smuggling corridor from SoCal to Denver. My cousin's a Utah Highway patrolman and his solemn advice to everyone who asks is "Never drive on I-70 west of Green River!"  I've done it one time, and I'll NEVER do it again.

You're far better off driving all the way north to SLC, staying in a Motel Six, and taking I-80 across to I-35, and then I-35 down to Denver, with a stop in Laramie or Rock Springs. More people, more traffic, better services and emergency coverage. And your cell phone will work all the time.

BUT IF YOU'RE DELIBERATELY STOPPING AT THE GC to see it and can afford an extra day or two, then take what may be your last chance (since you're moving so far away!) to do the southwest tourist drive.

Here's what I'd do, kids, dogs and all, if I were you. See the GC South Rim EARLY in the morning, and than plan to drive from GC to Moab, Utah. Take highway 160 thru the Navajo Reservation, it's got the best coverage from the tribal police in case of an emergency.  These roads are almost all 2 lane highway, but they're all paved and in very good condition, even though there isn't much in the way of services on the res; but once you hit Blanding, you've got services about every 40 miles or so and plenty of ranch traffic if you should need help. Also plenty of tourist stops, like the 'Hole in the Wall' and stuff like that.

You should plan an extra day/night in Moab if you can spare the time--this is the perfect time of year to walk the trails at Arches National Park--it's NOT too hot, and dogs are welcome if you pack out the poo! ;D  Google "Slickrock Campground" in Moab, and see if they have any cabins available; I know for certain THEY love dogs! If they're full, make a reservation at the Super 8 and let them know about the dogs in advance.  I taught in Moab for a year, and it's still one of my favorite places in the whole Southwest. It's amazingly beautiful. It's way more isolated that I was happy living in, but as a traveling stop, I can't recommend it more highly.

Your next leg is Moab to Denver. Be sure to take what they call in Moab "the River Road" to Grand Junction--any local can give you directions. It's not that much longer of a drive time than driving up out of the canyon to I-70 to Grand Junction, and you will never regret driving up that road, right down in the bottom of the canyon, next to the Colorado River. You can get on I-70 just before Grand Junction for the rest of your trip to Denver, but don't miss driving the River Road!

Once you're in Denver, someone else is going to have to advise you about breaking up the legs--I've only driven east of Denver once. ;)

Trust me...I see her again, there's going to be Trouble, right here in River City, my friends, and it's not going to rhyme or stand for Pool, with all apologies to Meredith Wilson.

It's going to be standing for Kick Her ***.

We'll see. I just talked my complex manager, and she's had run-in's with the evil little b**ch as well--she nearly bit Brenda's little boy a couple of days ago, which I didn't know.

So they're going to be watching for them, and hopefully by the time I get back, the little POS will be GONE. I'm leaving Brenda a notarized statement about the attack, so that if they DO manage to get them picked up by Animal Control--which in our jurisdiction is part of the city PD, not LA County Animal Services--she has something to have an officer attach to his report. Plus, Brenda has a cousin who's a city cop. With any luck, it will all be over by the time I get back on the 12th. would please me to throw the rat to my Demon Dog, and see what happened to it...

And aren't I just bloodthirsty right now?  :o :o :o

At any rate...I won't be around much this next week or so--I'm on my way home now to finish packing before I get on a plane and go HOME for 10 days to spoil my grandmother and my nephew--oh, and corrupt Max. :P  Mom will LOVE that.

Everyone's internet is incredibly slow and competition for it is wild, so if you don't hear from me before the 12th, don't think it's because I got rabies from the rat--I'm just busy with my family!  :-*

**edited to remove offensive content**

Even a 20 pound chiahuahua would soon give pit bulls the sweet dog of the world.


General Board for Big Dogs with Big Paws / Re: Penny Lane Photos
« on: September 01, 2006, 09:31:32 am »
My horrible day is half mended by that darling baby!
 :-*  :-*  :-*

Anything Non-Dog Related / Re: Boyfriend vs. Dogs = Heartbreak
« on: September 01, 2006, 09:26:15 am »
You got out just in time, believe me. We have an abusive person in my family, and the verbal crap is just a signal.

My advice? Even if he gets counseling, now that he's out the door, don't ever let him back in. Counseling works less than half the time, and you deserve better than him.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41