poodlefan

I use Drontal every three months and a montly heartworm tablet (Proheart) I only use a flea or tick treatment when necessary (which is not often). I'm no fan of using all in ones if you don't have issues with some of the parasites covered.

Jesus... people aren't just buying a fancy made up breed name, they're buying a genetic lottery. Ask family member that if person in their backyard garage bolted the front end of a Holden Commodore to the back end of a Toyota Landcruiser and called it the Australian Desert Cruiser, would he buy one of those?? He's considering forking out for the canine equivalent.

Ludwig I think it might be useful to view your dogs through the paradigm of them not knowing any better than they do. If they're a pain on the lead and with lack of focus on you, that's because these behaviours have to be taught. You've indulged them and that's fine but along with the indulgence they need boundaries so they learn what is acceptable and what isn't. A decent trainer spending one on one time with you and your dogs would work wonders but the start of the improvement but be recognition that you've got the dogs you created. No need to dwell on that but with acceptance that you're part of the issue will come acceptance that you must be part of the solution. Tell Hubby to park his ego, get a decent trainer in, listen carefully and learn. Those naughty dogs have the capacity to be well mannered and obedient - what stands between here and there is owners who instill and reward good behaviour through training. Without training, nothing will change. Maturity alone will not change this kind of behaviour. It shoudn't require 'boot camp' to resolve this - just some rules and teaching your dogs that the best things in life come from you when they give you what you ask for.

There's actually some very sensible comment in that article. Nice to see the vets coming out on the side of sanity.

He wants to buy a combination of two large and powerful breeds bred to two entirely different purposes and he'll have no idea what attributes of each breed he'll get. Recipe for disaster and I speak from experience because we had someone at work buy one and they couldn't do a damn thing with it. How does he feel about owning a highly intelligent, prey driven, extremely powerful dog with a spitz breeds independence that will make it a real challenge to train. It might well be predisposed to pull like a train as well. He wont' know the level of bite threshold or inhibition the dog is likely to get. And most importantly, the kind of idiot who'd actually BREED such pups sure as hell wont' be health testing the parents. If I was looking for a recipe for a dog likely to get hip displaysia, I'd be hard pressed to do better. Structually, combining these two breeds could result in a nightmare.

Apple seeds are toxic if fed often enough I believe. Other than that, apples are fibre for dogs - thats it.

And so it begins....

I was thinking the same thing, re. journo. If he is and if he's here to stir up debate and attempt to get someone to defend the indefensible, then its not only unethical to do so without revealing his profession, its not working. Not that he'll let either of those issues get in the way of his quest..

Yes it is about breeds - read the papers. And to be honest I have some sympathy, because some just look downright more scary. I am more afraid of some dogs than others, and everyone else is too. If it is nothing to do with breeds then I'd love to see the research stats. I convince myself to fly on that basis, but with dogs I can't access the info. Even that US/Ca report missed the denominator ie how many of each type. It's not that its "nothing" to do with breeds. Breed plays a part. But what you can't say is that a dog is dangerous (or potentially dangerous) or not based on breed alone. Read this paper from the Centre for Disease Control and note ALL the issues it discusses. It recommends generic dangerous dog legislation that places responsiblities on owners. This is the conclusion. FYI that's the same conclusion reached by every researcher I've read on the subject. And I've read plenty. MatthewB, based on God knows what research, tells us that's rubbish.

Hi Poodlefan, can you please find me a link that refers to the dog's breed? i can't find anything in any of the media outlets i've searched. Ps. i'm not entering into the current debate, i'm just looking to find accurate media reports on the gawd awful tragic incident. taa I'll cite the ABC as probably the most likely to be accurate. The dog has been cited variously as a pitbull or amstaff cross Mastiff. My guess is that its a lot of things, including a bull breed. Linky

You've missed the point.. its not about breeds. If the dog is big enough, it can kill. The fact that every argument Matthew B has raised has been shot down won't convince him because he's not thinking about the issue - he's feeling about it. He's formed a view from which no amount of evidence will dissuade him and he's hanging on tight. I've cited repeatedly an example where a non-BSL approach to the issue of dangerous dogs IS WORKING. What more can you do to disprove an idea (breed bans work) than demonstrate a better approach. Sticky's provided the rest. I live in a non-BSL state where pitbulls are allowed. Where are all the maimings and fatalities that MatthewB says are an inevitable outcome of such dogs in the community???? Meanwhile down in BSL central... what's happened? Reverend Jo researches this stuff for a living.. and even she's making no headway with folk who will not listen because they are convinced (based on zero knowledge of the issue) that they are right.

We're living your scenario right now. Victoria has had BSL for years.. and another child is dead in horrific circumstances What it will mean is more pain for those restricted breed owners who did the right thing and no impact whatsoever on the kinds of owners who created the problem in the first place. A good place to clamp down would be on desexing and breeding.. no license, no ANKC membership.. no breeding.

I'm reasonably confident it will be a while before they come for smaller poodles but that ain't the point. BSL doesn't work. It doesn't make communities safer and it won't stop some dog owners from putting the lives of children at risk.

No, it won't help and this kind of use of antibiotics scares the hell out of me because it contributes to super bugs. If your dog is getting yeast infections, look to its diet and its immune system and don't use products like this to mask the symptoms of something more holistic affecting the dog.

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that breed alone does not make a dog dangerous any more than it makes a dog "safe". Efforts to prevent dangerous dogs in the community cannot afford to focus on breeds. You said such stories wouldn't exist Matthew... and I've proven otherwise. The fact that you're once again making personal comments tells me that you've seen your argument that Labradors aren't responsible for attacks on people blown clean out of the water with a few minutes of Googling. The analogy was being used (since you seem incapable of grasping the point of it) to demonstrate that ascribing attacks to breed and using breed bans alone deal with the issue is an utter nonsense. Pitbulls are large powerful dogs - but so are Labradors. Matthew the fact that you believe to your core that pitbulls are inherently dangerous dogs simply doesn't make it so. You can raise the level of your argument and take potshots at me but it doesn't change the fact that your belief is not borne out with facts. You argued that since the dog that killed this poor little girl was a pitbull, they should all die. But it wasn't a pitbull. You argued that other breeds of dog don't do what pitbulls can do. I've proved they can and do. The difference between you and I Matthew is that I know for a fact that a whole range of contributing factors make a dangerous dog so that only dealing with one of them (breed) doesn't make society safer. You believe in the myth that killer dogs are born, not made. I challenged you yesterday to find any evidence that breed specific legislation has made any community a safer place. Find it and you'll prove your point. I've looked and I can't find it. I can find evidence to the contrary though. Have you actually looked at the Calgary project yet?

By the way Tanstaff, if the reason you're asking this is because you think your dog might be captured by the proposed crack down on pitbulls in Victoria, then IMO you have every reason to be concerned.

No need for gundogs either Matthew.... shooting game is banned in most states. And as they bite kiddies, best we be rid of them. OMG, another nasty Labrador attack - read the excuses made for the dog And another!! Holy cow Labs are dangerous Its clear this breed attacks kids with no good reason. Best we kill them all now.

You said they NEVER happen Matthew.. don't look now but you're argument's on shakey ground. A Labrador cross dingo killed a child in Australia a couple of years back.. so crossbreeding labradors is dangerous.. best we ban them to stop it happening. And wait.. there's more: Another incident Get your blinkers off and read this"]And another[/url] And another

How about maiming instead then? Get your blinkers off and read this and this and this and this

No Matthew is isn't. Owners buy dogs from poor breeding. Owners fail to socialise, fail to train and fail to desex. They encourage some behaviours and fail to discourage others. They fail to exercise and fail to meet dog's needs. Owners fail to contain dogs. And owners fail to control dogs. How you can suggest that when a dog kills is ISN'T the owners fault sure beats the hell out of me. It doesn't matter what a dog was bred for IF that dog harms others. And if it does, then its owner must be held responsible.

I don't consider myself a breed expert by any means but to to my eye, NEITHER dog looks purebred. Did Zeus have pedigree papers? He looks like a RR cross to me

Pitbulls haven't "worked" legally for many years. They no longer perform their original function and much as I would never sanction nor condone dog fighting, frankly I think its part of the problem because the human aggression that would have been ruthlessly culled in the breed is now encouraged by a small proportion of fanciers (and that's the start of the problem) Then we have the type of folk attracted to the breed for the wrong reasons. The tough macho types who give their dogs tough names and drape them in studs and leather and apppear to enjoy them intimidating others. Its one thing to admire the breed for its courage and tenancity and another entirely to encourage manifestations of anti-social behaviour in the dogs. Sadly, BSL has shut down opportunities for these dogs to attend training in most states but we hardly ever see them at our dog club where they'd have the opportunity to be good ambassadors for the breed. The "circle the wagons and stuff everyone else" paradigm adopted by the breeds defenders in the anti-BSL fight didn't help either. But none of this means that the dogs are inherently dangerous.. lets not lose sight of that. Half the time the dog they use as the testing dog in temperament tests on shows like Animal Cops is a pitbull... a happy, tail waggy friendly dog.

Just like banning breeds and stopping dog attacks eh TD.

I've maintained from year dot that some ABPT fanciers are the breeds worst enemies. They simply cannot seem to fathom that they are part of the breed's "reputation problems".

Why is it funny? If the research shows that its "bad" owners that create "bad" dogs, why in hell wouldn't you stop bad owners from having them?