Steel city kennel club

Steel city kennel club DEFAULT

Starswift Borzoi — At the Steel City Kennel Club AKC show in Crown

At the Steel City Kennel Club AKC show in Crown Point, IN, Pistol was BOB and BOBOH today under judge Mrs. Molly Martin for another 4 pts towards her GCH. Legend was also WD/BOW/BOS over a special for another 3 point major, now only needing 4 single

More you might like

Dash gotta be up close and personal all he time. #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
Lightning and her grand daughter Tajin ❤ #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
I was coursing this weekend in Yellow Spring, OH. It was a great weekend with points shared all around. Some new borzoi owners and their dogs came out for their first official AKC lure coursing trial and did great! Hope they caught the coursing bug!
My girls love staying in hotels. Seren likes to hog the bed and human. #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
She’s so cute 😍 #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
Nothing better than puppy kisses! #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
She’s so cute 😍 #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
Bryce Joshua’s Bryce Canyon 18 mos 2nd major Can’t wait til his chest hair fills in more. #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
Bryce on the move. #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift
Legacy on the move. I really need to make better faces 😅 #borzoi #russianwolfhound #doglover #doglife #sighthoundsofinstagram #borzoiofinstagram #borzoisofinstagram #purebreddogsofinstagram #dogsofinstagram #starswift

See this in the appShow more

Sours: https://starswift-borzoi.tumblr.com/post//at-the-steel-city-kennel-club-akc-show-in-crown

Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, Inc., U.S. ()

Disclaimer:Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sours: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us///
  1. Dior jewelry necklace
  2. Mchfx stock
  3. Healthy delights chews
  4. Connector maven

Harbor City Kennel Club,

Skip to main content

&#;File — Box: 16, Folder: 1

Scope and Contents

From the Collection: The majority of these files center around club constitutions and by-laws including revision and amendment correspondence, drafts, permanent file copies, and printed pamphlets. Other documents relate to issues such as new club successorship, conflict resolution, elections, annual meetings and more. Show license applications are usually accomplanied by membership lists, and various other club materials such as newsletters or legal forms appear. The files are far from comprehensive but may aid clubs trying to piece together their history.

Dates

Physical Description

From the Collection: 23 Linear Feet (in 27 boxes (20 record cartons and 7 doc boxes))

Language of Materials

From the Collection: English

Harbor City Kennel Club, , Box: 16, Folder: 1. American Kennel Club Library & Archives.

Harbor City Kennel Club, , Box: 16, Folder: 1. American Kennel Club Library & Archives. http://localhost/repositories/2/archival_objects/ Accessed October 13,

Sours: http://akc.libraryhost.com/repositories/2/archival_objects/
2019 Bucks County Kennel Club Dog Show

 STEEL VALLEY CLUSTER






DAILY ARMBAND RAFFLE

RALLY ALL 4 DAYS

NADD/AKC DOCK DIVING

4 & UNDER 6 MONTH PUPPY ALL 4 DAYS 

BEST JUNIOR HANDLER $ SCHOLARSHIP

OWNER HANDLER SERIES 4 DAYS 

DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN

 
  FORT STEUBEN
      KENNEL ASSOC.                                               COLUMBIANA COUNTY
KENNEL CLUB

 
BEAVER COUNTY KENNEL CLUB



MAHONING SHENANGO
KENNEL CLUB
Sours: http://www.steelvalleycluster.org/

City kennel club steel

SMITH v. MAGIC CITY KENNEL CLUB, Inc., et al.

U.S.

51 S.Ct.

75 L.Ed.

SMITH
v.
MAGIC CITY KENNEL CLUB, Inc., et al.

No.

Argued Jan. 28,

Decided Feb. 25,

Mr. E. Howard McCaleb, of New Orleans, La., for petitioner.

Mr. Arthur C. Brown, of Tulsa, Okl., for respondents.

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opiion of the Court.

1

This suit was brought in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Oklahoma to enjoin the infringement of letters patent No. 1,,, May 24, , and No. 1,,, September 2, (and also three other patents not here involved), issued to Owen P. Smith, the petitioner's intestate, for improvements in devices for dog races. A special master was appointed to hear and determine the issues. The master reported that each of the patents was valid and infringed. The District Court approved the report, and entered a decree for injunction, and for recovery, upon a bond given under the order of the Court, of damages. This decree was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 38 F.(2d) This decision was in conflict with that the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in American Electric Rabbit Racing Association v. Smith, 26 F.(2d) , affirming, without discussion, the decree of the district Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (21 F.(2d) ) which held patents No. 1,, and No. 1,, to be valid and infringed. In view of this conflict, this Court granted a writ of certiorari in the instant case. U. § , 50 S. Ct. , 74 L. Ed.

2

These patents were also before the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, where the bill of complaint was dismissed for want of infringement (39 F.(2d) 92) and the decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 40 F.(2d), ; certiorari granted October 13, , U. S. , 51 S. Ct. 37, 75 L. Ed. —.

3

Patent No. 1,, The claims in suit are numbers 1 and 2, as follows: '1. In a dog racing amusement, a race course suited for dogs, a casing extending aroung the outer side of the race course and provided with a longitudinal opening, a mechanical conveyer including a track extending around the race course and located within the casing, and a conveyer car mechanically operated upon said track and provided with an arm extending through the longitudinal opening of the casing in a projecting position over the track and adapted to carry a lure, and a wheel rotatably mounted on and supporting the arm at the projecting end thereof.

4

'2. In an amusement, the combination of a race course suited for dogs, a covered rail track adjacent said course on one side, a conveyor car mechanically operated upon said track, a horizontally extending arm hinged to said car extending midway of said course, a wheel rotatably mounted near the end of said arm, and resting upon the ground, a platform supported by said arm and a lure or quarry mounted upon said platform for attracting the dogs.'

5

The prior art shows various contrivances for carrying an artificial lure around a track in front of racing dogs. Hind, (British, No. ), described an inanimate lure moved by means of a rope traveling along a sunken trough. Pinard, (No. ,), proposed a lure-carrier dragged upon the ground by a cable winding upon a drum at the end of the track. Moss, (British, No. ), showed a device, on the order of an electric trolley system, with a rail laid on the race course. Walsh, (No. ,), placed his conveyor car adjacent to the track and separated from it by a fence, and provided an arm reaching over the fence and connected with another arm, pliant or stiff, which extended downward to the lure-carrying mat dragging on the ground. Smith (No. 1,,), provided an underground track, within and beneath the race course, and a conveying mechanism hidden from view and carrying the lure which was visible above the ground Everett, (No. 1,,), followed Smith, using an underground cable.

6

Smith, in the combination for which the patent in suit (No. 1,,) was issued, placed his covered rail track adjacent to the race course, and the connected the cooperating elements of conveyor car and lure by an arm horizontally extending over the course. The distinctive feature of his invention is set forth in claim 1 as 'an arm extending through the longitudinal opening of the case in a projecting position over the track and adapted to carry a lure, and a wheel rotatably mounted on and supporting the arm at the projecting end thereof'; and, in claim 2, as 'a horizontally extending arm hinged to said car extending midway of said course, a wheel rotatably mounted near the end of said arm, and resting upon the ground, a platform supported by said arm and a lure or quarry mounted upon said platform for attracting the dogs.'

7

The petitioner asserts that by his apparatus, Smith surmounted the difficulties encountered in the impracticable devices of the prior art and led to commercial success. The Circuit Court of Appeals in the instant case. while finding that there was no infringement, had no doubt that Smith's device was an improvement over the prior art and assumed that it was patentable. 38 F.(2d) at page We make the same assumption. Smith's improvement, however, was in a limited field. There was manifestly no invention in a combination consisting of a rail track, with a casing adjacent to the course, a conveyor car, and an arm projecting over the course and connected with a mechanical lure carried in advance of racing dogs. Patentability could be predicated of Smith's improvement, only by reason of the distinctive feature of the arm which he employed.

8

The differences in the respondents' apparatus. Which are urged as avoiding infringement, are that the respondents use a rigid horizontal arm, that it is not hinged to the car, that there is no wheel, and that the arm has no ground support at its free end; and, further, that the respondents has located their conveyor housing on the inner side of the race course, while claim 1 of the patent puts the casing on the outer side. We may at once dispose of the latter point, as we find no basis for the conclusion that the invention of the patent is limited to a location of the casing on the outer side of the course. There is no such limitation in claim 2. The important question is whether the patent covers a rigid horizontal lure-carrying arm without ground support.

9

It appears from the file wrapper that in the application, which resulted in patent No. 1,, Smith made, among others, the following claim:

10

'3. In an amusement, the combination of a race track suited for dogs, a covered rail track adjacent said course, a conveyor car mechanically operated upon said track, an arm attached to said car extending midway of said course, a wheel rotatably mounted on said arm and a lure mounted on said arm.'

11

This claim was rejected on the prior patent to Walsh (No. ,). Another claim (then numbered 4) was allowed as originally presented, and is claim 2 of the patent. Smith did not contest the rejection of original claim 3, above mentioned, but proposed an amendment which related to the casing. This amendment was rejected 'on either Walsh or Moss,' the examiner stating 'that Moss is provided with a housing and it would not be invention to provide Walsh with one.' Without further contest, Smith the canceled the rejected claim 3 and substituted what is now claim 1 of the patent. On comparing the claim as thus allowed and the rejected claim, it appears that the important difference was that instead of claiming 'an arm attached to said car extending midway of said course, a wheel rotatably mounted on said arm, and a lure mounted on said arm,' the claim was made to read 'an arm extending through the longitudinal opening of the casing in a projecting position over the track and adapted to carry a lure, and a wheel rotatably mounted on and supporting the arm at the projecting end thereof.'

12

The petitioner insists that the gist of Smith's invention was 'the straight out lurecarrying arm laterally extending and operating exclusively in a substantially horizontal plane.' But it will be observed that the rejected and abandoned claim was the broad one of 'an arm attached to said car extending midway of said course,' nd that the new claim, as proposed and allowed, did not specify a horizontal arm alone. The essential difference in the allowed claim lay in the specification of the wheel 'as supporting the arm at the projecting and thereof.' Claim 2 (original claim 4), which was allowed without question, specified a horizontal arm hinged to the car and resting on a wheel. A rigid, horizontal arm, without hinge or wheel, was not the subject of either claim.

13

The case, in our opinion, thus calls for the application of the principle that where an applicant for a patent to cover a new combination is compelled by the rejection of his application by the Patent Office to narrow his claim by the introduction of a new element, he cannot after the issue of the patent broaden his claim by dropping the element which he was compelled to include in order to secure his patent. Shepard v. Carrigan, U. S. , , 6 S. Ct. , 29 L. Ed. As this Court said in I. T. S. Rubber Company v. Essex Rubber Company, U. S. , , 47 S. Ct. , , 71 L. Ed. 'If dissatisfied with the rejection he should pursue his remedy by appeal; and where, in order to get his patent, he accepts one with a narrower claim, he is bound by it. Shepard v. Carrigan, supra ( U. S.) (6 S. Ct. , 29 L. Ed. ); Hubbell v. United States, U. S. 77, 83, 21 S. Ct. 24, 45 L. Ed. Whether the examiner was right or wrong in rejecting the original claim, the court is not to inquire. Hubbell v. United States, supra ( U. S.) 83 (21 S. Ct. 24, 45 L. Ed. 95). The applicant having limited his claim by amendment and accepted a patent, brings himself within the rules that if the claim to a combination be restricted to specified elements, all must be regarded as material, and that limitations imposed by the inventor, especially such as were introduced into an application after it had been persistently rejected, must be strictly construed against the inventor and looked upon as disclaimers. Sargent v. Hall Safe & Lock Company, U. S. 63, 86, 5 S. Ct. , 29 L. Ed. 67; Shepard v. Carrigan, U. S. , 6 S. Ct. (29 L. Ed. ) supra; Hubbell v. United States, U. S. 85, 21 S. Ct. 24 (45 L. Ed. 95) supra. The patentee is thereafter estopped to claim the benefit of his rejected claim or such a construction of his amended claim as would be equivalent thereto. Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Paper Company, U. S. , , 14 S. Ct. , 38 L. Ed. '

14

The petitioner resorts to the doctrine of equivalents, insisting that the rigid horizontal arm of the respondents is to be treated as the equivalent of the arm of the patent, and that the limiting specifications of the claims may be ignored. What has already been said disposes of this contention, for where a patentee has narrowed his claim, in order to escape rejection, he may not 'by resort to the doctrine of equivalents, give to the claim the larger scope which it might have had without the amendments, which amount to disclaimer.' Weber Electric Company v. Freeman Electric Company, U. S. , , , 41 S. Ct. , , 65 L. Ed. ; I. T. S. Rubber Company v. Essex Rubber Company, supra. It should also be observed that the difference here was both in structure and in mode of operation and result. Petitioner's witness testified that Smith 'built cars with rigid arms and had the arms snap off,' and 'that is why he went to the wheel and hinge. It reduces the friction there, i guess you would call it, crystallizing the arm from the vibration. If the arm was at the end and no wheel to support it, it would naturally drag on the track.' Respondents' witness testified that the difference in the arm they used, which does not in clude the wheel for supporting the arm, is that when the arm 'has a wheel under the end as it runs over the track, it doesn't have any vibration'; that vibration makes the lure 'jump up and down' giving it a more lifelike appearance.

15

We agree with the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals that infringement o le tters patent No. 1,,, was not established.

16

Patent No. 1,, This patent is for 'Housing for Conveyor Cars and Tracks.' It relates to the casing element called for by patent No. 1,, The claims as originally presented were rejected 'as indefinite and as aggregations.' Other claims were substituted, which included claim 1 of the patent, as allowed, as follows:

17

'1. In a housing for covering tracks and cars having laterally extending arm operated upon said track, the combination of posts set in the ground at the sides of said track, timbers attached to said posts to form a frame, and boards attached to said timbers and posts to form a continuous enclosure above said track, and having a continuous opening in one side of said housing adapted to permit extension of the laterally extending arm therethrough, and truss rods attached to the closed side of the housing adapted to support the side of said housing above the said continuous opening.'

18

All the elements in this claim were old. So far as the continuous opening 'adapted to permit extension of the laterally extended arm' is concerned, there was anticipation by Bertram, , No. ,, whose housing for a third or electric rail disclosed a similar method of contact with an outside track, in providing for a casing (enclosing the electric rail) 'in which is formed a longitudinal slot or opening.' A comparison of claim 1 of the patent with the other claims which were rejected and canceled, shows that the distinctive features of the claim allowed were that the opening was placed 'in one side of said housing' and that there was a specification of a particular sort of support, that is, 'truss rods attached to the closed side of the housing.' In other claims allowed, the reference is to 'adjustable stay rods.'

19

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in the instant case, questioned the patentability of the device and said that if patentability existed at all, it must depend upon the truss rod support or the adjustable stay rods, neither of which the respondents use. We agree with this statements, and we are also of the opinion, as was the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, supra), that supplying the feature of the truss rods and the adjustable stay rods did not constitute invention. To provide such supports would be but a step obvious to any skilled mechanic. Atlantic Works v. Brady, U. S. , , 2 S. Ct. , 27 L. Ed. ; Railroad Supply Company v. Elyria Iron & Steel Company, U. S. , , 37 S. Ct. , 61 L. Ed. ; Powers-Kennedy Contracting Corporation v. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Company, U. S. , , 51 S. Ct. 95, 75 L. Ed.

Sours: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text//
The National Dog Show 11.26.20 (Full Show)

Steel City Kennel Club &#; Saturday, April 17,

Show Name: Steel City Kennel Club
Location: Crown Point, IN
Show Date: Saturday, April 17,
Total Entry:
Best In Show Judge: Mrs. Molly Martin
Show Photographer(s):
Booth Photo • Website: www.boothshowphoto.com

Dog Reg: CH Lost Heritage Knight of Eldorado [Dog]
Breed: Treeing Walker Coonhound
Handler: Sydney Hickman
Owner: Cole Vanover, Kristin Lawless & Sydney Hickman

Reserve Dog Reg: GCHS Wingssong This Could Be Love [Dog]
Reserve Breed: Papillon
Reserve Handler: Chris Jones
Reserve Owner: P & C Jones
Breeder: Pat & Chris Jones

NOHS Judge: Mrs. Sulie Greendale-Paveza
NOHS Dog Reg: GCHB Coventry Music Of The Night [Bitch]
NOHS Breed: Pembroke Welsh Corgi
NOHS Handler: Jodi Geerlings
NOHS Owner: J Geerlings, B Williams, S Leyerly & B Shelton
Breeder: Bill Shelton, S Layerly, B Williams & D Salow

Sporting Judge&#;s Name: Mr. Dana Cline

Total Entry:
#1-
Dog Reg: GCH Kalas Fly Me To The Moon JH [Dog]
Breed: Spinone Italiano
Handler: Angela Matias
Owner: A Matias & K Hamaker
Breeder: Kathleen Hamaker & Matt Cole
#2-
Dog Reg: CH Tynesides Queen Of Hearts [Bitch]
Breed: Retriever (Curly-Coated)
Handler:
Owner: Kari Schnulle & Victor Hewer
#3-
Dog Reg: GCH Dalane Rose Tree Whirlwind Romance [Dog]
Breed: Retriever (Golden)
Handler:
Owner: L Halligan
Breeder: Jane Jensen & Michael Aldeguer
#4-
Dog Reg: Star Flight Jumpin at the Chance CGC [Dog]
Breed: Brittany
Handler: Chris Jones
Owner: Jaqueline & Adam Ceres

Hound Judge&#;s Name: Mr. Dana Cline

Total Entry:
#1-
Dog Reg: CH Lost Heritage Knight of Eldorado [Dog]
Breed: Treeing Walker Coonhound
Handler: Sydney Hickman
Owner: Cole Vanover, Kristin Lawless & Sydney Hickman
#2-
Dog Reg: GCHG My She Dances Like Uma Thurman [Bitch]
Breed: Redbone Coonhound
Handler: Cole Vanover
Owner: C Vanover & K Lawless
Breeder: Amy & Eldon Signor
#3-
Dog Reg: GCH Daybreaks Country Kisses W [Bitch]
Breed: Dachshund (Wirehaired)
Handler:
Owner: D Krieg & A Ferris
#4-
Dog Reg: GCHS Taji Better Man Mazshalna CGC [Dog]
Breed: Afghan Hound
Handler: Lisa Bettis
Owner: M Brier & Y Russell
Breeder: Yancy Russell & Donna & Vanessa Bates

Working Judge&#;s Name: Mr. Brian Meyer

Total Entry:
#1-
Dog Reg: GCHP Torrid Zone Smoke From A Distant Fire BN RN CGCA CGCU TKN [Bitch]
Breed: Portuguese Water Dog
Handler: Lizzy Volz
Owner: B Mercier & M De Fore
Breeder: Margaret De Fore
#2-
Dog Reg: GCHS Sammantic Speed Of Life [Bitch]
Breed: Samoyed
Handler: Danielle Goodland
Owner: B Bruns & W Stamp
Breeder: Barbara Bruns & Wolfgang Stamp
#3-
Dog Reg: GCH Rahdys Ciao Bella &#;Bella&#; [Bitch]
Breed: Doberman Pinscher
Handler: Sabrina Goldfein
Owner: J, D & S & S Goldfein
Breeder: Shoshana, Jennifer, David & Sabrina Goldfein
#4-
Dog Reg: GCH Highlanders Game Set Match At Fanta C CA DCAT [Dog]
Breed: Siberian Husky
Handler:
Owner: J Brewer
Breeder: Carl & Donna Shopp & Anne & Brian Palmer

TerrierJudge&#;s Name: Mrs. Cindy Meyer

Total Entry: 64
#1-
Dog Reg: Blaesings Catching Fire to the Wind [Bitch]
Breed: Irish Terrier
Handler: Allison Sunderman
Owner: Terri Vandenberg & Kathryn Blaesing
#2-
Dog Reg: CH Hampton Ct Broxden Dropthe Mic [Dog]
Breed: Smooth Fox Terrier
Handler: Max Krainer
Owner: V Malzoni Jr., & A & P Booth
Breeder: Mariah Dupuy, Amy Booth & Heidi Gervais
#3-
Dog Reg: Aberdeen Spitfire Calling Norman [Dog]
Breed: Miniature Bull Terrier
Handler: Jason McIlwaine
Owner: Jason McIlwaine, Karen Yolanda & Crissy Brown-Stone
#4-
Dog Reg: Anstamm Maryscot Black Thistle [Bitch]
Breed: Scottish Terrier
Handler:
Owner: Anstamm Kennels & Mary O&#;Neal

Toy Judge&#;s Name: Ms. Sandra Bingham-Porter

Total Entry:
#1-
Dog Reg: GCHS Wingssong This Could Be Love [Dog]
Breed: Papillon
Handler: Chris Jones
Owner: P & C Jones
Breeder: Pat & Chris Jones
#2-
Dog Reg: GCH Cin-Don Dear Evan Hansen [Dog]
Breed: Japanese Chin
Handler:
Owner: B Merritt
Breeder: Joyce Wall, Beverly A Merritt & Scott T Toney
#3-
Dog Reg: GCHB Blue-Fantasys Dream Big [Dog]
Breed: Yorkshire Terrier
Handler:
Owner: S Spieth
#4-
Dog Reg: GCHS Castle Danger Walking On Sunshine [Dog]
Breed: Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Handler:
Owner: J Livesey & B Strege
Breeder: Jay Livesey & Brent Strege

Non-Sporting Judge&#;s Name: Mrs. Cindy Meyer

Total Entry: 94
#1-
Dog Reg: GCHS Barberry Hillwood Hot Child In The City [Bitch]
Breed: Bichon Frise
Handler: Lisa Bettis
Owner: M & P Abbott, L Bettis & E Charles
Breeder: Paula & Matt Abbott, Paula Hendricks, Lisa Bettis & Ellen Charles
#2-
Dog Reg: GCH Tobishis Numero Uno [Dog]
Breed: Shiba Inu
Handler:
Owner: T Szabo & B Berry
Breeder: Tammy Szabo & Barbara & James Berry
#3-
Dog Reg: GCH Owyhees The Labyrinth At Daydream [Dog]
Breed: Schipperke
Handler:
Owner: B Carbone
Breeder: Gay Kuehnel-Hisatake
#4-
Dog Reg: GCH KJ&#;s Like A Boss, ATT [Dog]
Breed: Keeshond
Handler: Kristen Dowd
Owner: Kristen Dowd

HerdingJudge&#;s Name: Mrs. Sulie Greendale-Paveza

Total Entry:
#1-
Dog Reg: GCHB Coventry Music Of The Night [Bitch]
Breed: Pembroke Welsh Corgi
Handler: Jodi Geerlings
Owner: J Geerlings, B Williams, S Leyerly & B Shelton
Breeder: Bill Shelton, S Layerly, B Williams & D Salow
#2-
Dog Reg: CH Celebras Never Bambam At Bear Manor [Dog]
Breed: Briard
Handler:
Owner: J Feldman & C Leigh
Breeder: Christi Leigh & Joyci Feldman
#3-
Dog Reg: CH Winsomes Do You Bearlieve In Magic [Bitch]
Breed: German Shepherd Dog
Handler:
Owner: K Fasano, S McKinnon, F Fasano & N Phelps
Breeder: K Fasano, S McKinnon, F Fasano & N Phelps
#4-
Dog Reg: Brittemars Be Merry [Bitch]
Breed: Border Collie
Handler:
Owner: K Kaul
Breeder: Kathy Kaul, Debbie Butt & Kimberly Halcom

Jr Judge: Mrs. Cindy Meyer
Jr Handler: Jacob Waters
Jr Breed: Miniature Pinscher


Please note these results are not official and may be subject to change once official results are submitted to AKC.
The Canine Chronicle is not responsible for any errors or inadvertent omissions in the information reported on this site.
All information on www.caninechronicle.com is the sole property of The Canine Chronicle and Endeavor Publications, Inc. Reproduction of contents,either whole or in part is not permitted without consent of the publisher.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=

Sours: http://caninechronicle.com/show-wins-gallery/steel-city-kennel-club-inc/

Similar news:

Day Training

Specific to your dog, we will discuss your goals and flush out a new program where we can work together to attain these goals. We train your dog for you while you are at work. We provide report cards after each training session that tells you what your dog has learned, what we’ll work on in the next session, and how you can help to maintain the training we’re doing We provide “Video” sessions for you so that we can teach you how to get your dog performing as well for you as he does for us

Enrichment

Puzzles time: we will give your dog puzzle toys to work your dog’s cortex which helps burn extra energy and also helps obtain new neural pathways, which keep your dog’s mental health fresh and youthful. We use interactive toys like Kong Wobblers, flip puzzles, or Buster Cubes or Balls. These are treat dispensing toys that we can let your dog have a blast with for a little while before we leave.

worry free grooming

We will put together a monthly price that will keep your dog brushed, nails trimmed, dog bathed, and groomed. You literally have to do nothing. Extra fees may apply to behavioral issues or extreme coat conditions.

Crate Games

Crate games is a specific criteria for acclimating dogs to the crate. It is great to maintain a well-crated dog and to gain excitement for being crated.

Professional Care based on the foundation of Dog Needs

Steel City Pack Leader has created a personalized, canine concierge service designed to work hand-in-hand with dog owners to help them make wise decisions about their pet’s care. Most dogs share the same needs: exercise, enrichment, and affection. However, each dog differs in the way they react and adapt to these needs. This is why Steel City Pack Leader begins our relationship with all clients with a complete evaluation of their dog’s health, temperament, and behavieor. The results of this evaluation will enable us to create a service plan tailored specifically for you and your dog. Services Include: Dog Walking, Dog Training,Dog Grooming and Pet Care Liaison. We have found that using the hierarchy of dog needs as our foundational base for creating care plans, has a longer more substantial result than just concentrating on one aspect of care.

  • • Proper nutrition • Fresh water • Sufficient exercise, air, sleep • Indoor shelter • Safety • Temperature control • Gentle grooming. Provide regular physical and mental exercise appropriate for your dog’s age and breed. Proper exercise not only keeps your dog fit, it also decreases stress. Most dogs need to run.

  • Security, Love, Trust, Consistency, Benevolent Leadership

  • Bonding with People and Dogs

  • Training and cognitive needs Choice and Communication

The Hierarchy of Dog Needs® (HDN) is a unique model of wellness and behavior modification guide outlining standards of care and best force-free practices created for everyone who loves a dog. The dog’s needs are listed hierarchically. However, the exclusively force-free behavior modification techniques, embedded with an ethical code, may be safely and effectively used in any order or combination.

Andrew Marrangoni

Professional Dog Trainer, Owner and CEO

Andrew has always loved dogs, and enjoys helping them and their owners achieve great things together. He is very passionate about helping owners understand the power of force free training, and how it strengthens the bond between dog and owner.

Courtney Gaetano

Dog Walker, Dog Groomer

Courtney has a love for animals and nature! She joined steel city pack leader as dog walker, pet sitter and part time groomer privately for our walking clients. She continues to grow and learn more about dogs and how she can help them.

Gary Klose

Dog Training Apprentice, Lead Pet Sitter, and Dog Walker

Gary absolutely loves dogs! He understands them and treats every dog like family. He worked at the Pittsburgh Zoo for 10 years and a dog kennel/daycare for another 5. You and your pup will not be disappointed in his service.

LIndsay Connor

Pet Care Professional, Dog Training Apprentice, Dog Grooming Apprentice

Dogs are not a hobby to Lindsay, they are her way of enjoying life. Lindsay’s main focus is set on helping to provide the best canine care in Pittsburgh with the team at SCPL. Lindsay has 8 years of diverse experience in the pet-care world.

Andrew and Steel City Pack Leader are great! He has helped us help our kids become better family for our French Bulldog and Bull Mastiff!

Steel City Pack Leader/Andrew Marragoni and staff are amazing! We have a very challenging large breed with, let&#;s say issues&#;you name it Mort struggled with it. What Andrew and his staff have been able to do with us as owners and Mort is amazing. From a dog that could hardly walk down the street to this amazing walker we can take anywhere. Mort has come a long way and we could not have done it without SCPL&#;s help. My husband and I can not say enough about the knowledge, patience and professionalism of this company/Andrew Marragoni, we recommend them to everyone we meet.

Social Media Blitz

Social media Blitz Dog Days of summer are almost here! We are growing and helping more people than ever receive great pet care and behavioral assistance. We could use some help from you sharing our messages. If you do not already do so, please follow us on the following social media sites!       Read more about Social Media Blitz[…]

PreviousNext
Sours: https://steelcitypackleader.com/


218 219 220 221 222