If LANCE were a mouse ..

[xzzy]

maybe armstrong is a pronghorn, instead of a longhorn or a mouse

"MkTm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9mNWi.36$bm.14@trndny08...
> bdbafh wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7074831.stm
>>
>> "The GM rodents can run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters
>> per minute on a treadmill, for up to six hours before stopping.
>>
>> Mouse treadmill (Case Western Reserve University)
>> The performance was tested on rodent treadmills
>> "They are metabolically similar to Lance Armstrong biking up the
>> Pyrenees; they utilise mainly fatty acids for energy and produce very
>> little lactic acid," said Professor Richard Hanson, the senior author
>> on the journal article. "
>>
>> -bdbafh
>>
> A couple of old NYTimes articles on animal athletes.
>
> Pronghorn's Speed May Be Legacy of Past Predators
> http://tinyurl.com/2s6fh5
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...7A15751C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
>
>
> Animals That Are Peerless Athletes
> http://tinyurl.com/2ktop5
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2A35755C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
>
> An interesting quote from the above article -
> ..................................................
> But horses, like many other mammals with great aerobic capacity, do have a
> skill that humans lack. When horses begin running, their spleens contract
> and spew out large volumes of red blood cells, the cells that carry
> oxygen. "It's a huge effect," said Dr. Wagner. "Within 75 seconds, the
> number of circulating red blood cells doubles." The only way humans can
> increase their red blood cell concentration is to inject more cells, a
> trick called blood doping, in which a person injects himself with his own
> or another's blood right before a race. The practice can indeed improve
> performance, but it is illegal in most sporting events.
> ..................................................
>
>
> After seeing the Times story on the pronghorn I did a search and found
> this anecdote -
> http://tinyurl.com/2dpghw
> http://www3.cesa10.k12.wi.us/Ecosystems/prairies/animals/phorn/Pronghorn.htm
> ..................................................
> The pronghorn loves to play. It likes racing with moving objects. People
> who drive cars through pronghorn country are often suprised when a group
> of pronghorns suddenly appear from behind a low hill and start running
> beside the car. Faster and faster the animals bound along, trying to stay
> ahead of the car. All at once the animals will put on a bu[r]st of speed.
> They will cut across the road in front of the car! Once the pronghorns
> have crossed the road, they seem to feel the race is over. They will stop
> and stare at the car and driver, looking pleased with themselves.
> ..................................................

 

[xzzy]

maybe armstrong is a pronghorn, instead of a longhorn or a mouse

"MkTm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9mNWi.36$bm.14@trndny08...
> bdbafh wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7074831.stm
>>
>> "The GM rodents can run five to six kilometres at a speed of 20 meters
>> per minute on a treadmill, for up to six hours before stopping.
>>
>> Mouse treadmill (Case Western Reserve University)
>> The performance was tested on rodent treadmills
>> "They are metabolically similar to Lance Armstrong biking up the
>> Pyrenees; they utilise mainly fatty acids for energy and produce very
>> little lactic acid," said Professor Richard Hanson, the senior author
>> on the journal article. "
>>
>> -bdbafh
>>
> A couple of old NYTimes articles on animal athletes.
>
> Pronghorn's Speed May Be Legacy of Past Predators
> http://tinyurl.com/2s6fh5
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...7A15751C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
>
>
> Animals That Are Peerless Athletes
> http://tinyurl.com/2ktop5
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2A35755C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
>
> An interesting quote from the above article -
> ..................................................
> But horses, like many other mammals with great aerobic capacity, do have a
> skill that humans lack. When horses begin running, their spleens contract
> and spew out large volumes of red blood cells, the cells that carry
> oxygen. "It's a huge effect," said Dr. Wagner. "Within 75 seconds, the
> number of circulating red blood cells doubles." The only way humans can
> increase their red blood cell concentration is to inject more cells, a
> trick called blood doping, in which a person injects himself with his own
> or another's blood right before a race. The practice can indeed improve
> performance, but it is illegal in most sporting events.
> ..................................................
>
>
> After seeing the Times story on the pronghorn I did a search and found
> this anecdote -
> http://tinyurl.com/2dpghw
> http://www3.cesa10.k12.wi.us/Ecosystems/prairies/animals/phorn/Pronghorn.htm
> ..................................................
> The pronghorn loves to play. It likes racing with moving objects. People
> who drive cars through pronghorn country are often suprised when a group
> of pronghorns suddenly appear from behind a low hill and start running
> beside the car. Faster and faster the animals bound along, trying to stay
> ahead of the car. All at once the animals will put on a bu[r]st of speed.
> They will cut across the road in front of the car! Once the pronghorns
> have crossed the road, they seem to feel the race is over. They will stop
> and stare at the car and driver, looking pleased with themselves.
> ..................................................

 

[MkTm]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MkTm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:mn3Xi.394$It.258@trndny06...
>>
>> Pronghorn were once as numerous as buffalo (tens of millions on the
>> American prairie), living a symbiotic existence with them. They shared
>> the same fate too, being the object of mass slaughter. I think the
>> occasional car racing is the least of their dangers.
>> http://www.antelope.org/pronghorn1.htm
>
> I don't believe that the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of
> the Buffalo herds and if you haven't been through the western plains you
> probably wouldn't realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present.
??

Gotta laugh. I know these groups are like free Monty Python argument
rooms (sans John Cleese and Michael Palin) but "goodness, gracious," the
second half of your sentence directly contradicts the first half. Then
again, what do I know? I'm a city boy and never have seen a pronghorn,
or a PETA group for that matter. Heck, I was amazed when I saw a pair of
racoons running across Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, where I live. Nowhere
near a park at that. My input into the thread was based on the
pronghorn's amazing athletic ability. An ability that would seem to put
the likes of Lance Armstrong to, .. no not "shame" .. that's not true ..
in perspective (that's better). The pronghorn "cruise" at a
thoroughbred's top speed.

The point of examining the pronghorn in the NYTimes articles I sited was
that there didn't seem to be an existing basis for their speed. There is
no current predator that could in any way represent a threat to it.
Extinct predators were hypothesized.

So we've got an animal that has no existing threat to it. It can eat and
reproduce to its max. It lived and lives in a giant feed lot that is the
North American west. An all you can eat 24/7/365 buffet. Add to that
fact, even now, today ..

...................................................
"if you haven't been through the western plains you probably wouldn't
realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present."
...................................................

Using this current situation and thinking to the likely circumstances
that existed before North America's development by man, why would one
doubt that ..

...................................................
"the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of the Buffalo herds" ?
...................................................

The article indicates that pronghorn and buffalo eat different plants
and so were not competitive on that basis. The article also makes the
point that pronghorn numbers have grown since the turn of the twentieth
century when there were only about 10,000 left and protective measures
were begun.

So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
much much higher.

The "logic" escapes me.

 

[MkTm]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MkTm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:mn3Xi.394$It.258@trndny06...
>>
>> Pronghorn were once as numerous as buffalo (tens of millions on the
>> American prairie), living a symbiotic existence with them. They shared
>> the same fate too, being the object of mass slaughter. I think the
>> occasional car racing is the least of their dangers.
>> http://www.antelope.org/pronghorn1.htm
>
> I don't believe that the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of
> the Buffalo herds and if you haven't been through the western plains you
> probably wouldn't realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present.
??

Gotta laugh. I know these groups are like free Monty Python argument
rooms (sans John Cleese and Michael Palin) but "goodness, gracious," the
second half of your sentence directly contradicts the first half. Then
again, what do I know? I'm a city boy and never have seen a pronghorn,
or a PETA group for that matter. Heck, I was amazed when I saw a pair of
racoons running across Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, where I live. Nowhere
near a park at that. My input into the thread was based on the
pronghorn's amazing athletic ability. An ability that would seem to put
the likes of Lance Armstrong to, .. no not "shame" .. that's not true ..
in perspective (that's better). The pronghorn "cruise" at a
thoroughbred's top speed.

The point of examining the pronghorn in the NYTimes articles I sited was
that there didn't seem to be an existing basis for their speed. There is
no current predator that could in any way represent a threat to it.
Extinct predators were hypothesized.

So we've got an animal that has no existing threat to it. It can eat and
reproduce to its max. It lived and lives in a giant feed lot that is the
North American west. An all you can eat 24/7/365 buffet. Add to that
fact, even now, today ..

...................................................
"if you haven't been through the western plains you probably wouldn't
realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present."
...................................................

Using this current situation and thinking to the likely circumstances
that existed before North America's development by man, why would one
doubt that ..

...................................................
"the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of the Buffalo herds" ?
...................................................

The article indicates that pronghorn and buffalo eat different plants
and so were not competitive on that basis. The article also makes the
point that pronghorn numbers have grown since the turn of the twentieth
century when there were only about 10,000 left and protective measures
were begun.

So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
much much higher.

The "logic" escapes me.

 

[MkTm]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MkTm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:mn3Xi.394$It.258@trndny06...
>>
>> Pronghorn were once as numerous as buffalo (tens of millions on the
>> American prairie), living a symbiotic existence with them. They shared
>> the same fate too, being the object of mass slaughter. I think the
>> occasional car racing is the least of their dangers.
>> http://www.antelope.org/pronghorn1.htm
>
> I don't believe that the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of
> the Buffalo herds and if you haven't been through the western plains you
> probably wouldn't realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present.
??

Gotta laugh. I know these groups are like free Monty Python argument
rooms (sans John Cleese and Michael Palin) but "goodness, gracious," the
second half of your sentence directly contradicts the first half. Then
again, what do I know? I'm a city boy and never have seen a pronghorn,
or a PETA group for that matter. Heck, I was amazed when I saw a pair of
racoons running across Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, where I live. Nowhere
near a park at that. My input into the thread was based on the
pronghorn's amazing athletic ability. An ability that would seem to put
the likes of Lance Armstrong to, .. no not "shame" .. that's not true ..
in perspective (that's better). The pronghorn "cruise" at a
thoroughbred's top speed.

The point of examining the pronghorn in the NYTimes articles I sited was
that there didn't seem to be an existing basis for their speed. There is
no current predator that could in any way represent a threat to it.
Extinct predators were hypothesized.

So we've got an animal that has no existing threat to it. It can eat and
reproduce to its max. It lived and lives in a giant feed lot that is the
North American west. An all you can eat 24/7/365 buffet. Add to that
fact, even now, today ..

...................................................
"if you haven't been through the western plains you probably wouldn't
realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present."
...................................................

Using this current situation and thinking to the likely circumstances
that existed before North America's development by man, why would one
doubt that ..

...................................................
"the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of the Buffalo herds" ?
...................................................

The article indicates that pronghorn and buffalo eat different plants
and so were not competitive on that basis. The article also makes the
point that pronghorn numbers have grown since the turn of the twentieth
century when there were only about 10,000 left and protective measures
were begun.

So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
much much higher.

The "logic" escapes me.

 

[MkTm]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MkTm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:mn3Xi.394$It.258@trndny06...
>>
>> Pronghorn were once as numerous as buffalo (tens of millions on the
>> American prairie), living a symbiotic existence with them. They shared
>> the same fate too, being the object of mass slaughter. I think the
>> occasional car racing is the least of their dangers.
>> http://www.antelope.org/pronghorn1.htm
>
> I don't believe that the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of
> the Buffalo herds and if you haven't been through the western plains you
> probably wouldn't realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present.
??

Gotta laugh. I know these groups are like free Monty Python argument
rooms (sans John Cleese and Michael Palin) but "goodness, gracious," the
second half of your sentence directly contradicts the first half. Then
again, what do I know? I'm a city boy and never have seen a pronghorn,
or a PETA group for that matter. Heck, I was amazed when I saw a pair of
racoons running across Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, where I live. Nowhere
near a park at that. My input into the thread was based on the
pronghorn's amazing athletic ability. An ability that would seem to put
the likes of Lance Armstrong to, .. no not "shame" .. that's not true ..
in perspective (that's better). The pronghorn "cruise" at a
thoroughbred's top speed.

The point of examining the pronghorn in the NYTimes articles I sited was
that there didn't seem to be an existing basis for their speed. There is
no current predator that could in any way represent a threat to it.
Extinct predators were hypothesized.

So we've got an animal that has no existing threat to it. It can eat and
reproduce to its max. It lived and lives in a giant feed lot that is the
North American west. An all you can eat 24/7/365 buffet. Add to that
fact, even now, today ..

...................................................
"if you haven't been through the western plains you probably wouldn't
realize the huge herds of pronghorns that are present."
...................................................

Using this current situation and thinking to the likely circumstances
that existed before North America's development by man, why would one
doubt that ..

...................................................
"the Pronghorns were ever even close to the size of the Buffalo herds" ?
...................................................

The article indicates that pronghorn and buffalo eat different plants
and so were not competitive on that basis. The article also makes the
point that pronghorn numbers have grown since the turn of the twentieth
century when there were only about 10,000 left and protective measures
were begun.

So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
much much higher.

The "logic" escapes me.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> and principles of PETA.
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> More PETA data:
>
> In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> adopted out less than 7%.
>
> PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> into their coffers.

I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> and principles of PETA.
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> More PETA data:
>
> In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> adopted out less than 7%.
>
> PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> into their coffers.

I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> and principles of PETA.
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> More PETA data:
>
> In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> adopted out less than 7%.
>
> PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> into their coffers.

I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> and principles of PETA.
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> More PETA data:
>
> In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> adopted out less than 7%.
>
> PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> into their coffers.

I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Bill C]

On Nov 5, 12:31 am, MkTm <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
> numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
> much much higher.
>
> The "logic" escapes me.

It's a pretty typical example, actually. Large numbers of species were
hunted close to extinction by the early 20th century, and most have
made a comeback due to planning, regulation, and management. Quite a
few are now at record numbers, and rather than allow hunting the
nutjobs want to provide them with birth control. I'm all for Earth
Firsters putting condoms on aroused grizzlies.
The biggest current threat is habitat fragmentation, and development,
especially for oil and gas.
Like any other hot button topic these days the nutjobs have the
controls unfortunately, and that's from both sides.
I figure that Lance is closer to a genetically manipulated mongoose.
Gotta have something with killer instinct.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Nov 5, 12:31 am, MkTm <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
> numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
> much much higher.
>
> The "logic" escapes me.

It's a pretty typical example, actually. Large numbers of species were
hunted close to extinction by the early 20th century, and most have
made a comeback due to planning, regulation, and management. Quite a
few are now at record numbers, and rather than allow hunting the
nutjobs want to provide them with birth control. I'm all for Earth
Firsters putting condoms on aroused grizzlies.
The biggest current threat is habitat fragmentation, and development,
especially for oil and gas.
Like any other hot button topic these days the nutjobs have the
controls unfortunately, and that's from both sides.
I figure that Lance is closer to a genetically manipulated mongoose.
Gotta have something with killer instinct.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Nov 5, 12:31 am, MkTm <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
> numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
> much much higher.
>
> The "logic" escapes me.

It's a pretty typical example, actually. Large numbers of species were
hunted close to extinction by the early 20th century, and most have
made a comeback due to planning, regulation, and management. Quite a
few are now at record numbers, and rather than allow hunting the
nutjobs want to provide them with birth control. I'm all for Earth
Firsters putting condoms on aroused grizzlies.
The biggest current threat is habitat fragmentation, and development,
especially for oil and gas.
Like any other hot button topic these days the nutjobs have the
controls unfortunately, and that's from both sides.
I figure that Lance is closer to a genetically manipulated mongoose.
Gotta have something with killer instinct.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Nov 5, 12:31 am, MkTm <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So .. since there are too many now for a city slicker to imagine, their
> numbers could never have been less and endangered, or, for that matter,
> much much higher.
>
> The "logic" escapes me.

It's a pretty typical example, actually. Large numbers of species were
hunted close to extinction by the early 20th century, and most have
made a comeback due to planning, regulation, and management. Quite a
few are now at record numbers, and rather than allow hunting the
nutjobs want to provide them with birth control. I'm all for Earth
Firsters putting condoms on aroused grizzlies.
The biggest current threat is habitat fragmentation, and development,
especially for oil and gas.
Like any other hot button topic these days the nutjobs have the
controls unfortunately, and that's from both sides.
I figure that Lance is closer to a genetically manipulated mongoose.
Gotta have something with killer instinct.
Bill C

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Nov 4, 9:37 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> > The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> > animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> > and principles of PETA.
>
> >http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> > More PETA data:
>
> > In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> > adopted out less than 7%.
>
> > PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> > pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> > into their coffers.
>
> I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
> the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

The problem is always people, not animals. It is sad, really.

http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/dpcla/

I agree with Cesar.

However, I've never seen him get a pomeranian into a calm submissive
state. Must be the breed.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Nov 4, 9:37 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> > The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> > animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> > and principles of PETA.
>
> >http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> > More PETA data:
>
> > In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> > adopted out less than 7%.
>
> > PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> > pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> > into their coffers.
>
> I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
> the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

The problem is always people, not animals. It is sad, really.

http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/dpcla/

I agree with Cesar.

However, I've never seen him get a pomeranian into a calm submissive
state. Must be the breed.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Nov 4, 9:37 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> > The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> > animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> > and principles of PETA.
>
> >http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> > More PETA data:
>
> > In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> > adopted out less than 7%.
>
> > PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> > pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> > into their coffers.
>
> I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
> the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

The problem is always people, not animals. It is sad, really.

http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/dpcla/

I agree with Cesar.

However, I've never seen him get a pomeranian into a calm submissive
state. Must be the breed.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Nov 4, 9:37 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> > The animal shelters being operated by PETA were killing 2-3 times as many
> > animals as the public shelters. That tells you a whole lot about the morals
> > and principles of PETA.
>
> >http://www.petakillsanimals.com/vick_press_release.cfm
>
> > More PETA data:
>
> > In 2005 PETA animal shelters killed 91% of the animals they received and
> > adopted out less than 7%.
>
> > PETA are nothing more than people taking money from the public under false
> > pretenses and all of their advertisements are meant only to bring more money
> > into their coffers.
>
> I'm not a fan of PETA in any way, however it might be reasonable to point out that
> the animals they end up with are often not in the kind of shape to adopt out.

The problem is always people, not animals. It is sad, really.

http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/dpcla/

I agree with Cesar.

However, I've never seen him get a pomeranian into a calm submissive
state. Must be the breed.

 

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> However, I've never seen him get a pomeranian into a calm submissive
> state.

Especially when the pomeranian is told to sprint in a 13.

 

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> However, I've never seen him get a pomeranian into a calm submissive
> state.

Especially when the pomeranian is told to sprint in a 13.