# Is 90lb overweight for a 1.5 yr old male golden?



## broncobaby (Mar 27, 2013)

My golden is about 1.5 yr old and he currently weighs 90lb. He seems to have a larger bone frame than other goldens. I feed him 3 cups per day of Purina Pro Plan. I'm just wondering if he is overweight. And how can I tell whether he is or not.
Thank you


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

We can't tell with those pictures. We need to see him from the side and top. But, 90 pounds is way outside the standard for goldens (males should be 65-75 pounds). My own personal guy looks best at about 61lbs.

I also feed Proplan, All life stages chicken and rice and he gets 2 cups a day. He just turned 2.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

how tall is he? Can you post a picture from the side? Based on what I can see so far he does not look overweight. What does your vet say?


----------



## Dexter12 (Feb 10, 2012)

With what i've seen, he doesn't look overweight. Our Dex is like 85lbs and by no means overweight, he just has got a very sturdy frame.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, he probably is. 90 pounds would put him 20% over the high end of the breed standard for Goldens, so it's extremely unlikely that he's tall enough for that weight to represent lean muscle.

Put your hands on your dog. Photos are incredibly misleading. You should be able to feel his ribs a few inches out from the spine with only gentle pressure. If you can't find them without firm pressure, or you can only find them 6 or 8 inches out and down from the spine, the dog is probably overweight.

There should also be a waist you can easily feel behind the ribs and in front of the hips. And you should be able to feel the hip bones easily with a moderate fat pat on top between them.

People often give each other permission to have overweight dogs by saying, "he doesn't look heavy to me," but most people's eyes are skewed pretty badly by the incredibly overweight dogs they see out there. Moderately overweight dogs get a pass visually, but that doesn't mean they're as slim as they need to be to live the longest, healthiest life possible.

Don't give yourself permission to let your dog be overweight! Even moderately overweight dogs live shorter lives and have more health problems.


----------



## mmacleod75 (Apr 7, 2012)

Awww, what a handsome boy you have there 

My girl is also 1-1/2 years old and she weighs 53.6 lbs and has sat at that weight since she was a year old. The vet is extremely pleased with her weight as she is smaller framed. I had mentioned my father in law thought she was too skinny. Vet assured me she was a perfect weight and is lean and healthy. She said, like Tippykayak mentioned above, a lot of people think if they don't look 'full' with a lot of padding over the ribs that they are too skinny. Not the case. Although Keltey is smaller, she is fed 3 cups of Acana a day (1 cup 3 times a day). She is pretty active. We have her out a lot and she goes to doggy day care once or twice a week where she can run off leash and play all day. Your vet will be able to tell you if your friend needs to trim down and what an optimum weight would be. 

...out of curiosity what happened to his eye?


----------



## lgnutah (Feb 26, 2007)

Did his weight change (I mean, was he at 75 for a while then ballooned up?)
My Brooks went up above 90 lb when he was between 4-5 years old (had always been around 72-78) but that was because his thyroid wasn't working properly. 
After he started on Soloxine (and we began measuring his food carefully-he now gets about 2-2 1/4 cups per day) he dropped 20 lb in a year.


----------



## Me11yC (Apr 15, 2012)

Our Charlie is a similar age and just had a vet check yesterday. He is 79 lbs and height at shoulders is 24" and girth is 31". Vet said his weight is good. 
So it depends on height and that. 
Maybe if you could post some more pictures


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

You really can't judge his ideal body weight based off the breed standard for male goldens, because he probably isn't conforming to the breed standard. It is possible that he is at his ideal body weight if his height is waaay above the breed standard. Having said that, I think it is highly unlikely he is that tall and at his ideal body weight. Also, as already mentioned, your pictures are not very good for us to judge ideal body weight. If you had perfect pictures we could only tell you if the dog is extremely thin or extremely heavy. You really need to get hands on with a golden to tell for sure since they have such a heavy coat. tippykayak gave you some good hands on tips. Also, here is a chart that might help:


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Put your hands on your dog. Photos are incredibly misleading. You should be able to feel his ribs a few inches out from the spine with only gentle pressure. If you can't find them without firm pressure, or you can only find them 6 or 8 inches out and down from the spine, the dog is probably overweight.
> 
> There should also be a waist you can easily feel behind the ribs and in front of the hips. And you should be able to feel the hip bones easily with a moderate fat pat on top between them.


There you go.



tippykayak said:


> but most people's eyes are skewed pretty badly by the incredibly overweight dogs they see out there.


If I hear someone say Fiona is too skinny one more time I'll scream. 21.5" and 58lbs. Apparently they think she would be healthier being on the plump side, sigh.

If I meet someone with a pudgy dog I don't call them fat.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I would say that is obese.... primarily based on age and weight. 
If you show a picture of your dog looking like #5 while wet, then that's different. 
Jacks is 78 pounds, which is on the higher end of the scale. But you can feel his backbone and ribs without pressing through a thick layer of fat. You can see in my signature pic that he has a waist and tuck. When his weight was down to 74, the primary thing I noticed was the weight loss showed in his face and head and he had his "trick bone" (last bone of his rib cage) stick out on either side. So not all dogs will fit within the standard without being too thin.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

I just took Alli for her golden retriever lifetime study appointment and they sent these photos for the vet to look at and assess the Alli's weight according to the photos.


----------



## broncobaby (Mar 27, 2013)

Thank you for the info. I think I should probably start to feed him 2 cups instead.


----------



## broncobaby (Mar 27, 2013)

It seems like he is heavier in the winter because he doesn't get much exercise.


----------



## broncobaby (Mar 27, 2013)

*More Pictures of Bronco*

Thank you guys for the replies. I have posted more pictures (not upside down ). when he stands up, it doesn't look like his tummy is big. But when i touch it, I can't feel the ribs. My vet said he could probably go down about 5 lbs.


----------



## Max's Dad (Apr 23, 2012)

We found that "treats" can be a hidden source of calories. We used to give Max Kirkland Biscuits from Costco. Recently found out that each biscuit was over 100 calories.


----------



## Max's Dad (Apr 23, 2012)

I think your boy looks good!


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

He doesn't look big boned to me. He's probably just taller than average. His legs look very long. From what I can see from the photos, I think he looks healthy. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Jingers mom (Feb 10, 2012)

Riley turned one this month and weighs 80 lbs. he's taller than my adult lab and my adult golden. He's long and lean. I think it depends on the dog. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jingers mom (Feb 10, 2012)

I just saw the pictures you recently posted. I think he looks perfect.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

he looks younger in those pics. If you reduce the food I would personally do it in small increments of 1/4 cups every couple days as opposed to cutting one full cup at one time.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Let me say again that photos can be very misleading. If you can't feel his ribs with gentle pressure a few inches out from the spine, he's probably carrying a little more than ideal. There's a large range where a dog looks fine and isn't truly obese where he's still over ideal. And ideal is where you want them. They never live long enough, and keeping your dog at an ideal weight is the single biggest thing you can do to buy him extra time with you and to keep him healthy during that time.

We go around and around on this forum about neutering age, food ingredients, exercise tips, and all of these other things to help keep our dogs sound and healthy and to keep them around for another month or another year. And the single biggest thing you can do is keep him trim. It's also the cheapest!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> he looks younger in those pics. If you reduce the food I would personally do it in small increments of 1/4 cups every couple days as opposed to cutting one full cup at one time.


This is good advice. It probably won't take a dramatic change in the daily feeding amounts to make a slow, healthy change in weight, and it seems to be a little easier on the dog if you make the changes incrementally.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

Always best to be on the slim side. Better for the joints long term and of course longevity.


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

Buddy is 95 pounds right now. He will be 4 in April. He could lose 5 pounds and will once it gets warmer because I don't enjoy long hikes in the cold.


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

My previous Golden was 120 pounds. He only ate 2 cups of kibble a day and was very active. He played fetch for several hours less than 10 hours before he passed at 13. His head was hip height on me. 

Most Goldens at 90 pounds are fat! Mine are an exception- Easily able to feel ribs. My vet has Goldens himself and is big on keeping them fit and active!


----------



## 1Marianne (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't think he looks overweight at all. My trainer just told me my almost 2yr old, Kona is carrying too much weight around the middle (77lbs) I feed him 3 cups of
eukanuba with a little water a day. Trainer said to check , there may be too high a fat content.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

1Marianne said:


> I don't think he looks overweight at all. My trainer just told me my almost 2yr old, Kona is carrying too much weight around the middle (77lbs) I feed him 3 cups of
> eukanuba with a little water a day. Trainer said to check , there may be too high a fat content.


Welcome to the forum :wavey:

It's been awhile since I've looked closely at Eukanuba formulas, but from what I recall most have pretty good (acceptable) amounts of protein and fat. However, they contain roughly 40-50% carbohydrates. Considering dogs do not need any carbohydrates in there diet, I think it is unacceptable that half of a dogs intake be carbohydrates. If your dog is carrying too much weight around the middle, I'd suggest finding a formula with much less carbohydrate content (it is impossible to find a carbohydrate free dry kibble) and make sure you are not overfeeding. My oldest golden only gets 2 cups a day of Orijen.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

stealle said:


> Welcome to the forum :wavey:
> 
> It's been awhile since I've looked closely at Eukanuba formulas, but from what I recall most have pretty good (acceptable) amounts of protein and fat. However, they contain roughly 40-50% carbohydrates. Considering dogs do not need any carbohydrates in there diet, I think it is unacceptable that half of a dogs intake be carbohydrates. If your dog is carrying too much weight around the middle, I'd suggest finding a formula with much less carbohydrate content (it is impossible to find a carbohydrate free dry kibble) and make sure you are not overfeeding. My oldest golden only gets 2 cups a day of Orijen.


If the fat and protein are OK, what is the rest of the bulk made of if not carbs? Water? Ash? Good intentions?

Also, I think it's incorrect to make a blanket claim like "dogs do not need any carbohydrates in there diet." There's plenty of evidence to suggest that dogs adapted a long time ago to their human domesticators' diets and thrive on a fairly wide range of starches.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> If the fat and protein are OK, what is the rest of the bulk made of if not carbs? Water? Ash? Good intentions?


Bad intentions! As I said, the bulk is carbs. 

I said the protein and fat was "OK" not "great". Also your use of the word "bulk" is perfect in this case. There are too many starches/carbs which make most of the kibble just that, "bulk," that dogs don't need. I can feed a much smaller amount of Orijen to get the same amount of protein and fat as a much larger serving of Eukanuba without all the "bulk". So it's like feeding a meal with an "OK" amount of meat, small side of vegetables and fruit, and a big side of corn. The dog would be better off without the corn and just have a little larger portion of meat. 



tippykayak said:


> Also, I think it's incorrect to make a blanket claim like "dogs do not need any carbohydrates in there diet." There's plenty of evidence to suggest that dogs adapted a long time ago to their human domesticators' diets and thrive on a fairly wide range of starches.


Animals, including people can "adapt" to all sorts of things. If we didn't know any better, one might say that Americans have adapted to a McDonalds diet. Dogs have "adapted" to a diet full of carbs, but that doesn't mean that's what's best for them.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

What are your suggestions for the OP?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

According to second set of photos I would say keep feeding what she is feeding. He doesn't look overweight at all. JMHO.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

stealle said:


> Bad intentions! As I said, the bulk is carbs.
> 
> I said the protein and fat was "OK" not "great". Also your use of the word "bulk" is perfect in this case. There are too many starches/carbs which make most of the kibble just that, "bulk," that dogs don't need. I can feed a much smaller amount of Orijen to get the same amount of protein and fat as a much larger serving of Eukanuba without all the "bulk". So it's like feeding a meal with an "OK" amount of meat, small side of vegetables and fruit, and a big side of corn. The dog would be better off without the corn and just have a little larger portion of meat.


Which Orijen? I'm on spotty wifi right now, so it's not easy to look up the whole Orijen product line, but if the protein and fat are the same GA as a comparable Eukanuba food, the main difference is in _which_ starch makes up the rest of the bulk, not in how much (unless the food has a lot more ash).

And you're playing a word game with "bulk." I used it to mean "the balance," and you turned around and implied it meant "filler."



stealle said:


> Animals, including people can "adapt" to all sorts of things. If we didn't know any better, one might say that Americans have adapted to a McDonalds diet. Dogs have "adapted" to a diet full of carbs, but that doesn't mean that's what's best for them.


You're playing a word game again, here, as you just did before with "bulk." And now I say "adapt," meaning "go through long term genetic changes in order to thrive on a different diet," and you use it to mean "change behavior for convenience's sake."

Dogs have different digestive needs than wolves, and dogs thrive on diets that have some starch in them. You have posted not one shred of evidence, not one iota, that suggests that Orijen is a better food than Eukanuba or that this or that Eukanuba blend somehow has too much starch in general or relative to whatever Orijen blend you're thinking of.

If you want to talk about "what's best" for dogs, lets see some evidence that states that a reasonable amount of starch, be it from potato or corn, is less good for them than an all meat diet. Of course, you can't possible be advocating an all meat diet, since you brought up Orijen, who doesn't make one, so far as I know.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

stealle said:


> What are your suggestions for the OP?


Who me? Already made my suggestions. I said less food. Typically, dogs who are overweight and are otherwise thriving just need less food, not different food. That assumes the OP's dog is overweight, which I wouldn't presume to pass judgment on one way or the other based on photos alone.


----------



## Vinnie's Mom (Jun 9, 2012)

My one year old is 80 lbs. I would like him to lose about 5 pounds. He gets 2 cups per day plus limited low cal treats now. I agree you should reduce the food gradually if you plan to cut it down.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> You're playing a word game again, here, as you just did before with "bulk." And now I say "adapt," meaning "go through long term genetic changes in order to thrive on a different diet," and you use it to mean "change behavior for convenience's sake."


I'm sorry, but you are the one playing word games. Or, you are just confused. It seems you have the words adapt and evolve mixed up. I used the word adapt in the form you would find in the dictionary. You are giving it a whole new meaning. 

I'm not sure if you just want to argue or what? Instead of picking apart everything I say, why don't you just share your contribution to the OP's question and leave it at that? I'll do the same and we can move on.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

stealle said:


> I'm sorry, but you are the one playing word games. Or, you are just confused. It seems you have the words adapt and evolve mixed up. I used the word adapt in the form you would find in the dictionary. You are giving it a whole new meaning.
> 
> I'm not sure if you just want to argue or what? Instead of picking apart everything I say, why don't you just share your contribution to the OP's question and leave it at that? I'll do the same and we can move on.


The reason I contradicted what you said is that statements about the suitability of carbs for dogs fall under the realm of fact, not opinion. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. So when people make claims that are demonstrably incorrect about those facts, I feel it's more responsible and more helpful to the OP to set the record straight than it is to amble along with a live-and-let-live philosophy where people post what they please about nutrition and nobody bothers to sort the fact-based stuff from the internet fads. While I do like the back and forth of a good discussion, I'm interested in facts, not in the process of arguing itself.

For example, if you think I am confused on the terminology of evolutionary biology, wouldn't it be nice to explain to me the scientific difference between the words "adapt" and "evolve," since you seem to know that and I seem not to? That seems far more in the spirit of helpful discussion than letting me labor on in ignorance.

I'll give you a hand: adaptation refers to traits or groups of traits that make an organism more successful in its environment, especially as those traits change over time. In discussions of evolutionary change, we often use the word "adapt" to mean "developed an adaptive trait." Evolution refers to the process of change over time, and typically is used more specifically to refer to the process of the selection of adaptive hereditary traits, either preexisting or created through advantageous mutation. 

Dogs _adapted_ towards human diets over the course of their domestication. They _evolved_ from wolves (or more accurately, from the same ancestral canid as wolves). Taxonomically, they're still in the same species grouping as gray wolves, but they are recognized as a distinct subspecies.

A correct usage of the words adaptation and evolution can be found in the first paragraph of this article on an analysis of wolf and dog genomes that revealed a surprising number of _adaptations_ in the digestion of carbohydrates as earlier wolves _evolved_ into dogs.


----------



## Vinnie's Mom (Jun 9, 2012)

I don't think the OP wanted a dog food debate.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

Rather than continue the word game you are trying to play, I'll attempt to drop the subject about adapt vs evolve. We are using the words differently and that discussion is going nowhere. So about carbs and facts...

Since you have been putting words in my mouth, just as a reminder, here is my original post:



stealle said:


> Welcome to the forum :wavey:
> 
> It's been awhile since I've looked closely at Eukanuba formulas, but from what I recall most have pretty good (acceptable) amounts of protein and fat. However, they contain roughly 40-50% carbohydrates. Considering dogs do not need any carbohydrates in there diet, I think it is unacceptable that half of a dogs intake be carbohydrates. If your dog is carrying too much weight around the middle, I'd suggest finding a formula with much less carbohydrate content (it is impossible to find a carbohydrate free dry kibble) and make sure you are not overfeeding. My oldest golden only gets 2 cups a day of Orijen.


I stick by what I said. Dogs do not NEED carbs. I did not say they were horrible. I did not say they serve no benefit. Just that they do not NEED them. While this link is not to a study, is to a respected journal (The Whole Dog Journal) which agrees with my statement. And, ironically, is even titled "Carbs Contribute the *Bulk* of Your Dog's Kibble": Carbs Contribute the Bulk of Your Dog's Kibble (Even Many Grain-Free Foods) - Whole Dog Journal Article

Please read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt:
"Why include carbs? As we mentioned before, dogs have no nutritional requirement for dietary carbohydrates. They can get everything they need from a diet that contains only protein and fat."

If you read my statement again, I hope you can realize you read more into it than what I said. I shouldn't have to give a link to a study for things that are just common knowledge. I never tried to get into a carnivore vs omnivore discussion. Even those who can not agree on that topic can usually agree the majority of a dogs diet should be mostly high quality meat protein and fat. Personally I think some carbohydrates are good, but I think it should be less than 20% of the diet. I can see how some people might think they can have more carbs than that, but surely most would say that 40-50% carbohydrates are too high. It is a fact that dogs do not have salivary amylase to start the digestion of carbohydrate immediately as it is consumed. Dogs do release amylase further down the digestive tract into the intestines, but dogs have a shorter intestinal system. All of this makes the digestion of most carbohydrates more difficult (but not impossible). 

Dogs can thrive under many circumstances. Some dogs THRIVE on Ol' Roy dog chow, but I believe those dogs are an exception, not the norm. Some dogs THRIVE on the carb-free, prey model raw diet. I believe it IS the norm for dogs to thrive on that diet. Very few dogs do poorly on that diet. I suspect most of the ones that do poorly were from owner error not providing the proper mix of meats, organs, and bone. Personally, I think what's best is a modified prey model raw diet. One that incorporates small amounts of fruits such as berries and veggies such as dark greens because I do believe dogs benefit from phytonutrients, vitamin c and other antioxidants. 

Having said that. I do not feed my dogs what I think is the absolute best diet. Out of convenience, I do feed what I consider to be the highest quality kibble available 5 days a week topped with some raw fresh green tripe. I feed prey model raw on the weekends (the other 2 days). I do also put digestive enzymes on their food to assist with the digestion of the meal (including the carbs). I also put on a mixture of powder that is loaded with phytonutrients and antioxidants from spirulina, chlorella, raspberry, etc.

I still stick by everything I said in my original post. Dogs do not NEED carbohydrates. *IF* the OP is feeding a formula that is 40-50% carbohydrates and *IF* the dog is indeed overweight, then feeding less carbohydrate calories is the best answer here.

The advise of "just feed less of what you are feeding" might work, but the dog will also be getting less meat protein and healthy fats at the same time. Calories come from protein, fat, and carbohydrates. So, if you feed a different kibble that has the SAME amount of calories yet has FEWER carbs, you can feed less of it and still provide an adequate amount of protein and fat.


----------



## GoldenGod (May 24, 2017)

Wow... The amount of misinformation in this thread is unbelievable. People will just spout out anything regardless if they know what they're talking about or not. This forum seems to be a horrible place for information.


----------



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

GoldenGod said:


> Wow... The amount of misinformation in this thread is unbelievable. People will just spout out anything regardless if they know what they're talking about or not. This forum seems to be a horrible place for information.


This thread is 5 years old and has been dead and buried in the archives for just as long. And no, this forum is far from a horrible place for information. I have been a member of this forum for nearly a decade and there are many wonderful, knowledgeable breeders and owners on here, all of whom possess an extensive wealth of knowledge. I cannot even begin to tell you how much I have learned on this forum over the years. The amount of knowledge I have gained is more than I could have ever hoped for.


----------



## GoldenGod (May 24, 2017)

Of course, because like many here, you believe anything you read on the internet if it sounds good to you.


----------



## cwag (Apr 25, 2017)

Just curious about why you keep coming on the forum if you feel that way?


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

GoldenGod said:


> Wow... The amount of misinformation in this thread is unbelievable. People will just spout out anything regardless if they know what they're talking about or not. This forum seems to be a horrible place for information.


No it is not. There is a Breed Standard for Golden Retrievers- a male in good working condition should weigh between 65-75. Much over that is too much. That's not internet, it is the document that governs correct conformation. 
I'm guessing your dog is one of those 100 pounders since you seem defensive. If so, your dog is outside the standard and not correct. If I recall, your dog was one so out of control at a young age that you wanted to ship him off to someone to train for you because OB training was a waste of your time. How's that going?


----------



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

GoldenGod said:


> Of course, because like many here, you believe anything you read on the internet if it sounds good to you.


Excuse me??? Why are you even still here if you feel that this forum is such a horrible place filled with erroneous information??? You are judging this forum based on JUST ONE out of the MILLIONS of threads on here, which is quite pathetic and exceedingly close-minded. You clearly are brand new here and have not even perused through a fraction of the threads on here that offer a plethora of excellent information. I am starting to think that you are just a troll with nothing better to do, especially considering the fact that you resurrected a thread from 5 years ago.

Just as a little FYI since you think you know me, I do NOT believe everything on the internet just because it "sounds good." You do not know anything about me or my level of experience with this breed or dogs in general, nor do you know anyone else on here. I have met so many wonderful, KNOWLEDGABLE people, including many very well-respected breeders, on this forum throughout my 10 years on here and have learned FAR more than I ever would have had I not discovered this forum 10 years ago when were getting ready to bring our first Golden home. We have many longtime members on this forum, some who have been here for well over a decade. Do you think any of us would have stuck around all these years if this forum was useless? I highly suggest that you take the time to browse through some of the topics and threads on here and you will very quickly find what a great wealth of information this place offers.


----------



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

Prism Goldens said:


> No it is not. There is a Breed Standard for Golden Retrievers- a male in good working condition should weigh between 65-75. Much over that is too much. That's not internet, it is the document that governs correct conformation.
> I'm guessing your dog is one of those 100 pounders since you seem defensive. If so, your dog is outside the standard and not correct. If I recall, your dog was one so out of control at a young age that you wanted to ship him off to someone to train for you because OB training was a waste of your time. How's that going?


Ugh...I just saw that thread. Yeah, obedience training is a real waste. What a piece of work! :uhoh:


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

cwag said:


> Just curious about why you keep coming on the forum if you feel that way?


He's trolling.

Just in general based on this person's repeated comments on people offering misinformation and repeating stuff they've heard online, just throwing this out there:

There's a lot of us who are not just involved with dogs online. We live/breathe dogs in real life too. What we own, believe, do, love in "real life" is what leaks over into what we share or comment on online. It is not just a matter of people echoing things they've heard online. Many of us really do know and love this breed through a lifetime of experience and care ourselves. We are committed to standing up for the breed, proper care of the breed, getting people to take better care of their dogs, and encouraging people to be better owners.


----------

