What WAS your limit?

*This post is not directed to anyone*

I do believe having no limit on dogs implies a hoarder or collector. Even if I had the largest yard on the planet and was a millionaire, I would have a limit on dogs. Besides being fed and given shelter, dogs need to be loved, played with, exercised, etc. There's only so much time in the day to do all these things. Sure, I could hire someone to do it for me if I really was a millionaire, but then they wouldn't really be MY pets. So my own personal limit wouldn't change much from the situation I'm in now to a situation where I was a millionaire.

*This post is not directed to anyone*

My limit was 1, then I somehow convinced my Mom to let me get Pepper. So right now my limit is 2 and will probably stay like that until I move out. I have my hands full with these two;)

I really don't care if your dogs, excuse me "Athletes" are skinny or obese, or fat -- whatever. As long as their not dying from it.

What I DID find wrong, disgustingand heartless is
"however the athletes are thin, light, agile, and bought, received, or adopted for sports not pets"


NO dog should just be bought, recieved, OR adopted for sports. THEY ARE PETS.They are living beings, not something you'd use in a sport, like you would a tennis racket.

I'm not saying it's wrong to do agility, flyball -- whatever with your "athletes" -- I'm saying they should be considered as pets FIRST, and a part of your family. Not JUST for sports.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cali
I dont have a way with words, either that or there are a lot of people here, who dont like me and choose to interpret my posts to make me sound like a bad person, well I sure hope thats not the case anyway.. :eek:

---

I'm sure there are a few who don't like you, or a few who don't like me -- there's a few in every bunch, but -- That shouldn't change the way they interpret your posts or words -- And it won't change the way I interpret your posts, for sure.

I still believe that's how you meant it, because it says it clearly there in your words.

Two. :rolleyes: For now!
When I'm older..it will probably be a bazillion smooth collies! ;):p
No maybe like..4 or 5. :)

what I meant by the quote kfamr is that when we adopt and otherwise aquire a dog, we look for certain qualitys that will make them a good sporting dog, what I meant by "not for pets" is that we look for qualitys of a good athlete not just any dog that will make a good pet, because it also needs to be a good athlete.but we do look for both althletic qualitys AND pet qualitys, not every dog that makes a good pet will make a good athlete hence we look for qualitys of BOTH.

aly I am by no means an animal hoarder, no we dont have a limit on the dogs we get but all that means is that we have never set a limit, we take what we can care for, not having a limit does not mean we take and take and take, its only means that we have never set a limit. our pets are healthier, and more loved then most pets, our athletes are treated as pets but receive special care that a pet does not need, these athletes get messages for there joints, special exersize and training, and special diets, along with lots of love. :)

How could your dad turn down Nala!!:eek: :p

I think the limit for me would be 6. Most from the shelter.

When I move out, have my own place, and am financially stable my limit will probably be 4 dogs. Goldens being a *few* of them. :D

so if a dog was a complete couch potato, you wouldn't want it?

we've only had two dogs at one time, but when i move out....i'll have lots and lots of doggies.

Quote:

---

And I beleive that "No limit" does not mean "hoarder or collector". No limit means having the space, time, money, and love to care for the amount you are able. I don't believe that 10 dogs in an apartment is right but 10 dogs on a farm........

---

But there IS a limit on time, for all of us. You may have all the money and space you could ever dream of - but there are still 24 hours in a day for rich people with huge houses, just like there are for lower income people in apartments. There is no possible way to give the proper amount of time to an unlimited number of dogs. Believe me, I know. I could afford more dogs than I have now, and I have enough room for more dogs. But I will never get any more dogs, because there are not enough hours in the days to give more dogs the attention, time and training they need.

Quote:

---

I dont have a way with words, either that or there are a lot of people here, who dont like me and choose to interpret my posts to make me sound like a bad person, well I sure hope thats not the case anyway..

---

It doesn't have anything to do with liking you or not liking you. We've never met you, we don't know you. It has to do with voicing our opinions about things that you post. You seem to be quite able to express yourself in no uncertain terms when you post. It is only after you realize that what you posted seems to be unpopular, that you start backpedalling. I agree with Kfamr:

Quote:

---

I still believe that's how you meant it, because it says it clearly there in your words.

---

You were very clear indeed. I believe you said exactly what you meant, and only decided to temper your sentiments after you saw our reaction to your post.

I'm not sure why choosing a dog to fit your lifestyle is such
a bad thing. None of us would suggest to a sedentary
person to go out and get a Border Collie, would we? So why
shouldn't an active person, who wants a jogging partner
or agility partner or hunting partner, etc., chose a dog that's
going to meet their needs too?

One of the reasons I chose a Collie was with the thought
that I'd be able to do some kind of dog sport with them.
I'd become too much of a hermit and wanted a dog that
could help me be more social. Murph and Maddie and I had
gotten way too comfortable just veggin' in front of the TV every
night. Oz has forced all 3 of us to be more active (well Maddie
less than Murph and I, but he's put some spark back into her
as well). Getting to go to agility and having fun with him
and meeting new people has just been wonderful. And just
because I got him with doing a sport in my mind, doesn't mean
I love him any less than Murph and Maddie. You couldn't pry
him away from me with a crow bar. ;)

As to the question of limits, mine's 3. It's quite a juggling act
to make sure all 3 dogs get the same amount of attention, so
that all 3 feel special. Don't think there's enough of me to go
around to keep that even keel, if I added another.

Par...

guess what? your wrong. when I start "backpeddling" as you say its because I did not realize you guys would react that way, I look over my posts but I start explaining because you guys interpret my posts wronge I am NOT good with words I dont realize what it sounds like to an outside person that does not know me, it is not until you guys reply that I realize how my post sounds. but hey if you choose to believe that I am an animal abuser and keep my dogs underweight and they dont enjoy what they are doing that that is your own damn problem, you an believe all the lies you want, because its not going to change the truth.

No one accused you of being an animal abused, keeping your dogs underweight or making them do something they don't enjoy.

sorry but that is exactly what was said

Quote:

---

But to keep a dog underweight to improve it's performance....well I don't know what I would call that.

---

Quote:

---

Let's see ... how about "cruelty"? "Obsession"? "Lack of empathy for an innocent animal?" "Heartlessness?"

---

Twister you have changed your mind about Cali? In another post you spoke for her, much as I did in this one, and explained to everyone what you interpreted her to be trying to say.

I personally don’t feel she’s back pedaling. I’d like to think she’s taking my advice about reading her posts prior to posting them. Her last couple of posts were much clearer than her previous ones and made much more sense to me when I read it.

Can we please all stop attacking her and just play nicely? This isn’t the doghouse.