Brooke and Raven had a great time at doggy swim day. It really was a fun day for all that came. My thanks go out to all that made it happen.

Ed
CascadesVa.US webmaster

Posted by Edmlevine (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love it! An elitist "Country Club" for dogs. It only costs $22.50 per month! What a deal. But, oh, you and your dog have to be accepted first (no rif-raf allowed here). Oh, one more thing. Breed matters too. Couldn't be "elite" without a little discrimination, could we?

Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This sounds like a great idea, I spend $300 so my dog can run around in someone's yard. There is a free dog park in Reston (Baron Cameron) that they even tell you about on their website. Unfortunately, like typical liberals, they restrict certain dogs based soley on the breed. These people, claim to be animal lovers, yet they obviously don't know that much about dogs. What a waste of time.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not sure why that has to become a political statement.

Posted by backinloco (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that the Lakes at Red Rock neighborhood offers a dog swim after Labor Day.

Posted by jleete (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In my neighborhood 5+ acres is not a yard.
$300 membership is cheaper than the toll road fees to get to Reston from my western Loudoun home. (I won't even attempt to estimate added gas for the car)
Leesburg Canine Country Club does not restrict DOGS based solely on breed. Rottweilers are banned by many communities, towns, and insurance companies. Ours is allowed at "The Club" because we could prove (via independent professionals that have worked with her) that she is trustworthy and not a danger to animal or human.
Most of the dogs I have met at "The Club" are rescues and some of the people volunteer with rescue clubs. Hmmm, sound like at least dog lovers to me.
Like "typical liberals" I find the owners of the club to be intelligent beings, capable of listening to reason and not simply following their own 'my way is the best' agenda.
I am not an elitist, I just want my dogs to be safe and have a nice romp. I call that responsible dog ownership.
Sue

Posted by rjboyd2002 (anonymous) on September 10, 2007 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I for one am glad to have found a beautiful location where my tiny one can run around off leash and still be protected. She may be only 3.5 pounds, but she likes to run around sometimes too. As a private park, you also know who your neighbors are, that they are all up to date on their vaccinations and licenses.

Posted by dwhitmoyer (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sue,
"Leesburg Canine Country Club does not restrict DOGS based solely on breed." That is a lie. Try reading their website. If there are special conditions for one breed of dog and not another, then they restrict dogs based soley on breed. If you want to take the toll road, that is your choice. Therefore paying those tolls is your choice. Not that it is relevant to what we are talking about. More people are bitten by little yappy dogs like poodles, but those aren't banned. I didn't say they were not intelligent, although since they ban certain dogs based soley on their breed, like it says on their website, they must be spend too much time reading "typical liberal" newspapers like the Washington Post which would have you believe that every pit bull and rottweiler should be put down because they are just waiting for you to turn your back so they can kill your baby. If you are taking you dog to this place, where you are charged this much money and where certain dogs are not welcome based on their breed, then you are an elitist. If you think that you need this place for your "dogs to be safe and have a nice romp", then you don't know what responsible dog ownership is. If, without this place you think your dogs wouldn't be happy, then you shouldn't have a dog.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Before YOU pass judgement have you even visited the Leesburg Canine Country Club? Have you even met the people there?

"You can bring your dog and meet Lauren at the weekly open house, Sundays from 1-3 p.m."

================

About the swimming pool cleanliness. Don't you think that they have to clean it before the next season? Haven't you ever seen the leaf soup that sits in pools during the winter? Dog fur has NOTHING on leaf soup.

Posted by rowrow_lorianne (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would I visit that place? Why would I want to meet the people there? I first heard about it and thought "That's a great idea." Then I went to their website. THEY SAY ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT CERTAIN BREEDS ARE BANNED. Aside from the fact that my dog is one of those breeds, why should I get letters of recommendation for my dog so I can have the privilege of paying these people $300+ to let my dog run around their yard. Anyone who knows my dog knows that he is the sweetest dog on the planet. But because he happens to be a big, evil Pit Bull, I have to get letters of recommendation whereas the owner of some poodle who bites people everyday doesn't. That is ignorant and elitist.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love taking my dogs to the club, watching them run, jump in the pools, frolic with the others dogs, playing tug-of-war, seeing their tails wag as they see their other friends entering the park. I am glad that all dogs are evaluated on an individual basis to ensure the safety of all who are there. Heck, Lauren didn't really care for jack russel terriors until she met mine! The bottom line is this is meant to be a safe harbor to come relax and socialize with other dog lovers. Lauren works hard in that endeavor. Kudos to Lauren for opening the club, a place where my dogs absolutely love to play, me to enjoy the beautiful property and friends I have met.

Posted by denise.lapierre (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, all dogs are NOT evaluated on an individual basis to ensure the safety of all who are there. All dogs who are members of certain breeds are evaluated on an individual basis. She may not have really cared for Jack Russels, but there is nothing saying that if you want to bring your Jack Russel that you need letters of recommendation and a personal review.

How about I open a nice dog park, with ponds, and trails and lots of toys, and only people who are members of a specific political party, or a specific race, can join? You people would go through the roof.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For everyone who's upset about breed specific laws/rules, it's not always because of the breed. Often it's because of irresponsible dog owners who cannot accept the fact that their dog might have a slight genetic predisposition to certain behaviors.

I'm sure, however, there are thousands of forums and venues to express this. I believe that the LCCC is attempting to take measures to make their environment the safest possible for all their members. Sometimes difficult and unfavorable decisions must be made in order to achieve this. Kudos to Lauren and the LCCC for attempting such a difficult (and needed) organization!

Posted by clairethomey (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, ALL dogs, regardless of breed, are evaluated on an individual basis for temperament. Period.

Posted by dianaellman (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

as the owner of a doberman pinscher, i am quite often discriminated against as far as breed restrictions go. i have also known lauren and doug for many many years and find them to be quite knowledgable and fair. lauren has known my dobie since he was 3 months old and he is now almost 4 years old. when we decided we wanted to join the club, even though she knew my dog and had seen him play many many times at local dog parks (and knew he wasn't aggresive) -- she still made us go through the evaluation which i respect. if you are so concerned about having the "aggresive pitbull" why not try and prove the community wrong by taking your dog to parks that do have breed resctrictions and trying to make a difference as far as educating the public instead of getting defensive? that is what i did.

Posted by sadafatashbarghi (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

griffmills, i compleltey disagree with your comment. as a dobie owner and a volunteer with the local doberman rescue, and as a person who has many many friends that own rotties, pitts, and every other type of "aggressive breed" please take some time to educate yourself instead of making ludacris comments.

Posted by sadafatashbarghi (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, ALL dogs are evaluated. You must have missed the last line on the FAQ page: along with the dog's regular evaluation. The evaluation is also mentioned on the Membership Page: To apply for membership, please download, complete, and submit the Member Application Form, schedule an evaluation…………

Also, it says they “restrict” certain breeds, not “ban” them—which I think is quite fair. After all, these folks are trying to create a safe environment and personally bear the liability. And as far as the letters of support go, who else would know the behavior of a dog when he is allowed to make his own choices besides other dog park people or day care people who have seen the dog in action? Allstate Insurance restricts breeds on this list as well; however, they will insure you if you provide proof of “civility”.

You might have also missed that the Owners have a “restricted dog”—a pit—themselves, and I am sure they love him and guard him closely (if they even let him in with the other dogs). It makes me sad (and frightened) that folks who have dogs which are specifically bred to be dog aggressive continue to try to humanize them, stuff a square peg into a round hole, and force them to be in situations which will not lead to a successful outcome.

Love your dog for the dog he is. Let him be the great family dog he is, but don’t expect him to be a person and don’t expect him (or require him) to get along with other dogs. If they do get along with other dogs in an off-leash environment, great, but if they don’t, they are not evil and vicious…just the result of their genetic makeup. Train them to be tolerant of other dogs, but never force them to be with other dogs off-leash. A vigilante mission to prove that dogs of aggressive breeds are suitable for EVERY situation will only lead to misery and fuel the fire for more breed bans when they fail.

These websites specifically write about Pitties, but the information holds true for any breed bred to be dog-aggressive:

http://www.pbrc.net/misc/PBRC_dogpark.pd...
http://www.realpitbull.com/parks.html

And…I am sure that the people “bred” to be dog-aggressive wouldn’t be restricted too (we can all think of one person in particular), but his/her political affiliation, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, “intactness” or religion would be of no consequence!

Posted by misschief70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OOPS!!! TYPO!! And…I am sure that the people “bred” to be dog-aggressive ***WOULD*** be restricted too (we can all think of one person in particular), but his/her political affiliation, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, “intactness” or religion would be of no consequence!

Posted by misschief70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the early part of the 20th century, the pit bull was the most common pet dog. Anyone remember the Little Rascals? What breed do you think Petey was? In the early part of the 21st century, we find pit bulls and other breeds ostracized and routinely killed by shelters. Anyone who calls himself a real dog lover should be appalled.

Posted by jleete (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You guys need to get a life and stop complaining. All Country Clubs are elitist, that's why they are called "Clubs" If it's not something you would want to do then why are you bothered about it anyway. Let people live their life. Also if you adopt a rottie or a pit you should do it knowing there are prejudices out there otherwise don't own one.

Posted by coastalrider (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the name is cute, and kind of a farce! To be a real country club, you would need to add a few zeros the price! Not to mention, I doubt anyone would allow you into the "Club House" with muddy paws and covered in duck poo! I am not seeing elitism here: $135, $180, or $270 per year hardly makes a dent in the mortgage in a county where single family home prices begin at $500k!

Posted by misschief70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does xcop pay to hit a little golf ball on someone's "lawn or yard"? Or perhaps pay "fees" for his/her kids to play in sports that are played on "lawns or "yards" so they get interaction, exercise, and socialization? It's a shame the county can't use a portion of our taxes to accomodate the well-being of pets and provide or encourage more businesses and services for pet welfare in this county.

Also, it is the "evaluation" requirement that attracted me to the club in the first place. Knowing that the other dogs are up to date on shots and have been evaluated as dog and people friendly takes the stress out of an afternoon play for everyone.

Even though I agree with dogs being evaluated or permitted based on an individual basis and not on a breed specific rule - perception of a breed's heredity and irresponsible owners is always on the back of my mind and I find myself taking extra care around such breeds. Hey, I'm human - it happens. Get out there and do something to help change the perception of the breed. Join the club and you can try to change mine.

Posted by speakfreely (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jleete: Interesting "fact" -- do you have any statistics to support that claim other than one fictional character?

Posted by backinloco (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Search the web. You'll find plenty of evidence that pit bulls (actually not just one breed back then) were common family pets. Petey is just an easy reference point. No, I don't own a pit bull or any of the breeds that most people seem to be afraid of. I own a mutt. I wasn't even trying to specifically defend pit bulls. I was simply trying to point out that if the dog changed from a family pet to a threat to society (as yet to be determined), then HUMANS are responsible, not the dogs. griffmills included a post about the breed being developed to encourage certain behaviors and genetic characteristics. If that's true, to me that is cruel, just as it is cruel to breed dachsunds with inherent back problems or breed bull dogs with heads so large they can only be delivered by c-section. The list goes on and on for most pure breeds. All of these things done by humans, not nature. The characteristics desired in a show or true working dog are not always the traits you want in a family pet.

Posted by jleete (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's one: From American Pit Bull Registry website (www.pitbullregistry.com): “By the time of WWI the American Pit Bull Terrier had became a well loved and desired dog breed of choice. In fact the Pit Bull was used as America's canine military mascot of the time as seen in such posters as these during war time.”

Posted by rablrouser (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi xcop.
There is a pit bull who is a member of the "country club," and a weekly visitor. And there is a rottweiler who is a member and a weekly visitor. The owners of the property also own a pit bull who was taken out of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. They have no dislike for the so-called "dangerous" breeds.

By way of background, I take my dog to the rec center on weekends because the park at Baron Cameron isn't big enough for her to reach her full running speed before she has to turn around. She gets more thorough exercise at the rec center. That being said, I also take my dog to the Baron Cameron park during the week because we live in Reston, and we can't make it out to Leesburg after work. My dog loves both places. Both places are well-run and provide an opportunity for valuable exercise for my German shepherd, given that we don't have a yard for her to run in. We choose to pay the small fee for the access to the rec center because we believe that the quality of exercise she gets on the weekends improves her overall health, which offsets vetinary expenses. Heck, my husband and I will blow more money going to the movies on a Friday night than we spend in a month going to the rec center -- and the rec center is actually more fun.

If you dog feels comfortable and enjoys socializing with other dogs off-leash, and if the location of the rec center is more convenient for you than the free dog parks, why don't you bring your dog and check it out? The owners of the rec center are just trying to make reasonable accommodations while responsibly protecting what is a sizable investment for them. They mean no offense.

I imagine it is frustrating to have people look askance at your dog because of his breed. I have experienced a tiny bit of that frustration because I have a rescued German shepherd, and they do have a bit of a reputation. But surely you're somewhat accustomed by now to the extra effort you go to on behalf of your dog. Even if you're not interested in joining, why don't you stop by and check it out, just to see that nobody there intends any offense to either you or you dog.

I hope you have a very nice day.

Sincerely,
Kyrie's mom

Posted by kathychamlee (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

misschief70,
"Also, it says they “restrict” certain breeds, not “ban” them—which I think is quite fair." Didn't Hitler say that about the Jews?

"And…I am sure that the people “bred” to be dog-aggressive ***WOULD*** be restricted too (we can all think of one person in particular), but his/her political affiliation, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, “intactness” or religion would be of no consequence!" Thank you for proving my point about being elitists; wanting to restrict people because they say things you disagree with.

coastelrider,
"You guys need to get a life and stop complaining." If you don't like it, then don't read it.

griffmills,
Sorry, not quite. Pit Bulls were bred to fight bulls in a pit (hence the name), not see other dogs as adversaries.

speakfreely,
No, I don't do either of those. You are right, it is a shame that the county doesn't provide more dog friendly activities such as dog parks. An 'evaluation' is fine. As long as EVERY dog has an evaluation and the standards for that evaluation are established and the standards are valid ones. According to the LCCC website, as soon as they start talking about specific breeds banned (or even restricted as some people like to say because it makes them feel fuzzy inside, sorry if I'm being untactful) that evaluation has no standards. If that perception is on the back of your mind, then maybe you need to open your eyes and stop believing everything you read and see on TV. If you want me to join the club to change your mind, fine. You go ahead and cut me a check for $305 for the first year.

Stop blaming certain breeds of dog for scaring you. Amazingly enough, no one has pointed out Michael (Con)Vick. He is a sorry excuse for a human. Those animals were abused and mistreated. Once they were 'saved' from him they will be put down. Pit Bulls are not aggressive dogs. Sometimes they are trained to fight. That is what you see on the news. You don't see on the news every other Pit Bull that loves his family and behaves like an angle. Likewise with rotts, boxers, etc. Go to PetSmart and ask why they have leather collars with spikes. Do you think the 'aggressive' Pit Bull is gonna pick that one? Do you think that a Pit Bull that has been trained to fight is gonna shy away from the pink lace collars? Some knucklehead with four kids by four different mothers, who doesn't spend one minute with the kids or send one dollar for food or education, gets a dog and trains it to fight. Then these typical liberals blame the dog, because they knucklehead is a victim of society. How about someone hang him from a noose, or drown him, or electrocute him like he did to the dogs?

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

griffmills,
WOW, three Pit Bulls in the United States bit people. You're right. Lets kill them all. You own me 10 seconds of my life back for wasting my time with that ignorant post.

Kyrie's mom,
If you want to belong to the LCCC, that is your choice. However, keep in mind that regardless of the fact that there may be a Pit Bull there, there is an ignorant and unfair practice going on there of restricting certain breeds based on ungrounded opinions. Whether they are trying to offend me or not, they are doing things thay they shouldn't. Don't ban/restrict certain dogs based on breed and require an evaluation for certain dogs. All dogs get evaluated or none do.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Every dog has to undergo an evaluation for the club and the standards are the same no matter what the breed. Chihuahua, beagle, boston terrier, german shephard, greyhound, husky, newfie, labrador, etc. And I value the fact that every dog has undergone the exact same screening process. There is nothing more important than the safety of its human and canine members. If we all have to "pass the test" to minimize the risks, then so be it. I have two "little" dogs that enjoy the opportunity to play with all different sizes and breeds, including the pit bull (who happens to play very well with my 25-lb pups). This club just provides another alternative for dogs and owners to enjoy each other's company and the great outdoors. That's all it is.

As for the cost, the $300 annual membership translates to $25 per month. When I had a dog walker and/or took my pups to doggie daycare, it cost significantly more per month. And my dogs come back from the club so happy and tired that they usually spend the rest of the work week, happily napping. No need for that doggie daycare anymore!

Posted by copyrite75 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And yes, my beagle and boston terrier had to go through the same evaluation as the pit bull. And I was more than happy to do so.

Posted by copyrite75 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

copyrite75,
Go to the LCCC website, click on FAQ.
Next to 'Are any breeds banned?', the third sentence in the first paragraph says: 'Therefore, The Club has additional requirements for certain breeds.', and the third paragraph says: 'Because some of these characteristics may make particular breeds unsuited for canine-canine interactions in a large multi-dog environment, The Club, out of respect, love, and protection for all breeds, restricts American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, Boxers, Akitas, Chow Chows, Presa Canarios, Rottweilers, Dogo Argentino, and certain other breeds which may be similarly unsuited. However, the Club will consider a dog of these breeds on a case-by-case basis with letters of support—one from the dog’s day care or three from dog park patrons—which details their suitable play behavior, along with the dog's regular evaluation.'

Does anyone else have comments on the 'All Dogs are Equal, but Some are Less Equal Than Others' policy of the LCCC?

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi again, excop.

I'm really, really sorry that this situation is so frustrating for you. But I can't help but think that it's really the larger situation (the way Americans view pit bulls) that is the source of your frustration, rather than the smaller issue (how one small business is trying to accommodate a controversal issue while offering a service to as wide a range of clientele as possible.)

I realize it feels unfair, but it's just one small business trying to protect itself from the liability generated by the national hysteria around pit bulls. The owners didn't cause the hysteria -- they're just trying to deal reasonably with it. The extra letters they're asking for will just show that the owners have done their due diligence to address a controversy, and the independent trainer who performs the evaluations uses the same tools and standards for every dog.

Really, in an age in which some insurance companies will deny you homeowners insurance if you own a certain breed of dog, and in which certain towns and neighborhoods ban your dog all together, I just don't see the accommodation as being all that unreasonable.

Is the situation unfair? Maybe, but that's a larger social issue. Is the accommodation this small business is asking for unreasonable in light of the larger social issue? I just don't think so.

Your dog is lucky to have an owner as devoted to you. And you're right -- Michael Vick totally sucks!

I hope you and your dog have a long, healthy, and happy life.

Posted by kathychamlee (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

griffmills, i attacked you personally because your statement was ignorant. like xcop said, pitbulls were bread to attack bulls, not dogs. furthermore, i just read an article where a pomeranian (sp) which is a little tiny white and fluffy dog, no more then 8 pounds or so killed a toddler. a few weeks ago at the baron cameron dog park, an animal control officer happened to mention that the largest number of bites from a specific breed in this area happen to be golden retrievers. perhaps you should read more "facts".

Posted by sadafatashbarghi (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you should also try reading the dangerous dog list that fairfax county puts out every year, more huskies on there then pits, dobies, rotties (you're typical dangerous breeds) combined.

Posted by sadafatashbarghi (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2 girls and 1 cup!

Posted by britneyspears (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't weigh in too much on the question of whether pit bulls bite more people than other breeds becuase I've never researched the issue.

But I'll share an interesting anecdote:

My husband went to New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and worked in a forward-operating base camp of animal rescuers. The camp was inside the city. Animals were brought to the camp, then distributed to shelters outside the city.

He cared for a large number of dogs over the course of a week (probably between 50 and 100). The majority of them were pit bulls and rotweilers. He handled them all at least twice a day and walked them on nylon leads (no control sticks). The only two bites he got were from a labrador retriever, and a small terrier.

Kyrie's Mom

Posted by kathychamlee (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

griffmils,
It ends when you stop reporting irrelevant facts. A person was stabbed to death. Should we ban knives? A person stepped in front of a car and was killed. Should we ban cars? The problem is right in your last post. '...his grandmother's pit bull...' Where was his grandmother? Why wasn't she supervising her dog or her grandson? If she left a gun out and the kid shot himself, she would get charged with a crime, but instead, people like you would sit around saying 'Let's ban guns.' What did the CDC, American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States say about the owner supervision of those Pit Bulls and Rottweilers? What did they say about the amount of obedience training they received? Try reporting all of the facts, not just the ones that you can skew.

kathychamlee,
I appreciate how you feel, but just because a problem is nationwide, or very prevalent, doesn't make it any less of a problem. If I believe something is unjust I stand against it; I don't just go along because it is easy. I am glad that your dog(s) are happy there. Hopefully you can be happy there, too.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks xcop. I respect your feelings, and I wish you and your dog well.

Best,

Kyrie's mom (a.k.a. kathychamlee)

Posted by kathychamlee (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please everyone!!! No need to take any of this personally or attack anyone personally (except maybe XCOP--you really need to READ more carefully what people write because your responses (in agreement or disagreement) don't really correspond to their comments.....and I do not think "liberal" means what you think it means! For the rest of us trying to understand this controversy and form an educated opinion and appropriate action, on the one side are the radicals who believe that this group of "dangerous and vicious" dogs should be banned from existence and euthanized (as though they seek a scape goat to cure the ills of society—one truth XCOP….guns don’t kill people; people kill people). On the other side are the radicals who crusade for this group of dogs to be allowed in every social situation (as though they are trying to save themselves and use this cause as a surrogate). Both are extremists, neither makes sense, and most importantly, neither takes the well-being of the DOG, himself, into account. What is NOT best for the dog is an evangelical crusade and putting him in situations where HE WILL FAIL. Pit Rescues--who fight constantly to ensure that ALL pitties are placed in loving homes--are screaming that pits (with some rare exceptions) don't belong in off-leash environments. These are the experts and the ones who are TRULY devoted to their breed. They are the ones getting their butts out and DOING something, not just ranting and raving. And...let's not forget, the discussion that relates to this article is not about whether dogs of this group should be banned from the County, banned from communities (e.g. apt complexes) and/or euthanized (the last of which is Loudoun County's current policy on pitties in shelters); it is about whether these dogs are able to play off-leash reliably with other dogs. Contact Animal Control or the Loudoun County Advisory Committee to express your opinions in an appropriate venue if you wish to discuss whether pitties should live or die (in fact they recently had a survey which was once the TLCCC website). GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING USEFUL!

Posted by misschief70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

misschief70,
Aside from the opening volley, you gained some cool points (guns don't kill people, people kill people). I don't intend to attack anyone personally, however if someone make comments that are uneducated, ignorant or incoherent, I believe in commenting on them so as to prevent others from reading their comments and saying "I read it on the internet, it must be true", like some people do. I have e-mailed and called LC Animal Control as well as the Board of Supervisors (don't get me started on those Dee Dee Dees) to voice my displeasure with the policy of euthanizing Pit Bulls. Unfortunately, some people state "facts" (ahem) that actually encourage this behavior. I usually do more than just rant and rave, but I had surgery a few weeks ago and my doctor told me to limit my activism to ranting and raving for a while. I always look out for my dog's well being. Although, my dog LOVES the dog park (if I even say 'dog park' he pees himself) I haven't taken him to one in three years. He was at a dog park playing with several other dogs and he tore his ACL. $4,500 later, he is about 95% of where he was, but at 10 1/2 years old now, I don't think he can, or would want to, go through that again.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

xcop- The only difference in the evaluation process for those breeds are the letters of recommendation. And frankly, I have every faith in the LCCC that if they were concerned about any particular dog's temperament, they would ask for additional recommendations (whether it is a breed on that list or any other breed). The recommendations are just a formal way of inquiring whether or not the dog has played nicely with other dogs in a large off-leash environment and if the dog has been well-socialized with other dogs and humans alike. The "club" owners have a pit themselves whom they love dearly and are just trying to provide a nice and fun community for people and dogs to enjoy together.

Posted by copyrite75 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OMG! I think *I* am going to pee myself after reading your last post! Yes, even some liberals own guns--quite a few acutally. You know they are going to have archery at the Rec Center...and an elder dog section and maybe even a section for single dogs so that dogs who don't get along with others can have some space to play too. So, maybe after your doctor permits you to come off of "Rant-and-Rave-Only Rest", perhaps you can help them build some fences and find some other people there with whom to rant and rave. Prejudice goes both ways..and the minute those emerald glasses come off, the world changes color, and the possibilities become endless! And...as long as you can do nothing more than rant and rave...please don't stop making those phone calls!

Posted by misschief70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

copyrite75,
What good do you think a letter of recommendation, or 3, is going to do other than discourage owners of those dogs from becoming members? Even a mean dog doesn't attack everyone. Besides, if a dog is dog-agressive but people friendly, what good will it do to get letters from people?

griffmills,
You can list as many Pit Bull maulings as you want, it doesn't change the fact that these dogs were trained to be this way. If they were trained to be good dogs, you wouldn't have any "facts" to skew. And as you say 12 deaths in the U.S. in 18 months involve PitBulls. How many people choke to death on grapes a year? Should we ban them? (According to your logic, yes.) Do you even know what 'unprovoked' means, when it involves a dog attack (by any breed)? "There is no definitive source for animal attack statistics...", except The Big Book of griffmills' "Facts"? So you keep spewing these skewed "facts", and I call you on it, and the best you can do is 'pissoff'??? And people accuse me of being untactful.
Do you like donuts? The truth hurts, don't it.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

misschief70,
When you say '...a section for single dogs...', I think of dogs hanging out at a bar looking for a one night stand.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Like "typical liberals" I find the owners of the club to be intelligent beings, capable of listening to reason and not simply following their own 'my way is the best' agenda."

Like typical liberals, they only want to have you share your hard earned wealth with people who've not done anything to advance themselves, have foreign countries dictate our domestic policies and give all our rights to government control. Yep...sounds about right of the typical liberals.

I've not engaged a liberal yet that met the criteria of "open minded discussion". It's not in their genetic make up.

I love the fallicy of Internet facts. "God! It must be true! I read it on the Internet(s)! After all, Al Gore invented it/them!

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

XCOP: LOL!! FANTASTIC idea!! Maybe the rec center should have a bar too....for single dogs (and maybe single people)! And everyone could sit around a develop a strategy to make the world a better place where every dog is loved and has a home (oh come on...you know I had to say that). Honestly though, I think you would find many allies at The Club from both sides of the political fence, including the owners, themselves. If not, you could always run up and down the fence line and bark at them. According to the FAQ, the letters of recommendation are supposed to be from dog park regulars or a dog professoinal who have seen the dog play with other dogs...not your neighbors, your bff, or your mom! The dog community is tight (and obviously VOCAL)...guaranteed someone knows the dog and can vouch for him, and someone knows someone who knows someone who knows the recommender and can vouch for him too. CER10DEATH: Huh??? The word "dog" is mentioned nowhere in your post. Have you a point?

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

XCOP: LOL!! FANTASTIC idea!! Maybe the rec center should have a bar too....for single dogs (and maybe single people)! And everyone could sit around a develop a strategy to make the world a better place where every dog is loved and has a home (oh come on...you know I had to say that). Honestly though, I think you would find many allies at The Club from both sides of the political fence, including the owners, themselves. If not, you could always run up and down the fence line and bark at them. According to the FAQ, the letters of recommendation are supposed to be from dog park regulars or a dog professoinal who have seen the dog play with other dogs...not your neighbors, your bff, or your mom! The dog community is tight (and obviously VOCAL)...guaranteed someone knows the dog and can vouch for him, and someone knows someone who knows someone who knows the recommender and can vouch for him too. CER10DEATH: Huh??? The word "dog" is mentioned nowhere in your post. Have you a point?

Posted by misschief70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aw! Heck! I blew my own cover! Stupid cookies! Oh well! This is my first real “blogging experience”, and I just wanted thank all the people who are writing in (especially XCOP, my favorite!). It is wonderful to see such a heartfelt (and not too heated—-ahem!) discussion, to hear words of encouragement and support from our members and our old Barron Cameron Dog Park buddies, and to hear new thoughts from the Loudoun community. I hope that this discussion continues and becomes the springboard for something amazing and productive.
Our dream has always been to become a catalyst for expanding and strengthening the community of animal and outdoor lovers. The farm is but a patch of ground...the real community is made of people and their animals where people and dogs can enjoy each other’s company and put aside their differences knowing that we all have a common love!! The journey to this point has taken us over a year, and we know the journey ahead will take a lifetime. We are making a commitment to this community that we will listen, we will learn, we will grow from and share our experiences, and we will resolve the conflict that will (not may) occur in order to make Falcon Ridge Recreation Center and The Leesburg Canine Country Club the most awesome “place to be” in Loudoun County (whether you walk on two or four legs and whether you have opposable thumbs)!
And for the record, since all of this chatter now seems to be revolving around the infamous “breed restrictions”...We are indeed the proud parents of a doofy American Pit Bull Terrier, we do love him dearly, and we will continue to watch him diligently, train him continuously, and tenaciously defend his breed! He can go in to the off-leash areas...if and only if the situation is right for him...and we have learned from our own past mistakes and successes which situations *are* in fact “right” for him and which situations are absolutely WRONG. He is omega in our pack of three and even our little one knocks the crap out of him and throws him down flat. Put him in with adults of any breed—where the pack order is inherently understood—he retains his goofy Mexican jumping bean nature and wants to love, lick (we call him the “Lickin’ Chicken”), sit in your lap, chase balls, and wrestle his buddies. Put him in with puppies and he loves loves loves them! Put him in with energetic adolescents, and he thinks, “Now is my chance to be Alpha!” and he becomes stiff with tail erect, teeth bared, and head over his target’s shoulder. But if those adolescents are bigger than he, his tail is tucked, his head is hung low, his lip is curled, and the teeth are showing. He is what he is, and we love him just the way he is. Nonetheless he still gets his butt flattened to the ground should he act up!
-Lauren Shifflett (aka MissChief70)

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We also are the proud parents of a Lab/Akita. Again, through our own mistakes, we have learned that he—like any Akita—is NEVER NEVER NEVER allowed to chase, particularly a less confident dog who is a runner/yelper lest he transform into a cheetah and tackle and chest pin (and possibly injure) the unfortunate soul for his beloved owner to retrieve. He is also never allowed to be around any intact male dog over 6 months because the hormones sent is just too overstimulating. For that matter, no dog should be around an intact dog over 6 months—whether that dog is dominant or submissive-—in an off-leash environment EVER. And we love him for what he is...just the way he is (although EVERYONE wishes that he would STOP bringing the ball back and shoving it in our laps over and over and over again). He is our best-trained and most obedient dog, but his butt also gets flattened if he gets out of line.
Everyone agrees our third dog-—a border collie/keeshond—-is a perfect angel [big grin] and he heads up the welcome wagon. He is our sensitive dog.
To see a pic of our darlings, please check out the ABOUT US page!
We are frank and open about our own dogs because we want everyone else who thinks of coming here to be just as introspect. We require the additional letters of support because oft they are not. Those who are tend to be introspect and off-leash regulars relish the opportunity to prove themselves and tell us ALL about their dog.
Remember always and above all else..they are dogs and we love them *because* they are dogs. They all--even the 3.5 pound chihuhua--will defiantly show the vestiges of their lupine forebears (and eat cat poop, roll in dead rats, kill things, and shake at the closest possible proximity). As humans, we can only ask them to change so much to fit into our world. The rest we must accept and accommodate--without judgment (the same benefit they afford us). But in either world--canine or human--we who walk on two feet must remain ALPHA!
Please e-mail us at info@leesburgcaninecountryclub.com (dog-related) or at info@falconridgerecreationcenter.com (rec center related) if you have any questions for us. Or better yet, we hope that you will come to visit us in person!
-Lauren Shifflett (a.k.a. MissChief70)

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 11, 2007 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"and oh, SamImFat and Xdonuteater...pissoff"

nice post griffmills, super clever!!!. are you in 7th grade this year or 8th? i didn't know 13 year olds were allowed to "blog".

Posted by sadafatashbarghi (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"1)A pit bulldog charged a Chicago police officer on the South Side during a routine traffic incident, and the animal was shot.
The attack on South Chicago District Officer Ronald Coleman occurred about 2:30 a.m. Sunday. He stopped a motorist for driving on the wrong side of the street in the 2600 block of East 76th, said Sgt. Johanna Hamel.
2)A pit bull was shot, a cop and a dog walker were rushed to the hospital, and a police horse named "AAA Andy" was badly hurt but alive -- all this after a chance encounter between two animals on a crisp Sunday at San Francisco's Golden Gate Park.
The chaos started at 12:50 p.m. as a young woman walked her black pit bull through the park near the Conservatory of Flowers. According to San Francisco police, she made an illegal and costly decision: She let the dog off its leash.
3)If you have the option to park a large cop near an enemy crime scene using donuts, you should take it. This is by far the strongest way to threaten the player who moves immediately after you with a cop. A cop inside a grey building getting a donut increases it movement options and its threat potential (as a result of being able to move down the street in either direction). On some occasions, a donut can also let a cop that's been moved passed a crime scene to double back!"

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Does anyone know what griffmills is trying to say? 1) and 2) are obviously "facts" as to why (s)he thinks all Pit Bulls should be euthanized. As for 3), if you are trying to demean police officers or me, you are doing a piss poor job of it. The whole cop=donut thing I get, although it is a bit old and unoriginal. Work on it for a while, maybe get mom or dad to help you, and get back to me.

P.S. You can save your Pit Bull attack examples, they didn't work the first time and they still don't.

lshifflett70 (if that is your real name),
Was there really anyone else on the blog other than you and me? :)

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

XCOP: Oh...I was wondering where you went! The blog was too quiet this morning! Anyone else other than me and you?? Probably not...just me and all of my imaginary friends! We all took a vote and decided that you were the kewlest blogger! LOL!

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, I'm still here! I just don't have anything to add.

Xcop, are you literally a former police officer? I didn't understand the donut references, but maybe that was what they referred to.

-Kyrie's Mom

Posted by kathychamlee (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is an article posted to Loudountimes.com this morning regarding the adoption of Pitt Bulls.

http://www.loudountimes.com/news/2007/se...

It states the lastest "Pit bull policy evolving" for the County Animal Shelter. Thought some parties may be interested in reading it. This must have been the result of the survey they asked people to respond to some time ago.

Posted by speakfreely (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you speakfreely! This is awesome! We are putting the article on TLCCC's website right now! XCOP (if that is your real name): Today progress is made.

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

griffsmills,

You sealed the deal for me. I'm going to buy a Pit Bull this weekend just because I know it will piss you off! Where do you live...I'll bring it by so it can pee on your lawn. If you think I'm kidding...I'm not.

I love bigoted, poorly informed miscreants! And easy too! It's like winning a Gold at the Special Olympics!

mischief...you need to read farther back at the beginning of the thread to understand my first comments. Someone - with a tragic brain injury, no less - claimed that they were well reasoned and open minded based soley on the the fact they were liberal. Poppycock! Besides...I thought all liberals were pussycat people?

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lshiflett70,
Sorry, I was busier at work today. I didn't get to upset anyone other than my boss. Was the vote unanimous?:)

Kyrie's Mom,
Yes, I am a former police officer. Prince George's County Police Department, MD. That's where I learned to be so eloquent and tactful in my speaking/writing. :)

As for the LC Animal Shelter policy 'evolving', I think it's great that they will/might start adopting Pit Bulls. I think that they should evaluate the prospective parents of Pit Bulls the same as the do for all other dogs. If some knucklehead wants to adopt a Pit Bull, or any other dog, tell them to 'pissoff'. (Where have I heard that before?) If a Pit Bull, or any other dog has been trained to be dog- or people-aggressive, then maybe they should not be adopted. But it should be on a case by case basis, evaluating the dog and the prospective parents, not just quoting 'facts' that you read in the news.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

grillsmill...
You are SOO FULL OF _ _ _ _ that your EYES ARE BROWN!

TROLL!

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

xcop...

I love the way you write too! Can we have a date? I love cops! I am, however, allergic to handcuffs.

They make me break out in places that are hard to scratch when, uh, you're wearing handcuffs.

You know...I'm looking for a date on Saturday...is your dog available?

My name is Damian and my number is 703-723-4512. Or is that Dial-A-Prayer? Dial-A-Troll?

I know it's kinda creepy to date out of your species but I gotta tell you...you dog sounds MIGHTY sweet! He's fixed...ain't he? He can be my new BFF!

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cer10death,
What about your old BFF?
And I don't like to call it 'fixed'. I prefer 'broke'. He was fixed before the vet cut his family jewels off, or as I like to call it before he was griffmilled.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh..yeah...old BFF! I love him too!

Heck, I'm griffmilled too! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Know what I mean?

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 12, 2007 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW....I have never seen sooooo many elitist liberal dog lovers in my life. On a different note, I really never understood why people who live in small townhomes or apartments own big dogs? Do you buy a pet hamster for your child with out the proper cage? Do you not buy fish without the correct size tank? Then why would you own a 120 pound dog in a 600 sq ft. condo?

Posted by ed (anonymous) on September 13, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

xcop- I'm still here too! And it wasn't just you and shiflett. I promise (smile).

Posted by copyrite75 (anonymous) on September 13, 2007 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you not buy fish without the correct size tank? Then why would you own a 120 pound dog in a 600 sq ft. condo?

that is a silly comment. there are lots of breeds, like mastiffs for instance that are huge dogs, can weight over 125 and are great for apartment style setting because they are so lazy. i live on 8 acres and a good portion of that is fenced in, do you think if i let my dog out there he would play? heck no! he would stand there and look at me like "what am i supposed to do now?". and plus, i personally think that weather or not you have tons of land with a huge dog or no lang with a huge dog, its about socialization, sure i can walk my dog for 2 hours a day, but i want him to interact and play and socialize with other dogs.

Posted by sadafatashbarghi (anonymous) on September 13, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

On the other hand, my two little dogs which are supposedly a "good size" for a condo, need all 8 acres to chase each other until they finally tire from the neverending energy. And anyone who's met my dogs can attest to that.

Posted by copyrite75 (anonymous) on September 13, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Griffsmills,

For the record, I didn't bring your son into it, sir. YOU DID! Great job there, Dad! I may be tauting, opinionated and at times -poorly reasoned...I am not, however, a social cad to where I would bring your child - special or not- in the an exchange with his supposed father. You, however, chose a different path. And by the way...I'm so proud that you learned how to copy and paste the Special Olympic slogan from their web site. Nice touch of seemed authenticity.

Since my previous posts failed to mention the word "dog", I seek to set the record straight. I have a dog, a cat (who often times sleep together - quick! Call the police!) 14 fish (who would sleep with the cat and dog except some would be wet and some would be cat food), a dead hermit crab that xcop found the last time he was at my house (who would love to sleep with everyone in the house - including the cat and the dog and the fish), several camel grasshoppers (who are the UGLIST things on the planet and NO - xcop won't sleep with them), and various and sundry mites that eat off our dead skin when we sleep. Yummmmmmy!

GO TERPS! BEAT WVU! (only say that because I went to UVA!)

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 13, 2007 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh...and shut up ed! I'll tell your boss!

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 13, 2007 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey griffmills,
Since you are trying to add "facts", here is one for you.
"Investigators located the dogs, which are American bulldog, believed to have attacked the victims at an area residence, where they were seized by animal control officers, state police said."
In your cutting and pasting of facts to try to prove your point, you dishonestly and obviously intentionally, deleted part of the article. You took out the '..., which are American bulldog,...'
Then you lied again and changed 'The dogs...' to 'The pit bulls...'; the correct quote is: "The dogs, ten in all, belonged to a neighboring farm, according to police."
If you actually have a son and if he is going to be in the Special Olympics, I hope he is so disabled as to not be able to read your postings to see what a lying poor excuse for a father he has.

Here is the link for the article that griffmills changed to fit his needs: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14112....

And before you start crying about how similar American Bulldogs and Pit Bulls are, it doesn't matter because you are a liar!

Do ya like donuts? The truth hurts, don't it!

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 14, 2007 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Embarrassing.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 14, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Griffsmills,

Wow. Nice lying there buddy...you must work for the federal government or the Greenway adminstration.

Not that you had any cred to lose or anything.

Hit bottom and keep digging!

Let me guess...you live in Landsdownesyndome, Virginia? You're the mayor you say?

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 14, 2007 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's the problem? If you don't like the idea of this "club", don't join. And yes, I'd pay $300/year to let my dog run in someone's yard. It certainly is cheaper than buying a $600,000 home that I can't afford. And there are always people complaining about dogs doing their business on common grounds around here, but the dogs have to go somewhere. And as a respectfull owner, I always pick up after mine. " I really never understood why people who live in small townhomes or apartments own big dogs? Do you buy a pet hamster for your child with out the proper cage? Do you not buy fish without the correct size tank? Then why would you own a 120 pound dog in a 600 sq ft. condo?" Now that's a stupid remark. I for instance had a huge yard in Texas that my two Border Collies loved. Since we moved back to VA, we can not afford a house with a yard. So since I have two very hyper Border Collie's, and live in a townhouse, should I get rid of them? Am I being a terrible dog owner because I can't afford a house? Talk about naive.

Posted by luv2napp2005 (anonymous) on September 16, 2007 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LCCC is a joke. Lauren has one of the "banned" dog breads, and it wouldn't pass her own test... I can tell you that!!

There was an issue there earlier in the year with Lauren's banned breed and a paid member. Lauren didn't care to cover any of the other vet expenses, nor did she care when the event took place.

She has TONS of ideas... when she gets 200 members!! haha. All of her planned dates for expanded areas of the park have been pushed back. Some as much as an extra year. It's a joke!

She has her little business listed as a "Recreational Park" and not a dog park... she is just finding ways to scam someone. Members or local gov't.

If anyone was looking to join this club at the beginning of the year you would have been paying MUCH more. Guess the goal of 200 members didn't happen quick enough (big surprise!) so she revamped the pricing.

Nothing is consistent with this place!!!!

Morven Park will have a free park someday. I will easily wait!!

Posted by noemail9 (anonymous) on September 16, 2007 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

luv2napp2005,
'What's the problem?' Have you been reading this blog? What do you think the problem is? Now THAT'S a stupid remark. And I'm glad that I have your permission not to join this club. If you can't afford a $600,000 home, why did you move from Texas to Northern Viginia? Didn't anyone tell you that homes are expensive here? And it's not being a 'respectful owner' by picking up after your dogs, it's the law. Are you a 'respectful driver' by not running people off the road?

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 17, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(1 of 2) Before reading this post, please read the two posts from LShifflett70 on 9/11/2007 at 11:39PM. NOEMAIL9 must be one of the dog’s owners, themselves. Although every person who visited us has been apprised of this incident and what we have done to prevent it in the future, no other person would know whether we offered to pay for vet bills. This post disappoints us greatly. Not only did these people fail to learn from our mutual error, but also, the poster has omitted certain facts in order to lend credibility to her story and to fuel the existing breed ban hysteria: THEIR EIGHT MONTH OLD IRISH WOLFHOUND WAS INTACT. The wolfhound owners—one of whom shows dogs—requested an exception to the 6-month-old neutering policy because their dog is submissive and because their vet advised them that giant breeds—such as Irish Wolfhounds—cannot be neutered until they are 12 months old. This is the policy:
The Club forbids intact (not spayed or neutered) dogs-which can increase the incidents of dog fights-over the age of 6 months…Even if your intact dog is not aggressive toward other dogs, the presence and scent of any intact dog—whether dominant or submissive—and accompanying hormones can trigger aggressive behavior in otherwise stable dogs around him/her. These over-stimulated dogs may target the intact dog, each other, and/or any other dogs within their reach.

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 17, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(2 of 2) We granted their request. By accepting this policy exception, both we (as owners of TLCCC/FRRC) and they (as owners of the intact male), accepted responsibility for any consequences. At the time the incident occurred, the owner of the lab/akita (Doug) was returning our pit bull to the house because he is not suited for play with adolescent males; I remained. While Doug and the pit bull were gone, the lab/akita took a new and different interest in the Wolfhound’s “ripe scent”, and the Wolfhound suffered what appeared to be a minor puncture wound to a hind leg. The lab/akita disengaged immediately when he was called, and he was submitted and removed for the day. The Wolfhound owners, despite my offer of hydrogen peroxide or betadine, instead poured bleach on the wound. This owner proceeded to verbally attack us and the lab/akita, and to demand the lab/akita be forbidden entry while they were there. Responding as owners of TLCCC/FRRC, we explained that, because we had made an exception to the policy—and the exception proved unwise—we could not forbid entry to an otherwise stable neutered dog. Rather, we explained that the Wolfhound would need to be neutered before his return, and if they did not wish to wait, we would refund their fee in full. Upon their request, we did refund their fee. As owners of the dog, we feel that we should be responsible for any vet bill; however, to date, despite multiple requests to view the vet records and the invoice, we have seen neither.
The silver lining for us is that the incident occurred with our own dog when no one else was there. Had the incident occurred with another guest’s dog, we (as TLCCC/FRRC owners) would have been responsible to the owner of the other dog as well because we made an exception to the policy without the other owners’ express permission.
The silver lining for other dog owners is that this incident occurred with us and not you. Had it occurred in a public park and your dog had acted out against an intact male, *you* would have been responsible and *you* would have been subject to the same treatment these ladies afforded us.
I fear that they will take this intact male to a public park and subject him to great harm, especially if the over-stimulated dog’s owner is not as responsive as we were.

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 17, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see comments above from "sour grapes", and some really rotten personalities behind a few of those keyboards. In my opinion, it comes down to "choice". With the lack of facilities in Loudoun County, this business fills a hole that is badly needed. Don't blame the dog owners for wanting this option for their furry family members or the business owners for supplying it. And as for the cost -well - I'd like to join a Golf Country Club - I can't afford it - but I'm not going to blame or insult those that can - especially when I haven't met those individuals. Also, nothing in life is guaranteed or perfect - but you can take the efforts to minimize problem areas with certain breeds which is what I see these responsible business owners doing (and fully support it). If you feel your dog - regardless of the breed - would benefit from this service - then go the extra mile to meet the requirements to make sure you, your dog, and other dogs and their people have the pleasant time that you "pay for" when at the club. If you don't chose to "purchase a membership" and still want this option for your pet - then pressure and criticize the county representatives. (I bet if a politician running for election started spouting in support of pet issues - they'd probably have a big voting base). But if your dog is not accepted due to behavioral issues noted from the club's evaluations - then take that observation as "constructive" and get additional training and try again. It is possible, a potential behavioral problem could save you money, time and a certain amount of anguish later if it's not corrected regardless of where you take your dog for exercise. One last note, ALL dog owners are responsible for their dogs while at this club - whether it's picking up dog poop - or just monitoring their dog(s) activity during play or downtime at ALL TIMES. A dog owner should always be ready to intervene and make an immediate correction when its needed. If not, problems, like noted above, can happen at any time - anywhere depending on the situation - regardless of how "sweet" the dog normally usually is.

Posted by speakfreely (anonymous) on September 17, 2007 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who are you speakfrealy who comes so readily to our defense? You are not a member! I know all of thier aliases! I must clarify my statement above lest I be accused of bearing false witness to an innocent dog. The owners spoke true of the wolfhound's temperament--he is a submissive docile dog. The poor gentle giant was but trying to catch a snooze when he was so rudely interupted by a dog who took offense to his testicles. Their dog was innocent. We, the two *human* parties involved, were not!

Posted by lshifflett70 (anonymous) on September 17, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look...the reality is you cannot "profile" a dog simply by his breed. Temperment can easily be trained to be enhanced or diminished.

Banning a dog simply because YOUR insurance agency told you to is simply a business decision. Call it was it is...risk mitigation...nothing more.

You're not the dog whipserer. You have NO IDEA what would trigger a dog despite the testing you do. The dog isn't applying to join Mensa! (I've been to one meeting...frankly, I'll take the dogs!) I'd love to listen in on that interview. Interviewer - "Hi Spot! Good to see you today! How do you feel about OJ Simpson getting arrested?" Spot - "Ruff". Interviewer- "No Spot, he was innocent in a court of law" Spot- "Ruff, Ruff!" Interviewer- "OK Spot, you made your point. He MAY have hacked off his ex-wife's head with a butcher knife but...that doesn't automatically make him guilty of armed robbery!" Spot- <starts to lick himself with a frenzy.> Interviewer-" Spot...I'm sorry you didn't pass the test. OJ was found innocent by a jury of his peers. Good bye!"
Spot- <continues to lick himself with glee>
End

Posted by cer10death (anonymous) on September 17, 2007 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Xcop:

Why did I move from Texas to here?? Ever heard of job relocation?? My husband is a US Border Patrol Agent who has spent seven years patroling the borders of our country. He was asked to move to DC, which is where the Homeland Security Headquarters is located. We didn't have a choice. I'm sorry I can't afford a house here, but I make do. And if part of making due is allowing my dogs to join a club where they can run free and frolic, then so be it.

Posted by luv2napp2005 (anonymous) on September 18, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Xcop:

Also, I know it's the law to pick up after my dog. I was just stating that I am being respectful because there are so many people who DON'T pick up.

Posted by luv2napp2005 (anonymous) on September 18, 2007 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that people do have a decision to make the choice to pay or not to pay. But I am not spending money for something I (as well as other that went for the behavior exam) do not stand behind.

Lauren can explain the previous situation(s) to make it look like it's mutual, but she does have a dog breed that was kept under a very close eye during numerous dog exam visits. Not surprised a situation happened and not surprised how it was handled. Take responsibility and not push the blame somewhere else. That doesn't gain you credibility!
Also the attacked owners dog was considering contacting BBB, that should tell you something about the operations, and not the attack itself.

Now... to go over the recent change of plans on the website.
There were/are a lot of great "ideas" once they reach the "200" members. Because of that I can understand the unsafe feeling of handing money over and waiting for those ideas. Ideas you won't see unless you continue to pay for many years.
Looking at the site... they have
entirely changed their pricing. Now it's set to price by the "acre" play area.
I guess the members ($$$) wasn't pouring in.

The previous "Pre-Opening" price was:
Large Dog # 1 - $420 annually
Small Dog # 1 - $300 annually

That was the "pre-opening" rate! The after opening price was even higher! Compare that to todays rates.

Interesting sidenote: Anyone with a "small dog" would have to pay "large dog" price to allow the little guys to play with the big guys!

Hard to believe the "pre-opening" large dog
rate with 200 members would give her almost $85,000 before she would begin the upgrades.

If you believe in the product you will have to sell it from the beginning. Not a bunch of big "if" statements! So, there will be people most likely paying for years before they see these improvements. Doesn't seem very fair.

If fencing in YOUR yard/woods is for the dogs THEN DO IT! Don't wait for the people to join so you can improve your land on their dime!!!

I can do the math... you may be in the hole after year 1 (or 2) but OH WELL!! Not the customers issue to deal with. You have the vision. You should have the "ideas" completed.

All of the upcoming features have been pushed back already(from the stated dates at the beginning of THIS year)

*6-acres of fenced dog-friendly areas (expanding to 10 acres by Spring 2008)
*11-acre wooded area with nature trails (fenced by Spring 2009)
*Planned for Summer 2008: swimming pond

All of those were originally set to be completed THIS year, and early next year for certain features. Heck, you've already pushed things back for years!!

All I am saying is that the customer should be offered those features from Day 1! Not down the road (a distant road). They shouldn't be paying for your upgrades!!

Personally, this is a great upcoming idea that will not cost any money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Posted by noemail9 (anonymous) on September 19, 2007 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

luv2nap2005,
My thanks to your husband for doing that job. It is a very difficult one, and you should be proud of him. Law enforcement officers are greatly underappreciated, I know. However, when you ask "What's the problem?" to something that has just been explained over the previous 6 days and however many dozen blog entries, and then start calling people'scomments stupid just because you disagree with them makes you look ignorant. If your husband was moved to D.C. from Texas for his job, and he agreed to the transfer (it isn't the military, you do have a choice) then you have no one to blame for the cost of things but yourselves. There is plenty of inexpensive housing in P.G. County and Southeast D.C. And you are not being respectful for picking up after your dogs, you are obeying the law. Are you a great parent for not beating your kids with a stick because there are others that do?

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 20, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Xcop:
First of all, thanks for your kind words for my husband. I AM very proud of him. I'm just going to state one more thing, then I'm done. I know it's not the military, but with the Border Patrol, once you become a Supervisor, you don't have a choice. If they tell you to go somewhere, you have to. In our case, it was a good thing, all things considered. He is now an Assistant Chief, which is quite an accomplishment after only nine years of service. We will be here two more years with the knowledge that we will be going back to the border somewhere after that.
And, ok, yes, I'm abiding by the law by picking up after my dog. Point taken.

Posted by luv2napp2005 (anonymous) on September 20, 2007 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

griffmills, tell me where the lies are! It is all sad but true.

PS - Please give me $500.00 annually and I will provide a magic raindow for your dog(s) to play on (may take 10-12 years to provide though). Cash or money order only.

Thanks!

Posted by noemail9 (anonymous) on September 21, 2007 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From 'pissoff' to this? griffmills seems to have developed a sense of humor.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 21, 2007 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This post doesn't mean anything; I just wanted to be the 100th blog.

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on September 21, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Griffmills, yes genetics do play a factor in how dogs behave. APBTs might be naturally more dog agressive than many other dogs, but how you raise them DOES effect how they turn out to a huge degree. I know plenty that can co-exist with other dogs rough housing them, and it does not turn into an all out brawl. I have an extremely high prey-drive Game dog, and yet she never bites unless bitten, and despite being an Alpha, never forces other dogs to submit. You have to know how to curb inherited traits.

Hey luv2napp2005, I don't feel the same way about all Law enforcement, but I must say I really appreciate Border Patrol. Don't pay attention to xcop, because SE, DC and PG Counties are not places you would ever want to live. Not like xcop knows anything about those places anyways. I definitely feel you on your problem with housing. Same goes for everyone living around here these days it seems. I have been here forever, and the prices are even hard for us to fathom. Does your husband work in the District or VA?

Posted by ThePoetMC (anonymous) on October 2, 2007 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ThePoetMC,
"Don't pay attention to xcop, because SE, DC and PG Counties are not places you would ever want to live. Not like xcop knows anything about those places anyways."
FYI, I lived in P.G. County for 26 years and was a police officer there, as well. And, apparently, since the population is 841,315 (2006 U.S.Census estimate) some people would want to live there. However, the point I was making, which I guess was a little complicated for some people to understand, is that anyone who moves to the D.C. area for work, but cannot comfortably afford Loudoun County, has other options. Those places may be crime-infested, bleeding-heart liberal wastelands, however they are an option. By the way, how do you know whether or not luv2napp2005 would want to live in Southeast D.C. or in P.G.? And how do you know what I know about anyways? Where can I sign up for that mind reading class?

Posted by xcop (anonymous) on October 2, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ThePoetMC:
Thanks for the nice comment about Border Patrol. It's definately a very demanding career and he's doing an amazing job. My husband works in DC, which is where Border Patrol headquarters is located.

Posted by luv2napp2005 (anonymous) on October 4, 2007 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We need better protection... the borders these days have Vegas style signs pointing the people right in to the country!

Posted by noemail9 (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just ran into this and found it interesting.
Wonder why everyone is so upset about the rules at LCCC when they are so upfront with them before you ever go check out the place and it is PRIVATE property.

Incidentally I was a member of LCCC and was asked to not come back because some people were uncomfortable with my dog and her actions (great pyr). Was I offended? yep. Like any parent being told their child was bad on the playground. But I knew before I went there that Abby was under socialized and may have a problem. That was why I jonied. She went thru the eval and I was amazed that she did as well as she did. After a few weeks it was recommended that I take Abby thru training and was refunded my money. I thought she did ok with the dogs there but she did not like Cody the Huskey. He was young and in her face and she didn't like that. Will I go back after further training? Not sure...I live almose 35 miles away but we loved the place and I will definitely consider it. Expensive? People trying to make a living?
Why not...their choice. Incidentally we ran into the pitbull at their home one day and the "2 dogs" with a problem got along just fine.

Posted by ragmolmab (anonymous) on October 13, 2007 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ragmolmab, I apologize for Cody the Husky - he is a very playful dog (one track mind, play, play and more play, short rest, and play again) and he thinks that all other dogs are the same way from his experiences at the LCCC. Abby seemed like a nice dog (and definitely a beautiful one.) Some dogs do fine on a one-on-one basis, but that same dog may get overwelmed and stressed when placed in an area where there are many more active dogs to contend with at one time. It's just my opinion of course, and I have no special abilities or anything above the most minor training capabilities, but I'd like to suggest taking a slower paced introduction to socializing Abby with multiple dogs. I think that might be easier on her. After that, I hope that you would consider coming back to the LCCC when you think she is ready.

Posted by mywords (anonymous) on October 16, 2007 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the kind words to my big goof ball. I wasn't really upset with Cody but I think Abby would have been fine if she could have stuck it out a little longer. I know when she was showing her teeth it can be a bit frightening. We have had her at lots of events since with lots of dogs including a bark in the park and she did great. She is definitely a dominant minded dog though so I will have to see how things go in the future with her. She did seem to enjoy the one on one episodes with the other dogs at the LCC so we may be back in the spring.

Posted by ragmolmab (anonymous) on October 18, 2007 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the place is still a joke

Posted by noemail9 (anonymous) on March 19, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)