It may have to be their assessment of adoptability. The one-eyed dog I mentioned above -- when I finally found the owner, they ended up dumping him at the pound because his eye was grossing them out. I was talking with the pound and they told me no one would want him and they wanted to just euthanize him. Well, he went to live on a beautiful horse farm with lots of buds. Living my dream!! I was just over on the link. It looks like actually sponsoring a dog means you'll pick up whatever expenses are associated with readying him for adoption -- the spaying, shots, etc. That makes him easy for take out. Either to a real home or to a foster or rescue group. Those groups spend a fortune saving animals, they need all the help they can get. They rely on donations to keep going. Taking in another animal is a financial consideration as well. I wouldn't worry about that part. The money is needed to move the dog along in the direction of a forever home. I would think that the more money they've invested in an animal, the less likely he would be put down, over one that still needs expensive work done. It actually looks like Bruce isn't at the front of the line. There are dogs there in the 600s, longer than him. So if they think he's adoptable, he may have more time than some of the others. So many sweet looking dogs there. So many irresponsible owners : ( (Sorry I'm too beat to proof : )

Keeping our pets safe!

No, but I think we used too much water to start with. My husband, genius that he might be, went dense when he decided that the hose would be quicker than a spray bottle. Winded up soaking the tree even with the mist attachment on. When we went to flock, the tree was soaked but we still misted the flock to activate it. Next day, the tree was still wet. Think it took a week to dry. But, between the ornaments and flock, it's bent out of shape. Here's two pics I just took. It's been flocked since 12/3.

Since the topic is animals, in such a conversation, not all dentists are for humans. There are veterinary dentists and it's reasonable to expect one or more has developed a special interest in nutrition. In such a hypothetical case, the "sponsor" of such a site would be someone who went to vet school whose professional education and training could be the foundation for assessing pet food. That's why I made mention of it. For the last time, let's think about the bogus information on this site. Content produced by people without proper professional training. Without rigorous test procedures. This website: - does not perform chemical assays of the food they "test" - does not perform studies of the food they "test" - does not do double-blind studies comparing a given food with another, or with a "placebo" - does not compare content analyses on labels to accepted professional nutritional standards for animal requirements - does not employ people with professionally specialized training. Those who produce the content know diddly- squat about the subject matter. Know nothing about what animal nutritional requirements are. They read labels. Period. That's not testing, not comparing, not subjectively assessing. Not providing expert opinions. It's zippity do dah. Nothing. So, of what value is anything on there? Zero, I say. A big zero. How is the content produced? From unqualified people copying over product label information, and from reader comments. That's it. Heavens to betsy, don't any of you understand that this is useless non-information? No insights from analysis or use, no value added. It's as if one of you read a label and picked one product over another because it had 40% guaranteed protein instead of 35%. Does that matter. Is 35% adequate, or is 40% too much. You don't know. Similarly, they don't know. If you don't know, you don't know. The people producing this website don't know, don't have useful information, and rely on people swallowing their drivel and clicking on links to produce their income. The internet can be a very useful information source. Part of successful use is learning how to separate real information from not-real information. Anyone can put up a website with anything on it. No qualifications, no regulation, no validation, no nothing. It's like lining up random people in a public place and asking them a non-trivial question. You'll get a variety of answers. There are ways to assess which may be more likely valid than others. The same is true of "information" from the internet. You need to consider the source. This is a commercial site masquerading as something else. The "information" it presents is nonsense. Gullible people will accept it, more thoughtful people will see it for what it is. For those who like to link to prior discussions on recurring topics, please be sure to bookmark this page. I took the time, for the last time, to try to explain what others should see on their own. There's no need to repeat any of this for those who don't want to have their (unwarranted and well intentioned but misinformed) decisions challenged.