# fallout: One consequence of using aversives, punishers, or harsh handling



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

this is from a fellow trainer on Facebook, posted with her kind permission: 


> Adele Marshall
> 
> _I had a private client today that was initially referred to me through the client's mother.
> When I walked into her house, we realised I'd been there 4 years ago, when the dog was 18-MO.
> ...


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> this is from a fellow trainer on Facebook, posted with her kind permission


Thought I'd take you off ignore for a few mins & what do I find.

OK, point taken, your promoting choke chains as a safe bit of equipment, one person, 12,000 miles in Oz, had a problem with a choke chain, you posted in a country with an estimated 10.5 million dogs.

You must be promoting choke chains as a favourable, safe training aid? I mean only one person in the world had a problem with one of them, you'll have everyone rushing out to get one if they're so hazard free.

No mention of the Hallgren studies on flat buckles I notice, that being the only & most important study ever carried out on canine neck restraints, not to speak of any reference to the post below which is in UK, did you mention both those on Facebook?

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/198598-hydra-hates-her-new-gencon.html

.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Thought I'd take you off ignore for a few mins & what do I find.
> 
> OK, point taken, your promoting choke chains as a safe bit of equipment, one person, 12,000 miles in Oz, had a problem with a choke chain, you posted in a country with an estimated 10.5 million dogs.
> 
> ...


It seems to me from reading the first post, that L-f-L is not promoting choke chains at all. The point of the post is that when someone stopped using positive methods for training their dog, but used a trainer using negative methods including a choke chain, the dog developed aggression.

She was saying the positive methods used on the dog previously had been more successful. Pity the owners didn't follow through.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> It seems to me from reading the first post, that L-f-L is not promoting choke chains at all. The point of the post is that when someone stopped using positive methods for training their dog, but used a trainer using negative methods including a choke chain, the dog developed aggression.
> 
> She was saying the positive methods used on the dog previously had been more successful. Pity the owners didn't follow through.


Sleepy knows that already but seems insistent on trolling and deraling every time LFL and some others post. There is rarely anything meaningful, and as with this example even related to the OP. SB should just go to the Millan forum where he can be happy in the dominance echo chamber.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Thought I'd take you off ignore for a few mins & what do I find.
> 
> OK, point taken, your promoting choke chains as a safe bit of equipment, one person, 12,000 miles in Oz, had a problem with a choke chain, you posted in a country with an estimated 10.5 million dogs.
> 
> ...


 Do you even read the posts or do you just spout whatever you think will get a reaction?


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> She was saying the positive methods used on the dog previously had been more successful. Pity the owners didn't follow through


Thats irrelevant to my post, probably deliberatly so, my post was about global statistics on subject topic, not what ONE unknown person, for unknown reasons MIGHT have done half across the globe, it's a silly post especially as it left out the Hallgren studies, the Haltie study & the more recent Glencom post.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Thats irrelevant to my post, probably deliberatly so, *my post was about global statistics on subject topic*, not what ONE unknown person, for unknown reasons MIGHT have done half across the globe, its a silly post especially as it left out the Hallgren studies, the Haltie study & the more recent Glencom post.


Wow, I thought my posts come across confusing at times...'global statistics on subject topic' ey? I didn't think 4 studies represented global statistics, but obviously so. That makes getting statistical significance and proving hypotheses a whole lot easier though, I must say.


----------



## SLB (Apr 25, 2011)

Sleepybones - where do I find this ignore button.. 

Good on the family for realising their mistake.. hopefully it'll all be onwards and upwards now


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Alarming facts from a recent survey : 

63% of the dogs examined had neck and spinal injuries. 

78% of the dogs with aggression or over activity problems had neck and spinal injuries. 

Of the dogs with neck injuries, 91% had experienced hard jerks on a leash or had strained against their leashes. 


The study concludes that leash corrections, the dog forging ahead or a tethered pet hitting the end of a solid line may inflict spinal injury.


Excerpts from the above mentioned survey:

During 1992 several Chiropractors, my students and I conducted a study of 400 dogs from different dog clubs in Sweden. Dog owners were offered a free examination of their dog by a chiropractor in return for their voluntary participation. Those who volunteered to participate in the study had mostly ordinary dogs, in that owners presented them to us without any suspicion of spinal anomaliesCanine back problems are common. The result of our study showed that the chiropractors found back anomalies in 63% of the 400 dogsdogs that acted out in other words, that exhibited over activity and aggression, 78% had spinal anomalies. Spinal anomalies seem to constitute an irritation that often results in stress reactions, aggression or fear. This is also in accordance with my own and my students experience with problematic dogs... In our study there were some factors that correlated with spinal anomalies. These were: 

Accidents. 

Pulling on leash (see explanation below). 

Limping during adolescence. 


Pulling on leash:

Of those dogs that had cervical (neck) anomalies, 91% (!) had been exposed to harsh jerks on the leash, or they had a long history of pulling or straining at the end of a leash. There is a risk of "whip-lash" from jerking the leash that probably increases if the dog wears a choke chain. Choke chains are constructed such that pulling it results in pressure distributed around the dog's neck, but the muscles that absorb the pressure are situated mostly at the sides of the neck. The neck and throat are almost unprotected.
Choke chains can be dangerous. For many years I and others have criticized the use of choke chains and training methods that use jerking and pulling on a leash as a means of controlling behavior. Unfortunately, most dog trainers use just this technique. There is probably a relationship between the force of the jerk and the risk of injury. I believe dog owners should be warned that chaining a dog to anything firm, that isn't elastic, without surveillance may increase the risk of a spinal injury. A dog can easily forget the boundaries of the chain or rope, accelerate, and suddenly come to a halt, with all the stopping power concentrated around the dog's neck. 

Hallgren , Animal Behavior Consultants Newsletter July, 1992, V.9 No.2.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

^^ Great post, I was just looking for that study a few days ago! 

I think we can all agree that a dog that pulls on the lead, reacts, strains etc., and who is on ANY neck collar, is in danger of damaging themselves. I would always recommend a harness for these dogs. You can practise loose lead walking on their normal collar in your own time, and use the harness for normal walks. I find dogs relax more on harnesses too.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Thought I'd take you off ignore for a few mins & what do I find.
> 
> OK, point taken, your promoting choke chains as a safe bit of equipment, one person, 12,000 miles in Oz, had a problem with a choke chain, you posted in a country with an estimated 10.5 million dogs.
> 
> ...


Do you ever read anything properly before spouting your opinions? LFL is quoting, with permission, a post from Facebook. It is not something she has posted herself. Where do you imagine that one referred to case of damage caused by a choke chain is the only one in the world?



SleepyBones said:


> Thats irrelevant to my post, probably deliberatly so, my post was about global statistics on subject topic, not what ONE unknown person, for unknown reasons MIGHT have done half across the globe, its a silly post especially as it left out the Hallgren studies, the Haltie study & the more recent Glencom post.


The post had sod all to do with haltis, gencons or any other headcollar. Are you on a mission to get every informative post closed down?


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Where do you imagine that one referred to case of damage caused by a choke chain is the only one in the world?


Well we have to go by statistics, the implication of L4Ls' post was that the cause of aggression was a choke chain.

By that same reasoning, on this board, within a few days of each other, we have 2 individual cases of aggression, in neither case is there any suggestion that any dogs involved wear a choke chain, so by the same reasoning, twice as many incidents of dog aggression is caused by dogs which do not wear choke collars, i.e. out of 3 cases of dog aggression, in one case the dog wore a choke collar and in the two other cases they did not wear choke collars.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/199594-my-dog-attacks-me-when-phone-rings.html

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/199540-fight.html
.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Well we have to go by statistics, the implication of L4Ls' post was that the cause of aggression was a choke chain.
> 
> By that same reasoning, on this board, within a few days of each other, we have 2 individual cases of aggression, in neither case is there any suggestion that any dogs involved wear a choke chain, so by the same reasoning, twice as many incidents of dog aggression is caused by dogs which do not wear choke collars, i.e. out of 3 cases of dog aggression, in one case the dog wore a choke collar and in the two other cases they did not wear choke collars.
> 
> ...


"your logic is flawed" Mr. Spock 1966


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> looking for that study a few days ago!


Full download at link, they also said;

_There as no correlation between choke chain collars and back problems. No correlations were found in any of the three parts of the back (lumbar, thoracic, cervical)._

Free download
http://www.4shared.com/document/tE5oO33T/Hallgren.html


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> "your logic is flawed" Mr. Spock 1966


Your reading nous is flawed, as an avid Spock fan I did not use the word logic, I used - same reasoning - "same" meaning the same reasoning as the first post.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Thats irrelevant to my post, probably deliberatly so, my post was about global statistics on subject topic, not what ONE unknown person, for unknown reasons MIGHT have done half across the globe, its a silly post especially as it left out the Hallgren studies, the Haltie study & the more recent Glencom post.


Once again I find myself puzzled, I must be the thickest person on here. I dont know what the Hallgren study is, neither do I know what the Haltie study
is about, Halties I suppose, do we actualy need a study to tell us what a ' Haltie is? And i'm afraid I completely missed the recent Glencom post.
I'm at a loss to understand how I've managed to train all of my dogs over the years without resorting to all of these learned papers. Maybe I managed it by simply studying my numerous dogs and learning what works for each one. Incidentaly I have always used a slip lead on my dogs, not a chain, but a slip lead none the less and it's never caused any problems.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> L4L- In title - "_punishers_"


The way you wrote that title is misleading, a punisher is something we have learned to avoid by avoidance behaviour, if a "punisher" we have learned to avoid occurres it's because 'we/any animal' has not used the appropriate behaviural response and it is the animal itself which knows it has caused the 'punishment', e.g. if I drive through red lights & get a fine & penalty points its not because the red light did it, its because my behaviour caused the fine & lost points.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Incidentaly I have always used a slip lead on my dogs, not a chain,


The only time I ever see a choke chain is on guide dogs in training on the odd occassion I see one in training & they use the large links not those small link type.


----------



## troublestrouble (Oct 19, 2011)

well now im utterly confused as to whether i should be worried by my dog pulling on the occasion -its a normal neck collar, my partner said to get a choke chain and i told him where to stick it, the clue is in the name...- and especially at the moment where there's so many squirrels she wants to chase on the way to the park.

i wish people wouldn't be so bitchy on this site to each other and stick with the well put views and helpful advice... :mad2:


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

springerpete said:


> Once again I find myself puzzled, I must be the thickest person on here. I dont know what the Hallgren study is, neither do I know what the Haltie study
> is about, Halties I suppose, do we actualy need a study to tell us what a ' Haltie is? And i'm afraid I completely missed the recent Glencom post.
> I'm at a loss to understand how I've managed to train all of my dogs over the years without resorting to all of these learned papers. Maybe I managed it by simply studying my numerous dogs and learning what works for each one. Incidentaly I have always used a slip lead on my dogs, not a chain, but a slip lead none the less and it's never caused any problems.


Paralysis by over analysis methinks. Keep it simple and keep it natural. My dog hardly ever wears a lead and has never wore a collar, why should he, he is trained to walk at heel.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> It seems to me... L-f-L is not promoting choke chains at all.
> The point... is that when someone stopped using positive methods for training their dog, but used a trainer
> using negative methods including a choke chain, the dog developed aggression.
> 
> ...


*Precisely! :thumbup: in one fell stoop... Brava! *


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

troublestrouble said:


> well now im utterly confused as to whether i should be worried by my dog pulling on the occasion -its a normal neck collar, my partner said to get a choke chain and i told him where to stick it, the clue is in the name...- and especially at the moment where there's so many squirrels she wants to chase on the way to the park.
> 
> i wish people wouldn't be so bitchy on this site to each other and stick with the well put views and helpful advice... :mad2:


I wish we could discuss what we want to discuss without one person picking on one word and jumping in with their irrelevant dribble. But there you are, that is a forum for you.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

grandad said:


> Paralysis by over analysis methinks. Keep it simple and keep it natural. My dog hardly ever wears a lead and has never wore a collar, why should he, he is trained to walk at heel.


Thank God for the voice of reason.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *grandad*
> 
> My dog *hardly ever wears a lead & has never [worn] a collar,
> why should he?* He's trained to walk at heel.





springerpete said:


> Thank God for the voice of reason.


Pete, how is that 'reason' or 'logic'?

in the 7-cities area, EVERY city jurisdiction requires a leash, anytime the dog is off the owner's property, 
unless the dog is actively hunting, training to hunt, or inside a fenced area [I-E, safely confined at a kennel, 
training off-leash in a PERMITTED area, etc].

in my state, * collars aren't 'optional', * they're mandatory, & *mandatory tags* go on them: 
- City or County license. 
- Rabies tag [dated & with the vet on record]. 
- OWNER's tag: at least a phone-number, if not an address.

even a hunting-dog under voice-control *must* wear a collar if the dog is off the owner's property, 
& the dog cannot simply be at large: They must be actively hunting during an open season, or training in an area 
that permits training or off-leash dogs. THEY STILL MUST WEAR A COLLAR & TAGS, even while hunting, 
training, or in an off-leash permitted area.

so... if my dog is a pet-dog, not a hunter; or it's not a hunting season; or i'm not on MY own property; 
or i am with my dog in an Off-leash Permitted Area... *the dog still needs a collar & tags.*

suggesting that a dog be both off-leash AND collarless, which means tagless, is IMO irresponsible.

even the best-trained dogs can be separated from their handler by unforeseen circumstances; 
accidents can & do happen, & dogs are not robots, either. I strongly urge my clients to have collars & tags 
on their dogs at all times, even indoors at home - just in case. A house-fire, a break-in, etc, may be rare, 
but it only takes ONE event to have a dog at large with no ID, which can be fatal or in the best-case, 
a worrying period of "lost dog" flyers & anxious waiting ensues... OR the dog goes to the wrong jurisdiction, 
& is never found; OR the dog is taken in by someone, & never re-united with their owner / family.

a chip is good back-up, but not everyone / every shelter has a scanner; a TAG with clear data is the first 
recourse of anyone who finds a dog. Rabies-status is imperative, if there's a dog-fight, a bite or scratch. 
TAGS are thus IME absolutely required, anytime a dog is outside their own home; which of course also means 
a collar to carry the tags. :yesnod: JMO, but safety first; i see Way, Way Too-Many lost-dog flyers, 
along the street, at the shelters, & on-line. :nonod: i wouldn't want to see anyone's pet put at risk.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The rabies tag doesn't apply in the uk of course, but from the kennel club website:

The Control of Dogs Order 1992 mandates that any dog in a public place must wear a collar with the name and address (including postcode) of the owner engraved or written on it, or engraved on a tag. Your telephone number is optional (but advisable).

You can be fined up to £5,000 if your dog does not wear an identification tag.

Grandad is a gamekeeper? well something like that and runs his dogs over thousands of acres of privately owned forestry and farmland, so can probably get away with it.

The majority of us have to put collars on our dogs. 

I use a slip lead on mine too, but trained her to walk nicely first.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Actually, it is required in this country that a dog wear a collar at all times outside, and it is also against the law to allow them to walk along the roadside without a leash. You see many people doing it, and nobody takes much notice, but it is illegal nonetheless.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> *bold & color added;*
> 
> Originally Posted by *SleepyBones*
> 
> ...


 A - 
SleepyBrains, U are NOT being taken off 'ignore'. 
i am taking advantage of the previous post, which quotes Ur post, to rebut it.

B - 
i am most-definitely NOT 'promoting choke-chains' - rather, YOU DELIBERATELY MISCONSTRUE. 
it seems to be a typical ploy of Urs to do so.

C - 
this is not MY client or MY client's dog. I am sharing a fellow-trainer's experience of a client 
who used the services of a coercive trainer & bounced-back to the original reward-based trainer, 
a not uncommon scenario, *with new or worsened problem-behaviors after the aversive training - * 
another common consequence.

D - 
there's more than simply 'using a choke-chain'. That is one of several factors mentioned, specifically: 


> She took the dog *off his harness*, put on a choke-chain, & *used flooding for his leash reactivity,
> amongst other things.*


at 18-MO during her initial training with this dog & family, he was a 'normal exuberant Boxer'. 
during Adele's training & after her training, he could be allowed off-leash time with other dogs & humans.

NOW at approx 6-YO & after a training period with aversives & coercion / punishment, he cannot be 
off-leash around other dogs & non-family. His then-solid foundation behaviors are gone, also.

if there are any other illogical non-sequiters U would like to state, feel free.  Claiming i PROMOTE choke-chains 
is IMO the most-asinine statement U've made, to date... tho i suppose U will top it soon.


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

grandad said:


> My dog hardly ever wears a lead and has never wore a collar, why should he, he is trained to walk at heel.


And answer is:

_*Road Traffic Act 1988*
This makes it an offence to have a dog on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead._


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Not to mention that when in public a dog must wear a legally compliant ID tag on his collar etc


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

thanks, everybody! :thumbup:

i was starting to wonder if there was a common practice of letting one's dog wander at will, 
not only off-leash but with no collar or tags of any kind!  I'm reassured to know that this is not 
the usual standard, but that UK-dogs do wear ID when they're off-leash, & a collar to carry the ID 
[or a harness with tags, if the dog wears a harness rather than a collar, i'd imagine].


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> Actually, it is required in this country that a dog wear a collar at all times outside, and it is also against the law to allow them to walk along the roadside without a leash. You see many people doing it, and nobody takes much notice, but it is illegal nonetheless.


Wrong. The dog has to wear the collar outside in public areas. On private land, in your own garden or on the shooting estate or whatever it is Grandad works on, there is no legal requirement for them to wear a collar.

Personally, I make sure my dogs have collars on all the time, in the house and outside it, just in case.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Burrowzig said:


> Wrong. The dog has to wear the collar outside in public areas. On private land, in your own garden or on the shooting estate or whatever it is Grandad works on, there is no legal requirement for them to wear a collar.
> 
> Personally, I make sure my dogs have collars on all the time, in the house and outside it, just in case.


That is exactly what I said. By outside, I obviously meant outside one's own property, not just outside the house.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> That is exactly what I said. By outside, I obviously meant outside one's own property, not just outside the house.


If it had been exactly what you'd said, I have had no need to post! But it's not just your own property, it's also any other private land to which the public have no access, with the landowner's consent.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

For anyone else who finds my terminology obscure, "outside" means in any public place.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> By outside, I obviously meant outside one's own property, not just outside the house.


Its not clear in the legal context in which you wrote, there are laws governing dogs on private property as well as public, they were going to extend the DDA to private property, dont know if they did or not, if you have a sign saying beware of the dog, in law, you have admitted you own a potentialy dangerous dog, if it bites anyone visting, with or without your consent you can end up on a charge & the dog subject to several dangerous dog laws going back appx a century, so yes, your statement was unclear, we all have to live within a legal framework.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Its not clear in the legal context in which you wrote, there are laws governing dogs on private property as well as public, they were going to extend the DDA to private property, dont know if they did or not, if you have a sign saying beware of the dog, in law, you have admitted you own a potentialy dangerous dog, if it bites anyone visting, with or without your consent you can end up on a charge & the dog subject to several dangerous dog laws going back appx a century, so yes, your statement was unclear, we all have to live within a legal framework.


First of all I the proposed changes of the DDA have been made public one of which is to make the laws applicable to any location including private property with exemptions re attacks from other dogs or provocation by eg a burglarn.

As for the the sign "Beware of teh Dog" it does NOT, in law, equate to admission of having a dangerous dog.

If you would like to know more I would heartily recommend you attending a seminar "Dog Law for Professionals" or the shorter and cheaper one "Dog Law, what every owner should know" given by Trevor Cooper.

There is, to date, NO case law referring to the signage you mention.

HTH 

Doglaw


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Its not clear in the legal context in which you wrote, there are laws governing dogs on private property as well as public, they were going to extend the DDA to private property, dont know if they did or not, if you have a sign saying beware of the dog, in law, you have admitted you own a potentialy dangerous dog, if it bites anyone visting, with or without your consent you can end up on a charge & the dog subject to several dangerous dog laws going back appx a century, so yes, your statement was unclear, we all have to live within a legal framework.


We were discussing legal use of collars and leashes, not Dangerous Dogs. Do keep up.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The Control of Dogs Order 1992

Wearing of collars by dogs2.(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, every dog while in a highway or in a place of public resort shall wear a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on the collar or on a plate or badge attached to it.(2) Paragraph (1) above shall not apply to(a)any pack of hounds,(b)any dog while being used for sporting purposes,(c)any dog while being used for the capture or destruction of vermin,(d)any dog while being used for the driving or tending of cattle or sheep,(e)any dog while being used on official duties by a member of Her Majestys Armed Forces or Her Majestys Customs and Excise or the police force for any area,(f)any dog while being used in emergency rescue work, or(g)any dog registered with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.

No mention of any orders on private land here


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

_every dog while in a highway or in a place of public resort_

This term means on the public highway or in a place where the public have a right to be.

The public have no RIGHT to be on lots of land that belongs in private hands.

HTH


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

There's a hell of a lot more that isn't though 
This is crow land which is the majority but admittedly not all of the land that has public access 
http://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/wps/portal/oasys/maps/MapSearch


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> _every dog while in a highway or in a place of public resort_
> 
> This term means on the public highway or in a place where the public have a right to be.
> 
> ...


No but there are cases where they can be there, for example:
a private arrangement with a friendly landowner
hiring a venue for an event such as agility


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Burrowzig said:


> No but there are cases where they can be there, for example:
> a private arrangement with a friendly landowner
> hiring a venue for an event such as agility


But that is not a RIGHT,


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Andromeda said:


> And answer is:
> 
> _*Road Traffic Act 1988*
> This makes it an offence to have a dog on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead._


I've been breaking the law for years then, but I also admit to speeding now and again.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Not to mention that when in public a dog must wear a legally compliant ID tag on his collar etc


Not unless it's "working"


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> thanks, everybody! :thumbup:
> 
> i was starting to wonder if there was a common practice of letting one's dog wander at will,
> not only off-leash but with no collar or tags of any kind!  I'm reassured to know that this is not
> ...


Not in the "working dog" community, but then again, we've been known as rebels in the past.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

grandad said:


> Not unless it's "working"


Correct, I must remember to print out the whole law next time


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> But that is not a RIGHT,


Nobody ever said it was!


----------

