Dogs4Fun

I don't think you should ever allow your dog to approach another dog without the permission of that dog's owner. But that's just me. They don't know if your dog is friendly or not. Their dog may have issues and not like being rushed - previous aggression by other dogs, and injury that can cause pain if the dog is knocked over, or may have behavioural issues that are controlled as long as the dog is not crowded.

Give people a little time It is not a common breed and it may take a little while for someone who knows the breed to drop in here.

At least he can now see himself in the mirror to see if he looks like a "Pitty". This is not a slur on Sharpei breeders, but on HIS breeder.

There is a litter advertised on the DOL breed pages at the moment ...

I agree it is bad manners. I you can't stop her, can you set up a crate somewhere, so the dog can be inside, hopefully quieter than outside, and your house will be safe?

Google the magazine Clean Run, and buy their special issue on weaving. It runs through the most common methods of training weavers, their pros and cons and has plenty of pictures etc to help you get it right. It can be the most satisfying exercise to teach.

And there may well be a poor owner out there searching for her. Please do the right thing and take the dog to the pound to give her a chance to be reunited with her owner.

Think about any changes that will be made to the dogs routine and make them now. ie will access to parts of the house (baby's romm etc) be restricted or prevented. - can they wait quietly while you go through a door (you don't want them barging though while you are carrying a baby)? - what will you do at meal times - dogs inside or outside, on a mat or free to roam, allowed to pick up dropped food or not? - are dogs reactive to sudden noises, movement - may need to desensitise them with some childrens toys - will dogs sleep in the same place they do now? - eat in the same place they do now? - will they back away from something you ask them to leave (I found this VERY handy) We brought home some baby clothes from the hospital before the baby came home, and the dogs were allow to smell these in a quiet manner. The dogs were then introduced to the baby slowly - dogs outside when we came home, them introduced one at a time in pack order. Make the baby a good thing, not something that takes you away from the dogs. My dogs learnt to love breast-feeding time as they were allowed to cuddle up to my feet as I fed.

Ask for lamb flaps.

I hope I'm wrong too ...

he may have a feather colour mutation, but sadly, he may also have circovirus (beak and feather disease). In the early stages, it looks just like this.

I would suggest you talk to the kids about this now. This gives them time to learn the rules you are going to set and time to calm down a little about the new arrival. Telling the kids just when the dog is due to arrive will only lead to overexcited kids and a stressed out pup.

have to agree with Caroline in that Standards are very protective towards their owners, but if introduced to people are normally fine . We had a barbecue at our place a couple of years ago now and there were about 8 or 9 children there, they were playing football , I let my Standards out for a run and they all started to play ball with the kids, so we organised a match, dogs against kids, 6 Standards against the gang, Oh yes Caroline Rourke was included, they played for around 15 mins, then the kids declared the Standards the winners as they could not beat them to the ball. My dogs were not used to kids at all and they surprised us all with their reaction to them. I do not believe that every dog should like every person and have to say I am now more aware of my dogs likes and dislikes. We had a kids birthday party at our place on the weekend, and due to the number of people, I didn't let the dogs in with everyone, as I could not supervise adequately. But they sure WANTED to be in there to get all of those sticky pats and cuddles. Most of the kids had a bit of one on one time with the fluffies and botht eh kids and dogs loved it.

You could do that in my bath, but it depends on your setup. I would was dog one, then use the rinse tank and have it bypass the wash tank and just go down the drain. Then wash second dog in the original wash water, then rinse as usual. Mine is a Conmurra autofill twin tank.

Check their breath!!

None of the standards I have met (incuding my own) have been reactive towards people. The ones that have been socialised to sensible children are fine with children, as other breeds.

Yes, I wish the breeder of one of my terriers had been honest with me about the fathers significant allergy problems. So a big from me, for your decision to not pass this trait on to another generation.

My old (ex) family dog used to pick mandarines off the tree, peel them between his paws (as he had is eyes shut and nose screwed up to avoid the oil fromt he skin) and scarf them down. He used to eat heaps of them. My old cairn terrier used to pick sugar peas out of the garden and eat them. My standard poodle pulls lemongrass up by the roots and eats the whole thing, from roots to the tip. Nice breath though!

I usually interpret it as "Hi Mum, gee have I been waiting here for you a long time *yawn* *stretch*. OK so what are we doing then??"

It is against the rules to train in the ring. I don't think any judges would allow it.

I think you'd find that almost all drugs prescibed and dispensed by veterinarians for owners to take home are covered by the Poisons Act. Also drugs routinely used by veterinarians 'in house' (sedatives, anesthetics etc come readily to mind) are all classified as Scheduled drugs because they are poisons (and therefore are covered by the Poisons Act). A pharmacist I spoke with recently was alarmed that vets are not required to provide the Expiry Date and Batch Number of drugs they supply to clients. With regard to the supply of these items there clearly is a double standard and, to my mind at least, drugs are drugs and whether they are supplied by a veteriarian or a pharmacist they are still handed to a person who from that point has control over them. It does appear that our legislators do not consider this from the fundamental perspective of scheduled drugs reaching the general public. They (legislator) seem to view it only from the perspective of drugs supplied by pharmacists being intended for human use and drugs supplied by veterinarians being intended for animal use - with the latter having less protective regulation. Some scheduled medication/drugs are used both by humans and animals. They are identical, the same compostion, the same manufacturer and the same product name. So, why do different rules apply (based only on who prescibed them) given that safety is supposed to be the primary consideration? It doesn't seem to make any sense! You don't understand the difference in classifcation of drugs in this area. Only some scheduled drugs require record keeping. Most common anaesthetic agents and sedative do not.

A veterinarian told me 2 months ago when I specifically asked about this, that when she graduated 16 years ago vets were required to sign for and account for their use of all Scheduled drugs, then added that they are no longer required to do so. This is in WA. I don't know about elsewhere. There has certainly been CHANGES in the sheduling of some drugs and the requirements for record keeping for different drug classes, but there is awide range of drugs that still require record keeping. Perhaps this veterinarian does not use any drugs that remain on schedules that require record keeping.

The majority of drugs can be dispensed this way. Some drugs come in foil packaging, and are left in this when dispensed.

If this topic is entering the vaccination issue then I'm astonished if practicing veterinarians in this country are unaware that the AVA has been 'considering' changing its recommended vaccination protocols for more than a decade. I knew it! Didn't you? They dragged their feet and got so far behind other countries then there was on April 15th this year a meeting between it's national body and scientists with the APVMA to 'discuss' the issue. You may be unaware of this, but are you expecting me to believe that Australian veterinarians know nothing of the Vaccination Guidelines Group which reported a few years ago on the latest research and it's subsequent reocmmendations? Are you unaware that the World Small Animal Veterinary Association's recommedations for 'GLOBAL' application are based on the VGG's recommendations? Now read the VGG's reports! This is precisely why owners of companion animals need to scrutinize their vets - because too often clinical practitioners don't know the science. It seems like they get their post graduate 'education' from the sales representives employed by pharmacuetical companies. Researchers have suspected and subsequently confirmed that duration of immunity following successful vaccination with a MLV as a puppy lasts for 7-15 years (based on serology and challenge studies) and probably for life! The 'three year' recommendation is a compromise to 'wean' vets away from promoting boosters as a means of - well you know what! Yes, my dog suffered neurologicaly from a booster vaccination. My contention is that the vet ought not to have promoted the procedure as "essential" (for maintenance of immunity) and 'perfectly safe'. It was known by veterinary scientists long before that to be neither! At the very least the vet ought to have informed me that the whole issue of booster vacicantions was "CONTENTIOUS' within the veterinary industry. Owners cannot make informed decisions when such information is withheld from them. Owners/clients/consumers are all entitled to be given such information as they need to make "Informed Decisions". Additionally (since you're presumably a vet and want evidence) research published more than a decade before my dog was even born, showed that dogs with atopy have an augmented response to MLV vaccines. My dog had a history of atopy since puppyhood. (Incidentally, all her allergies disappeared after I stopped having her vaccinated and that was almost 6 years ago). How about this, now that we're focusing on vets themselves, I saw a local veterinarian recently and gave my dog's history (including that she had developed some classic signs of distemper when the only distember virus she'd been in contact with was through the vaccine). The vet was a nice guy and we got talking during our conversation he stressed that “modified live (viruses)” as used in vaccines are KILLED (viruses). Yep, I tried to explain but he was insistent – until he took a vial of vaccine from his fridge and checked the label. He hadn't even known that 'modified live' means modified live, ie attenuated/weakened. Do vets really want their clients to laugh at them? You are obviously unhappy with your current vet. Find a new one.

I was focusing on reality. Please read what you yourself quoted. What I actually said is "The reality is that veterinary research is not reported in the mainstream media". The fact is that veterinary research is not reported in the mainstream media. Yes and neither is most research. Why should it be? Most people could not understand either (even researchers in one area will be completely out of their depth in evaluating research in another area). And the sheer volume of material published every month is staggering - where would you like it published? Would you buy a multivolume book of hard core research each week? But it is readily available to ANYONE who wants to look at it. You implied that vets keep their "secret vet research" secret to themselves. This is simply not true.