mita

PF posted this, way back in 2007, when there was a thread asking a similar question about 6 weeks old puppies being sold....in Qld, too. There is no law directly relating to the age pups can be sold in any state. And there's been no law about Sale of Puppies (with age recommendations) passed since then, in Qld. Maybe there should be. But an ethical case sure can be made. There are lots of things that aren't covered by a law, but which the average person finds not acceptable. This is one of them! So I agree with Cynthia, I'd be on the phone to the local MP & to the centre management (& encourage others to do the same.) It's also a topic that should be brought up for public debate....so maybe contact the Channel 7 current affairs program, too.

It's well known, thanks to the human genome project (& there's a canine follow-on, too) that certain traits are heritable....in varying degrees of heritability. No one is denying that. But it's also known that the environment provides trigger & shaping. This OP study claims it will help people re the behavior of companion dogs. Yet the highly significant factor of human influence on dogs' developed & developing behaviours, is dealt with only in passing. When there's actually an extensive research literature on it & I've referred to a few. An example re genes/environment: There's a genetic variation associated with high level of aggression in human males. Longitudinal studies following a large cohort of boys since early childhood, have thrown up an interesting finding. Boys with that gene variation, but raised with 'good' parenting in a 'good' environment, go on to show no more aggression than males in the normal range. Boys raised in adverse circumstances, however, showed the high level of aggression associated with that gene. Studies like this lend weight to the critical contribution of early environmental influences on the development of human behaviour. Which is why there's such a rich scientific literature on risk factors & prevention factors re a whole host of potential behavioural problems. Sound familiar for dogs? This OP study does not have a clear hypothesis....rather a mix of premises. Somehow, one behavioral assessment tool (which is a contradiction in terms)....somehow associated with the collection of dogs' DNA....is going to lead people to an 'ideal' companion dog as expressed in what Australians have said in a survey. (Sounds like advertising copy.) I agree with you that any study can be useful, good or bad.....in being opened up to the scrutiny of the wider scientific community. In fact, I'd wish this had been done already with the OP study. I noted that it was said the funding had come thro' private sources....a Pet Advisory organisation & an organisation associated with animal welfare in Victoria. Apparently not via the Australian Research Council (ARC) (???). To get ARC funding, a research proposal is sent to independent experts for ranking. Which provides quality control for the bulk of Australian research. Yes, I agree with you.....there's also the other end, where studies are published in peer-referenced journals, on completion. Another source for critique. BUT not all studies are presented for publication & not all studies are deemed worthy of publication. My concern about the OP study is that it's being funded by private organisations to provide a behavioral assessment instrument for their use....& presumably to other members of the public. That's the primary purpose. If the OP study, were simply a report to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, then welcome to the critque which would follow (given if it were accepted for publication). But this study is going to drop, immediately, a behavioral assessment instrument re dogs, into the Australian community & 'mixing' that with collecting DNA. When the premises behind it all, should first be the subject of expert scrutiny (as for any study, I hasten to add).

First , sandgrubber, 'the genetic basis for aggression' is not a 'taboo subject in human psychology'. It's just that complete & total 'genetic determinism' has not been found to hold up. The shorthand analogy is that genes supply the gun & the environment fires the bullet. Second, the environmental issues in a dog's developing tendencies to aggression have been studied. And human influence found significant. For example, the University of Qld found that socialisation of puppies, with people and home environments, is critical for dogs later being able to form 'proper' social relationships with people. The U of Q pointed out the significance of this finding, given that 2/3 of the many dogs euthed in sheltes for aggression, are aggressive to people. Which underlines the critical importance of early socialisation for dogs. Go read the 2009 study from the University of Cordoba which looked at dominance aggression in dogs. The research concluded, re its development, that 'Dog-dependent factors (gender, breed, age, size & coat color) are FEWER than owner-dependent factors.' http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:lLmN1...p;client=safari Third, the OP study refers to the 'ideal' companion dog, in its title. What's a word like 'ideal' doing in a scientific study? Its meaning is, existing only as an idea. The opposite of 'real'. Yet, it's 'real' dogs that people acquire as companion pets. And 'real' dogs develop into companions to humans via a process where socialisation/training has been found significant. And, interestingly, other work at the u of q showed the main reason people gave for dumping their dog, was that it hadn't lived up to their expectations. Seems they'd idealised what a pet dog should be.....rather than knowing humans need to work at shaping its behaviour. More reason why human behaviour should figure largely in any study that relates to companion dog behaviour. But doesn't in the OP study.

That's OK, Elfin. My comment would still hold true. Behaviour is far more complex than one assessment made at one time in one location. Their 'finishing' point of measuring dogs that are the 'most easy going, friendly, non-aggressive, relaxed sociable'... may actually be dogs who were significanly helped to be so, by human behaviour. So they could pick up consequences of something they're not taking into consideration at all. Critical issues re dog behaviour (& training) shouldn't be just the stuff of passing reference in a study with their stated aims. Especially as they're going to be using DNA data to nominate which dogs are suitable for Australian society. I'm still very much not impressed.

What university is it associated with? Maybe get further information from there. It struck me there was a leap from saying a 'temperament' test would be administered... to the development of a 'behavioral assessment' measure. There's a difference between temperament & behaviour. Behaviour is mediated by a host of other factors. That's then compounded by the statement, that the DNA data will be used to select 'breeding dogs', to produce dogs 'suitable for living in Australian society'. Very mechanistic approach....nothing about the influence of humans on dogs' behavioural patterns.' And yet there's a study from a university (Cordoba, I think) which concluded dogs' owners have the most significant influence on their behaviour. So it's a very not impressed, from me.

That's really decent of you, tybrax. You're right, one of the biggest problems re BSL, has been that one-sided view given in media. When, meanwhile, respectable research was showing the opposite.

Thank god, you've still got your job. Don't worry, tho'. Most people don't know that the actual responsibility for pet welfare/cruelty lies with DPI Minister, anyway. So if it changes name, they still won't know!

But what about the police? Does the Victorian animal welfare law say the police can be called in animal emergencies? Qld law does. Maybe WA, too.

Which state's law was that situation in? I'm never sure if you're NSW or Victoria. It may say the police can be called in an animal emergency. The Qld animal welfare law says action can be taken by RSPCA inspectors, DPI inspectors & the police. Police are often the nearest for an emergency. There's been a couple of posts where Qld'ers have described how police were called to dogs locked in hot cars. They came fast. Tho' in one case a bystanders whacked a window out....the police agreed when they arrived.

Primary Industries hasn't disappeared, WH. It's carried all its present reponsibilties, including animal welfare law enforcement, under a 'master' dpt. It still has its own Minister. As in: The State of Queensland (Primary Industries and Fisheries within the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation) 1995-2009. Same in Victoria, animals welfare law is the responsibility of the Dpt of Agriculture & Forestry (is Fisheries in there, too?)....which is under the 'master' Dpt of Primary Industries. It's not a case of being hard to fit 'pets in'. It's their responsiblitly under the law. But they get off the hook because most of the community don't know that.....& think that it's the reponsibility of the RSPCAs. No....they're only agents. Your federal idea is interesting. I'll think about that. Frankly, I think the RSPCAs should walk away from law enforcement. The world is too sophisticated & the laws too all- encompassing now, to be left to a charity with handfuls of inspectors. No way can expectations be met. Anyway there's present conflict of interest, for RSPCAs, between advocacy (wanting new laws or laws to change) & enforcing current law.

There actually is. But most people don't know how to use the system.

What needs a kick into action, is the state governments. In particular, the Dpts of Primary Industries orAgriculture which have the job of applying the animal welfare laws. Many of which carry criminal penalties. BUT the DPI (or DOA) delegates the enforcement of cruelty laws to the RSPCA to carry out. If you read the animal welfare legislation, it keeps talking about 'the Minister authorises seizure of animals' or whatever. The responsibility for all these actions re the cruelty laws are with the state Ministers of DPI or DOA. They just make the state RSPCAs their agents. Which is mentioned in the legislation. Why is the job handed over to an organisation, which is essentially a charity, & an advocate for how they believe animals should be treated? The Police Dpt doesn't delegate enforcing the criminal law to the Citizens' Against Crime charity. They employ police officers to do it. The answer is both historical & economical. The RSPCA is the only charity, that once provided a major community service, which didn't morph into a public service run by a government dpt. And it's cheap for government to make a charity, which has to raise most of its funds, do the work which is actually theirs. I think it was the CEO RSPCA Qld who was in the news recently for saying he thought their law enforcement role should be taken away. Leaving the RSPCA to be an animal welfare charity & an advocate on welfare matters. Like AWL. I think he's right. Animal cruelty law should be policed by officers employed by the Dpt of Primary Industries (or Agriculture). DIRECTLY responsible to the Minister. And in sufficient numbers. Not the handsful of RSPCA Inspectors, as now. Just like the criminal law is policed by police officers employed by the Police Dpt & DIRECTLY responsible to the Minister. Won't happen, tho', because the government dpts are happy that someone else is doing the dirty work & actually has to raise most of their own money to do it. And are delighted that most people don't know it really is their job.

I love this! We used to say our 19 to 23 yr old Grandma dog, behaved like the Queen Mother when she went to the vets. Where are the servants to wait on me? Along with comments about what a grand old lady I am. One big, tough middle-aged male vet, didn't have the heart to leave Gran in a clinic cage overnight, so he took her home & she slept beside his bed. I'm glad Tammy didn't need any extractions. Little Gran did....& she had a rough couple of days after her op. But Tammy's come out true to her usual gorgeous form. Go, Tams.

Our late little dog, Grandma, had teeth surgery when she was 19 years old. What made the difference for recovery was the pre & post op care. I found she needed special care in the days following. Every warm thought coming down to Tammy.

The only pitbull I've met, up close & personal, was nothing like ' a great slathering Hound of the Baskerville' (Actually that should be 'Baskervilles') I saw her from behind, at first, when she was running up & down the fenceline playing with my small dogs. She was beautiful....lovely colour & beautiful body lines. Weirdly, I'd have described her body shape as elegant. When she turned to face me, I saw she was a pitbull (her owners later confirmed it). No slathering at all. Her face was shining with fun & she was happy to meet a new person. She was the very opposite of the fearsome Hound of the Baskervilles... personable & biddable. Altogether, a lovely dog. I'd have been happy to own her. Yet I don't feel particularly deficient in personality. We were able to trace her owners & return her. They weren't wearing singlets & footie shorts, either. Nice people, like their well-cared for dog.

It's appalling for the little girl to be so badly bitten. And I understand your need to get some clear information out there....about your friends' side of the awful story. You'll notice that my post spoke about not knowing certain research-based facts about children & dogs. If those facts were better known, parents & dog owners would recognise a high risk situation. There have been streams of media accounts about young children, especially the littlies, infants, toddlers & preschoolers being badly bitten by dogs. Each time, there's understandable shock & horror...and grief that a child is scarred. But nothing has been done, at a community level, to prevent them. I said that a medical body, such as the National Health & Medical Research Council, should set up a task force to thoroughly bombard the community with the simple facts: .The most vulnerable group, by far, for dog bites/attacks are the littlies. The 2 yr old was within that highest risk group. Whatever assurance dog owners give, super-care is needed when children of that age are accessible, eye to eye with dogs. .The risk is heightened if the dog is eating.... (or woken from sleep.) There's also valuable research evidence about what is in the background of a dog that goes on to bite or attack a human. It's revealed that the key to preventing that, is early socialisation of puppies. You're right to ask, what are dogs for. Safe companions to humans. We know now that socialising puppies well & continuing it, with training, will help achieve that . I hope the little girl makes the best recovery possible from her injuries. There's also the terrible shock she's had (& her parents & sister, too.)

The parent & the salon owner.....as two adults with responsibilities in the situation....are both at fault, thanks to ignorance. The parent has responsibility for what a 2 yr old child is doing... & the salon owner has responsibility for what their dog is doing. Their ignorance consists of: Not knowing that a 2 yr old child is in the highest risk group for being bitten by dogs. For a host of reasons. Close supervision is necessary. Not realising that a 2 yr old child's face is close to a dog's level & has delicate skin. So even a warning snap will cause severe damage. Not knowing the Golden Rule to keep children away from dogs that have food. If this situation were an equally 'at risk' one.....where 2 adults permitted a 2 yr old child free movement beside a busy highway & the child was struck by a car....then their fault would've been obvious. Ignorance, followed by lack of responsibility, caused the problem with the toddler & the dog. If the adults involved argue that their ignorance means they were innocent of culpability. Then stupidity will do. When will the general public have beaten into their heads.....& habits....the well- researched facts about toddlers/preschoolers & dogs? The dog world's not making much of a fist of it. I think there should be a Task Force on Dog Bites/Attacks....with a base somewhere medical. Like the National Health & Medical Research Council. To work at basic info to flood the public with... like the basic Slip Slap Slop did for skin cancer. With medical, veterinary, dog behaviorists, parent group & media representatives.

My girl, Gracie, had similar trouble with anal glands. Best vet we've had, recommended light sprinkling of psyllium on her food. Available from health food shops. Now I also do the same for my other girl, NinaZena, to prevent anal gland problem occurring in the first place.

I think you're helping greatly by stopping to have a talk with an older lady who has a small dog. So there's some reassurance about the situation.'That changes the scenario completely. But I'll stick to my point, that, given unknown variables.....I have no problem with an older lady electing to be protective. In fact, in terms of risk management, to herself & her small dog, it's wise of her to do so in many situations. Her safety in the face of those unknown variables is more important. I'm also wary about using the word 'neurotic' to describe behaviour, both in humans & dogs. My background is psych. It's the context & pattern of experience, behind behaviours, that count, not a label. The context I'm talking about is that of an older lady & her confidence and ablities in the face of any possible argy bargy. I'm experienced with big dogs & small dogs....and have no automatic fear of big dogs. And my small dogs are long familiar with big dogs (one a greyhound tester). But even I will make a snap assessment, in some situations, to pick up my small dog or take avoidance, in the presence of another dog, medium or big & its particular owner. We may have to agree to disagree on this. And I'm very much referring to older ladies. By the way, the 2nd group most vulnerable to dog bites/attacks (after small children), is the elderly (over 65 yrs).

Congratulations. Great work. I really enjoyed reading the article, especially the bit about how you compensate for not being able to control the zoo environment background. And finish up with an amazing photo!

If a big dog is on lead & is in the control of a sensible person, I'm happy for some controlled socialiation with my small dog. All my little dogs were brought up with their breeders' GSD or Tibetan Mastiff anyway! And one was the greyhound adoption program small dog tester. But I understand the protectiveness that some older ladies feel, when they come across a big dog. Their small dogs are not likely to have had a history of controlled socialisation with big dogs. And if anything goes pear-shaped in a passing interaction with a big dog, an older lady doesn't have the strength to intervene. And may be at risk herself, for a fall or from some health matter. OK, in a perfect world, there would have been controlled socialisation. But, it's not. And I'm happy to cut those older ladies some slack.

It's been a good week for darling elderly chooks. Prada, the pretty senior ACDx in AWL Qld's golden oldies program, has been adopted, too. Have a look at her, before they take her pic down. http://www.awlqld.com.au/Golden-Oldies.html I keep thinking of the poem: Grow old along with me, The best is yet to be. As it'll be for Tammy & Prada.

So she doesn't get stressed, can you put some doggie toothpaste on your finger....or on the corner of a thin facecloth....& gently rub her teeth. Some of that brown stuff might slough off. See if she can get used to this in little spurts. Also there's Purina Dental Chews (available from Coles). A breeder recommended them for my senior dogs. I hope, Caz & Tammy, you don't mind me telling Qld'ers who'd love a senior gem, that there's a pretty ACD x girl, around 12 yrs of age, in the Golden Oldies adoption program at AWL Qld on the Gold Coast. Classy name, Prada, for a classy dame whose coat is red, white, black & tan. Enquiries: 5509 9000

Clever girl, Tammy, taught you well & fast. You've put into words, beautifully, why a number of us rave about the golden oldies. You're getting the feeling, aren't you....that this amazing elderly girl is giving you more than you could ever give her. It's so hard to convey that to people, who haven't had the 'senior dog' experience. I'm so glad you both found each other. She's adorable. Our vet advised up to sprinkle some Protexin (for digestive health) over the food of our elderly 'Grandma'. She lived until she was nearly 23 yrs. Protexin is a powdered form of a probiotic & is available from vets.

Great post Sensible comment that it comes down to any individual's upbringing & experience.