poodlefan

Cadavers don't bleed, don't breathe and don't die when you get it wrong. If you're happy to trust your dogs life to a vet that's learning to deal with that on your pet, then good for you. I'm not. Its all well and good to be squeamish but some deaths profit others. I'll give you a perfect human example. The reason so little information is available about the impact of severe car accidents on children is because researchers have never had sufficient access to children's cadavers for crash test research. Society can cope with adults being used to build the data that modern crash test dummies incorporate but the child dummies are scaled down adult ones. So we have no accurate way of gaining data to make cars safer for kids. And living children suffer as a result. I call that a crying shame.

I'm not skipping over things Anne but I honestly would have to question the accuracy/objectivity of a report seemingly based on the views of one horrified veterinary student. All I can say is I hope whoever that student is hardens up a little - dealing with dogs that have to be PTS because owners didn't give a damn about injuries or illnesses left untreated or euthanaising perfectly healthy pets that aren't wanted any more is part of the territory unfortunately. I'm saving my frustration and anger for the owners who have allowed their pets to find their way to those "colony cages". The dogs' fate is sealed.

Dogs fitting those descriptions die in Australian pounds every day. Is anyone going to suggest that a pound environment is stress free? I'm not wild about this practice but lets keep it at the top of our minds that these are not dogs that are going to have a life beyond this anyway.

I attended the Pat Hastings seminar in Yass last night. Mrs Hastings needs to start up a cult. I'd be joining. I can't think of a better way to learn about dogs than to follow her around for a few weeks. So much knowledge, so clearly explained and topped with a clear, no nonsense approach. I learned a lot. I think pennies were dropping for many people in the room. Another friend attending said she learned more about structure in that 4.5 hours than she has in six years of talking to other breeders. I'll be able to identify other possible cult members easily - they'll be the ones drawing imaginary lines on stacked dogs at shows for the foreseeable future I reckon. Poor Howie will also be getting prodded and measured too. I'm pleased to report that he has a decent length of sternum - checked last night I"m sorry more breeders and dog performance people won't get the opportunity to hear her in this country. And yes, the explanation for SOME deliberate over angulation of the GSD rear assembly WAS educational.. however as she said, that doesn't mean more is more.

Are you just talking about play between dogs or play with handlers as well. OMG, WITH DOGS. We TOTALLY encourage play with handlers all the time. The biggest thing we are working through is getting people to constantly interact with their dogs and not bounce off the end of the lead 'chasing' other dogs. (FOCUS) Even if someone is talking to an instructor we encourage them to be constantly patting their dog or at least have hold if it so it isn't wandering around making its own decisions. Thought that would be the case... and I agree. I also discourage handlers from allowing their dogs to play while in class. And for dogs that are starting to lose focus or have done something special, I encourage handlers to leave the class for 5 minutes of play with their dogs.

If that's the case, I'd not be calling them neutral.

Here we go again... I think just killing them is far better. Seriously, allowing veterinary students to practice on living animals scheduled for euthanasia before turning them loose on our pets... disgusting. Get real people. The dog doesn't suffer and other dogs profit from this. Where's the harm?

Although PF and I disagree on aspects of socialisation, it is at least on my part very respectfully. .. I see puppies in dog parks and routinely cringe about it because they are kind of tossed in on a Saturday afternoon and the owners are so dismayed that the puppy is screaming and trying to run away that they never go back again. I figure, if you want to use dog parks, there's no real reason why you shouldn't, but there are some good rules of thumb to follow. I don't want to hijack PF's thread, and she'll probably disagree with some of my rules! Suffice to say dog parks are dynamic places and every situation is different. If you are not confident reading the situations you will probably not enjoy being there. Show me two trainers and I'll show you a debate. I'd argue that dog parks are places for dogs who already have social skills, not for pups to learn them. There are better methods IMO of equipping a dog to deal with aggression and rudeness from other dogs than by exposing them to that as pups. It goes wrong in way too many cases for my liking. But vive la difference.

It's a bit of a stretch to equate this scenario to what is proposed by the OP - ie getting a slightly younger GR as company for her existing one. She's not talking large-scale picnics with complacent GR owners. A number of people with two GRs have posted on this thread saying that their dogs get on famously and have suggested the OP go ahead.. I really don't understand why you are so opposed to the idea, Poodlefan. There is surely an element of risk with two of any dog not just two GRs. The scenario is people advising that two bitches will get on like a house on fire because that's what GRs do. I can certainly think of a few examples where assumptions about breed result in shock for owners and gave the best one I had for this breed. I'm interested in lowering the risk of conflict as far as possible with judicious selection of the next dog. Basic rule for lack of conflict between dogs is don't have two dogs similar in age, size and gender. The OP will match size and age won't be that different. Other than gender, what else is there to change? Why would you advocate an exception to the rule for Golden Retrievers if you wouldn't for other breeds? I woudn't do it for Whippets either and they're another breed with a reputation for lack of conflict between dogs. People are saying that the temperament of the breed is brilliant and that two dogs of the same sex won't have issues. That's a generalisation that I'm arguing isn't always borne out in fact. It seems at least one GR person agrees with me. They don't come out of a cookie cutter and temperament is variable. At least one poster in this thread saying that two dogs will get on fine knows damn well from personal experience that two GR's of the same sex aren't always a recipe for success but has chosen remain silent on the issue. I know they know otherwise. So be it. The risk of conflict between dogs of this breed is low. I acknowledge that they're great dogs but they're not infallible. I dont' see the need to pretend otherwise. 99/100 pairings will be fine but call me risk averse The OP had assumed a bitch would be a better bet to go with her existing bitch. I choose to advise otherwise. Oh and thanks for the correct spelling of complacent - I KNEW it looked wrong

I find it both unsurprising and sad that GRs are up the top of the bite stats in Canada where they are also the most popular dogs. The breed's reputation for brilliant temperament seems to lead some owners (not folk here) to conclude that the decision to buy one is all that's required to create a perfect family pet. They also seem to expect that the dog will tolerate being tormented by children without issue. So many things have to be taught to any dog and its a tragedy to see a great pup's potential ruined by lack of socialisation and training. Not that GRs have a monopoly on that situation.

I think possibly the biggest dog fight I've ever seen (no serious bloodshed but a hell of a lot of sound and fury) was between a large group of Golden Retrievers at a local pet owner get together. Those owners took the affability for which the breed is renowned for granted in a situation with a big crowd of dogs (10+) who didn't know each other well offlead near a lot of food around a picnic table.. and were visibly stunned and shaken at the result. I can't think of too many other breed owners that would have been quite so complaisant. I'm glad the dogs stopped the fight because I'm not sure any of the owners knew how to. GRs are great dogs and nearly all I meet are very amiable but they have all the instincts of other dogs and IMO it pays to manage them not for what they usually do but for what they might possibly do. Selecting the best possible match for an existing dog is one example.

F* it! Went to inspect one I had seen earlier (ironically on top of Bonnie's grave). Soft/gooey-ish in parts, realy dark-almost black on the outside , Ive been keeping an eye on his toileting but thats the consistincy I would expect since he is eating so little......squished it with a rock, bright orange on the inside. Ill ask about EPI too when I go. Far out. Take it with you.

So what happens if the OP ends up in this situation? I appreciate that the risk of serious dog to dog issues between GRs is low, but its not non-existent and having a dog of each gender lowers the risk further. Golden Retrievers aren't teddy bears, they're dogs. They can have dog to dog issues as some posting here know only too well. Some folk seem to have convenient memories. Not every pairing results in happy ending - you've said as much above. Assurances that two GRs of the same sex will get on like a house of fire aren't always backed up by facts. I can think of a number of rehomings that would suggest an element of caution is called for in matching dogs. I'm not sayinig its common or that it results in bloodshed but it does happen. You'd be wanting to look at the individual character of each dog too. My personal view is that, while acknowledging that the risk IS low, I'd advise the OPnot to take the risk if they're happy to have a male. It seems most of those with the breed beg to differ but its not you who'll face the heartache if it doesn't go to plan. This advice has been given and ignored before and I can think of at least one occasion where the risk flagged did eventuate.

I simply said you should keep him on lead for initial greetings. They could be in a back yard. I didn't mention dog parks at all. Its not ideal to have a dog onlead for a range of reasons but it will give you more control. I made no implication about the standard of your dog ownership. You do need to be cognizant however that what you do is not without risk.

Are you just talking about play between dogs or play with handlers as well.

I hate to be blunt, but at this stage neither do you. Keep him onlead and get them to toss treats from a distance. Let HIM make the approach, not the kids. I'd only be doing this after he's been down to the playground to sit and watch and isn't reacting to them some distance away. If possible, I'd be wanting to do any close encounters under the supervision of an experienced professional.

I'm sure they will but make sure the new vet considers looking for intestinal and stomach disorders. It sounds to me like there's more to this than depression. I hope I'm wrong. Praying you are too, but my gut feeling isnt good either. Bah, now Im crying.....anyways, no point stressing till I see the vet. Knowing what you're dealing with will give you a way forward. I find its the not knowing that's the killer.

Its a risk you take.. sometimes with a bad result. At least its usually more of an inconvenience than a danger to the pup.

Be careful with this. A fear based reaction could see a child in danger - hasten slowly. I'd be working on having him in the proximity of children before any greetings. Start with older children and work down from there. Muzzle if required for total safety. You're not alone. I know of a few dogs who missed out on this experience and are frightened of kids as a result. In at least one case, that manifests as fear aggression. Again, its my dog club/dog show network that provides dog savvy kids for puppy socialisation. I don't have kids but I want dogs that are tolerant of them. Honestly I don't think you could buy socialisation opportunities as good as a country agricultural/dog show.. animals, dogs, kids, rides - you name it, its there. Its a great reason to show pups, even if you don't go on with it.

I'm sure they will but make sure the new vet considers looking for intestinal and stomach disorders. It sounds to me like there's more to this than depression. I hope I'm wrong.

Join a good dog club ASAP if there is one in your area. Not only will you gain skills but you'll soon find owners with dogs you dog likes and that are willing to meet up socially. They are ideal places to network in that regard. I bet there are experienced WA based dog owners here that would probably respond to a request for a meet up. I LOVE places like fetes and shows too - you can start on the outskirts, get your pup relaxed and build up to more crowded and noisy spots. And few people can resist patting a pup!!

I'm starting this thread because there seems to be some confusion among puppy owners as to how and why they need to socialise their pups. I'll leave to the experts to outline fear periods and learning experiences but want to focus on the more practical aspects of the process. "Socialisation" IMO basically means accustoming a dog into its new home and community and equipping it with basic experiences that will allow it to function happily and appropriately in that community. When I socialise my babies, I do a range of things: 1. Take them to an effectively run puppy pre-school that provides for controlled interactions with other pups in a safe, sterile environment. 2. Take them to friend's homes and introduce them to new people and safe dogs I know will give positive experiences 3. Once fully vaccinated, take them out and about, sometimes on their own and sometimes with other dogs for as many different experiences as I can get. That includes meeting kids, cats, and as many people as possible. 4. Continue an ongoing process of controlled introductions and play with other dogs to equip them with canine social skills. That always includes training at my dog club. What I don't do is EVER put my pups in a situation where the reactions of dogs or people are unknown or where a bad experience is hard to prevent. That rules out public offlead dog parks TOTALLY. I'm going to cut and paste a most of a post I made in another thread about what you're looking for for those first steps with other dogs (other than littermates that is). The point I'd like to make is about the sort of dogs a baby pup needs to meet: When starting out to socialise a new dog or pup some folks will say "he needs to meet Rover, Rover LOVES other dogs". Interpet this to mean that Rover is possibly extremely exhuberant with other dogs and doesn't read them all that well. What a timid dog/pup needs to build confidence at first is not a "friendly dog" but an INDIFFERENT dog. Not one that's going to rush up, bowl it over or pounce on it but one that will go "a puppy? Great - now what else is happening". A dog that will give distance but not react aversively to attempts to initiate contact/play is the best confidence builder you can get. Add to that the importance of building a bond of trust and confidence in the handler. A handler that has built that will give confidence to a dog in new and unusual situations. This is why I always recommend a program of formal training for new dog owners - not just for the skills and manners taught but for the process of creating a bond between dog and handler. Below is a pic of controlled puppy socialisation in action - the moment my friend's working ESS puppy saw her first poodle - check out the look of uncertainty on the pup's face. (Lets call this the "WTF moment" at which point the experience can go either way) She was really quite worried. Big Ted really wasn't at all interested. He was headed for the treats. Nothing bad happened and the pup gained confidence as a result. ETA: This wasn't a timid pup by the way - just a baby experiencing dogs unlike herself for the first time. After a few minutes she was completely relaxed. When you're socialising a pup you want the biggest range of ages, sizes and breeds you can get for your dog to safely meet (one reason I don't favour breed based dog club training) and you want to do it not just for a baby puppy but for adolescent dogs also. Small dogs NEED to meet larger dogs that will behave appropriately and large pups NEED to meet small dogs so they know they aren't prey and they aren't squeaky toys either. Socialisation starts the day you bring your puppy home and needs to be ongoing for months. I'd not consider a dog to be fully socialised until its fully mature. Puppies get a license from adult dogs that will expire and they need to learn in a safe environment about how to behave around adults, not just other youngsters. Appropriate discipline for rude behaviour is a great way for pups to learn this. And the best teachers are other dogs, vetted for the appropriateness and predictibility of their reaction to pups. Allowing your dog or pup to be bullied or harassed by others is not effective socialisation. Hopefully others will join in with more information about how to safely socialise a pup.

Start training now and continue for at least 12 months. I'd want to go to a puppy pre-school (a decent one) in a sterile area until the pup was fully vaccinated and then onto an obedience/training school.

Agree totally. Time spent walking with calm dogs is great. Just stay the hell out of the public dog parks Lambo - can't think of a faster method of pushing a timid dog over into fear aggression.

yes That is always a scary comment! Howard my Whippet is like this... not the first dog you want a timid dog to meet although he is pretty good at reading dogs and adapting his behaviour to suit them. He tends to have a calming influence on uncertain dogs and his breeder says his mother is the same. Sadly, Ted is too old to train baby puppies in the niceties of dog interaction anymore. He's helped his share of big babies learn not to jump on little dogs but he's in retirement from socialisation duties now. FHRP's Flynn was always "first big dog" for my pups for the same reasons - indifferent, predictable in terms of appropriate reactions. Such dogs are worth their weight in gold.