I am sorry, but you are not like me at all, because you have done everything but "get to the point" here. It seems to me that you have been dancing around the point all throughout this exchange. And for someone who "doesn't want to argue," and who "doesn't want to make excuses," that is all you seem to be doing here is arguing and making excuses.Originally Posted by gabbagabbahey
As far as me going off your one-liner, that is all I have to go off, is it not?
If you want to make yourself clearer, then you need to take the time to do so.
Yet still, you have now written a couple pages-worth of self-justification, excuses, and denial ... and yet the net result is the same: 1) swimmers happen because they're too fat and the conditions of the floor are slippery ... and 2) if the "swimming" condition gets to a real critical point, then the breeder isn't paying attention like he should. Swimmers are basically so fat that all they do is "lay there," and when the floor is also slippery, they can't learn to walk properly. Generally pups don't get so fat when there is a lot of pups in the litter, so the condition of "swimming" usually happens in small litters that can nurse all damned day with a free-run at all the bitch's tits. The remedy is what I said it is: remove the mama for most of the day, so the pups don't get so fat, and make sure there is good traction on the flooring so when they try to walk they can.
Now, what is it about these simple truths that you can't comprehend?
If you comprehend them, why do you keep arguing with them?
If you "only have yourself to please," then go please yourself, but if you're going to come here to ask me a question as to the cause/effect of a canine reproductive problem, then at least be dogman enough to take the criticism for your poor practices, if they're what caused the condition, without making such a childish fuss over the simple truth. I am sorry if what I said offended you, but it's the simple truth.
Well, credit to you for at least responding, going to the vet, and trying to handle it once you noticed ... but the point you need to come to terms with is THE FACT that if you would have been paying more attention, and caught it earlier, then your pup wouldn't have been that bad off to begin with, and you could have handled it much easier.
Again, credit to you for trying to help him, but the point that needs to sink in is that an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
You say you had "no one to turn to," well how about yourself? When I saw my first case of "swimming," I didn't have to turn to anyone, I knew what it was immediately, and do you know why? Because from Day 1, I have bought many, many vet books to make myself knowledgeable. Therefore, IMO, if you would have been a conscientious breeder, you would have had vet books onhand, and you would have read them, which would have enabled you to have recognized "swimming" for what it is. Knowledge is your friend; the will to GET knowledge is what separates the conscientious breeder from the lazy breeder. That is another truth that too many people don't want to face about themselves: they don't ever bother to read and learn, which is another form of negligence.
Sorry he was confiscated later, and as far as his brother not having the problem goes, I'll bet his brother wasn't as fat as he was either.
Again, here you are "justifying yourself," rather than admitting to your negligence. Negligence comes from the word NEGLECT. Are you trying to tell me that NOT paying attention to the pups for the first few weeks is anything but NEGLECT? Or have you somehow gotten yourself to believe that "not paying attention" = vigilance? Do you believe this contradiction?
You mentioned the concept of "logic" in your opening statement, well I have a degree in it, so pay attention here: Vigilance comes from the word "vigil" which means to OBSERVE or to SEE, which means a "vigilant breeder" is therefore the breeder who SEES and OBSERVES. So how in the hell can you SEE and OBSERVE if you're not looking? A vigilant breeder would be someone who IS THERE and is able to respond immediately to a problem as it is happening, because he can SEE it, and he can therefore correct it immediately. For example, when one of my young pups gets sat-on by the mama and squeals, I am able to respond immediately and save it, because I am right there to SEE and OBSERVE, which again is the definition of Vigilant.
By contrast, the word "negligent" comes from the word NEGLECT, which is someone who doesn't bother to apply the level of care a reasonable person should. You "leaving the mama and her pups alone" IS neglect, yet you are actually trying to convince yourself that this is good practice, when it is NOT, precisely because you cannot SEE what might be going wrong in there with the pups. If that same mama sits on her pup at your place, you are not there to hear the pup squeal, and you are not there to save it when it counts. Your practices = negligence, because you're not even bothering TO SEE what's going on in there. Best practices = vigilance, the very definition of which is to SEE and OBSERVE. Therefore, logically-speaking, you don't have a leg to stand on here. YOU'RE NEGLIGENT. You don't look, you don't see. Vigilant people LOOK and SEE, by definition. There is no person, of sound mental faculties, who can debate the logic of this.
Now then, you say you find leaving the mama and the pups alone "helps" ... it helps what? The only thing it seems to "help" is your puppy problems get deeper and worse than they otherwise would have been. Didn't you just finish telling me that the mama killed all the other pups? And wasn't this post made because 1 of your 2 surviving pups was a bad swimmer? And yet you're going to sit here and self-justify your negligence to me? Wow!
You sir, will never be able to learn or improve, because you think what you do is "perfect," even when faced the lousiest results possible.
Keep your opinions then, and keep doing what you're doing.
Well, I clearly cannot change your mind. And if you lack the will to learn, if you refuse to accept criticism for your practices (no matter how ignorant, ineffective, or poor the results), then you will remain where you are forever.
You are living in denial and self-delusion sir.
Leaving the mama and pups alone for the first few weeks IS neglect, by definition.
Exactly right, you shouldn't have been offended and you shouldn't have argued, because you have turned a pretty simple matter into an infinite digression of excuses and denial.
I find it interesting that you say you only lost one pup in your lifetime ... right after telling me the bitch killed most of the litter ... which sounds like another logical contradiction to me.
Be that as it may, I have spent enough of my time on this already, but I hope this thread really does educate, on many different levels, including on what "negligence" and "vigilance" really mean.
Jack
Reply With Quote
