Chocolatelover

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series. But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say). But just because a titre test shows there are no demonstratable antibodies lurking around does not mean the animal is not immune. The memory cells are responsible for the amnamnestic response which is what would protect the animal if it is resensitised. Proving that an animal seroconverts ensures you have stimulated a response and the animal will then have memory cells for this atigen. Having no antibodies present in a titre test three year on does not mean that the animal does not have immunity.

Saw a program on ABC lateline on Friday and it was sooooooooooo sad :D They had about 40000 chickens in a barn and some animal liberationists (think it was in Victoria) broke in and took video footage and rescued some of the birds, although most had to be PTS. Apparently what they do is use artificial light to trick the birds into feeding constantly, hence they become very large, very quickly. This particular "farm" had left dead rotting carcasses amongst the chickens, plus the sick and weak were not able to access food and water and quickly died. The other chicks were cannibalising the dead birds. Sorry for graphic detail - but was quite shocking. Apparently this is where a major chicken fast food outlet sources their chicken (probably shouldn't mention names) which I'm glad I never frequent And we are only buying organic certified free range eggs now as apparently just "free range" does not necessarily mean what I thought it did.

Hey Sandgrubber - hope this helps My breeder did a six week C3 and then vet did a 12 week C5 and then told me that was it. If I had of known I would have taken him in later for the C5 at 16 weeks. From what I can understand, if a pup is to only ever receive one vaccination eg rescue dogs then it should be given at sixteen or greater weeks as this is when there the greatest chance of responding to the vaccination. For this reason I gave him another at 16.5 weeks. Plus I had just read Rexiam's thread on loosing her Molly and Chuzzy (both who had a second at 12 weeks from memory) and this did sway my decision as well :D At the twelve week vaccination it is possible for the pup to still have maternal antibodies. These antibodies were passed through the mothers milks to the pup and they hang around for a bit. So when the antigen (parvo virus which is modified or dead, not sure which in the case of parvo) is injected into the pup the maternal antibodies bind to it and it is removed from circulation. For this reason the pup's own immune system is never exposed and no memory cells will be made (the secondary response which is the point of vaccination). So technically, the pup is not vaccinated. By 16 weeks it is highly likely that the maternal antibody will have been removed from the pups system and the vaccination will cause them to seroconvert, that is - to make it's own antibodies and memory cells for later re-exposure. So I guess like you say Sandgrubber, if a pup was titred after it's last vaccination to make sure it had seroconverted that would be the best way to make sure that the vaccination was effective and maybe titres could be done from their rather than revaccinating?????? Although I would think that once the animal had been proven to seroconvert then that would be it!!! I too am not sure why we vaccinate our dogs more than our children!! Have never been able to find the anwer to this, although am still looking Just a thought, I like reading my science books too

I agree with Masons mom - our boy labs have always seemed to prefer the girl humans. Tazer is eight months old and always follows either me or my daughter (10). But she is very involved with him - feeding, brushing and usually has his lead when we are walking (even though they are not too far apart in weight he is surprisingly good for her). If he is off lead and she and I go in different directions, he usually follows her - although it does depend sometimes on who has the treats :D But even if the boys have the treats he sticks with the girls! They human boys are definitely not as involved in the day to day walking and care though. But now that I think of it - off lead our Beagle sticks with my OH He obviously doesn't know which side his bread is buttered on!!!!! I did read once that the dog often sees itself as higher in the pack order the children but not sure if this is true or not.

Thanks guys We actually received them in the post today!! Mystiqview - the lady I spoke to at Dogs Queensland did say that they were normally sent to the breeder but because of the extenuating circumstances in this case the decision had been made to send them directly to buyers. Good to finally have them - even though I love him just the same

UPDATE - our papers are on their way!!!! Phoned Dogs Queensland (have even learned the correct name along the way) today and the lady told me that the pups have been registered and papers will be sent directly to the owners. (Yep I did check we were on the list ). A big thank you to Blackdog for all his help!!!!!!!!! And thank you to everyone for their suggestions Now I just have to get the OH to stop calling him Muttley.............

I can see where you are coming from chocolatelover, I hope all the animals get loving homes too. And I too see your point of view ILK I hope she gets her life back on track after all of this. I guess I am just a bit cynical about the motives of huimans after some seeing and reading some of the things they are capable of - makes me really love my dog though!!

I am not saying that I agree with all of the actions and ideas of the RSPCA. But I would assume that the judge based his decision on evidence, such as photographs, that showed the animals when they were found.

I don't know if it's extreme circumstances - because I don't know all the facts. Every story I googled on this all had exactly the same detail - very little. I found no reference to mental health issues or the circumstances for her living in her car. And I may be missing something but I just don't get how you go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to living in your car. Big gaps in the story I think. Judges take into account things such as mental illness and extenuating circumstances when they impose penalties - so I would assume they knew a lot more about the case than we do. That is why we have a court system - otherwise we would just lock people away for x number of years if they committed a particular crime without having a trial first. Most people come on here complaining that the courts don't do enough to animal abusers - damned if they do and damned if they don't. When I read the story I don't see the tragic story of the mentally ill woman having her animals torn away from her - I see a "successful breeder" determined at all costs to keep her breeding stock. Maybe I would be more sympathetic if I had all the facts as did the judge, or maybe not. Hope all the animals get loving homes where all their needs are met.

The duty of care is based on the internationally-recognised ‘five freedoms’ of animal welfare. Having a duty of care for an animal that you are in charge of means you are legally obliged to care for it by providing for its needs in a reasonable way for: food and water accommodation or living conditions the display of normal behavioural patterns treatment of disease and injury handling the animal. Why go to court? Because she broke the law. It's called consequences. I am not denying the woman's "right" to a decent life. But she has choices. The animals don't.

All anyone seems to care about is their right to "own" an animal (apart from you Angelina ). What about the animals "right" to a decent life? She didn't even give them water!!!!!! Some of the afflictions that the cats had that they talked about in the article did not happen overnight - burns from their urine and faeces, ring worm, fleas, malnutrition etc. They would probably be dead if the RSPCA had not been tippd off. I hate the way that everything is always someone else's responsibility now - teacher's are responsible for parent's failures, police are at fault for the actions of criminals, employers are responsible for worker's safety even when they disregard OH&S procedures, the RSPCA is responsible for our animals in times of hardship and the list goes on and on. If I take on an animal - it is my responsibility to ensure that it is loved and cared for. I didn't get my dogs thinking "I've got the RSPCA to fall back on if things don't work out". People need to take responsibility for their decisions in life - maybe downsizing her house some time ago would have meant that she could have looked after her animals and kept her "children". There is not enough information to say why the court took the stance they did but there was obviously more to the story. I would bet that the cats were in this condiiton for a lot longer than the time she had been living in her car. What the hell does "successful breeder" mean anyway?? Yes the RSPCA as an organisation seems to rub people up the wrong way - but their are many individuals within that organisation that work tirelessly for the good of animals. Where were this lady's friends and family? Where were the community groups? No where to be seen - but of course the RSPCA should have been their digging her out of the whole she had gotten her self in to.

The story in the chronicle said the animals had no water or food. Water is free and readily available. So now we need to educate people that their pets need food and water?????? The world is in a sorry state. Probably pointless fining her though - cat breeding is obviously not as lucrative as it was a few years ago. I realise people don't agree and there is obviously some sort of vendetta against the RSPCA happening here. There are very few facts to go on but the fact is that the courts are usually quite lenient on animal cruelty cases so I just wonder whether there is more to this story than is reported. I mean, pretty extreme to go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to your car! There may well be mental health issues and she deserves to receive whatever help she needs but I just don't believe that animals should suffer in the process.

There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too?

300grams of butter - that's BAD for the diet We lost a loaf of bread last night to our beagle (why do we never learn to keep it out of reach ) Needless to say he is very round today. Jodielass - I would probably invest in a premium/super premium dry food if you don't want to feed raw. They sometimes seem expensive but when you average out per day costs they can actually end up cheaper. But don't necessarily follow the feeding guidelines!! I feed my lab way less than what they suggest. I also vary it depending on his activity levels. My lab is probably a bit lighter than Mason's Mums - although younger so still some filling out to do. From what I have read, keeping them at a good weight and feeding a good quality diet (plus not over exercising) can help prevent hip dysplasia developing. Event though genetics do play the major role in this disease, environmental factors (weight, diet, exercise) are thought to have an impact. Only a novice though so I may have to stand corrected It is so hard to resist those pleading eyes but I just tell myself that it's for his own good

Does anyone know of another link to further details of the story. I am not sure where the link to mental illness comes in. All I can read is that she was a "successful" cat breeder and has lost her 1.5 million dollar home. And I also read that the RSPCA had to put one cat down but was rehoming the others. So feel like I am missing another bit of the story Yes Crisovar - agree about the flaming I have never really understood that line of thinking though. I figure if someone is willing to give up their pet so easily, the chances are it probably doesn't have such a great life and will hopefully get a better one if they put some effort into rehoming. And if someone truly loves their animal and can't provide it with the life it deserves then they do a brave thing by rehoming. Just my opinion though - I know many (all?) will disagree with me :D Having said that - definitely don't condone dumping their pet on the doors of the pound where you will never know it's fate. Anyway, I think the animals need a voice and while it's great she loved them and sad she is suffering, just don't believe the animals deserve to live like this - I'm sure it wouldn't be their choice. We seem to care more about the gratification humans get from "their children" than the life the animal is subject to. Plus I don't see how anyone can can give 23 animals the time and attention they deserve.

I "love" my dogs and if this is how I was forced to live I would do everything in my power to find them a decent home. IMO the human emotion of simply "loving" our pets is overrated - we need to meet their physical, emotional and social needs as well as loving them. Otherwise it's just not "love". Easy to blame the RSPCA but the courts obviously agreed - maybe they had all the facts though. ETA Yes human children are often returned but sometimes only to be subject to similar abuse and neglect. They then end up in the system once again - then people jump on DOCS for returning them. Who can win.

I have a lab and I give him the beef soup bones from Woolies/Coles. I don't like the brisket bones as they are fatty plus he chews them up really quickly and then usually regurgitates them in unfortuante places. They are a bit expensive but he can't actually "eat" the bone and they last him for ages so they are worth it He is usually out in the garden for over an hour with it (very clean by the time he has finished). Plus they are mostly beef, with very little visible fat.

You said she sleeps from 10pm till between 5 and 6 in the morning - this is close to 8 hours. Do you put her to bed at the same time that you go? If not, maybe keeping her up with you until you go to bed would mean that she would sleep the eight hours from then? I know it doesn't always work (if kids are any indication) but might be worth a try. And maybe a bit more activity in the evenings would benefit her in sleeping longer? Our eight month old pup stays up with us until we go to sleep. He is pretty active right up until sleep time though - and then he just sleeps while we do, even if it's 9 o'clock on the weekend! Maybe a walk around the block or a play in the evening to use up a bit of energy. I know that for us a trip to the dog park usually means he goes to bed earlier than us by choice!! I also used to set my alarm to take my pup out for a wee during the night. By the time he was six months I was doing it once a night at about 3am. I found that with it still being night time he just wanted to go back to sleep afterwards. Now he goes before bed and then when we wake up. It is not nice getting up but if it meant a sleep in it was worth it to me. And I probably would suggest that you don't let him "see" you if you don't actually want him in the room with you. Just some ideas that worked for us and I do sympathise with you for those early mornings

So does that mean you can't buy the Sentinel tablets anymore????????????????????? I bought a year and a half's worth when they were on special last year and didn't know you couldn't get them anymore. I also split the large dog tablet for my medium dog which I am guessing you can't do with the chew.

Hi Sticks 1977, I feed my boy the Artemis Fresh Mix (puppy). He is an eight month old choccy lab I have fed him this since he was eight weeks and he has been great on it (maybe a bit too much energy??) :D I give him a cup in the morning and a cup in the evening and but he also gets a beef soup bone (during the day when we go out), and a variety of yoghurt/sardines/egg/vegies/ etc mixed in to his dry. Sometimes I substitute it for the K9 natural freeze dried food, just cause he loves it sooooo much. I kind of balance how much I give him with his activity levels too. I think its a great food - although it would be good if the kibble pieces were a bit bigger. He just seems to inhale it!! I usually mix it with a bit of natural yoghurt and put it in his kong just so it lasts a bit longer than two seconds!!!! Hope Henry grows up to be as gorgeous as Fraser was!!! PS I agree with Poodlefan - the enjoyment they get from a bone is amazing. I have actually read that the chewing makes them release a horomone (serotonin maybe????) that makes them feel happy and content. I get the soup bones cause it's the only thing that lasts more than ten minutes!!!!!

A short time in your life but forever in your heart - I know exactly how you feel. So sorry for your loss xoxoxox

No Lhok I don't use insect sprays - I encourage the kids to keep the screen doors shut. My daughter catches bugs and cockroaches and puts them outside (she is braver than me). We try to do what we can to treat all animals with respect - we took a bird to the vet the other day that had a broken wing. My neighbour told us we were idiots as it was a pest but we preferred to see it PTS humanely than die slowly and painfully. I agree with Sandgrubber and also respect the Swiss system. I do think it may be over the top but anything that raises people's awareness about animal welfare is a good thing, in my opinion. I am not saying that it is simple - I realise that we depend on animals for food. But there is a difference between killing animals humanely and making them suffer unnecessarily. People jump to the conclusion that it will end pet ownership but I believe it is more about making people aware that it is not enough to "love" their pet, but that they need to meet it's physical, social and emotional requirements.

I'm with WoofnHoof - an animal is an animal. I heard a story on the radio the other day about how fish that have been caught once and released "learn" to ignore the baited hook the next time (ABC I think). So probably more to a fish than first meets the eye.

Thanks for replies - I guess my point was missed so definitely not sending her this link I'm not really interested in listening to people defend their decision to advertise in the paper or not. My point was that my friend is choosing a cheaper pup from the paper (cheaper because it has no papers) which I believe is likely to be from a BYB and the parents probably not health tested. She all ready went the registered breeder route via the internet as her first option so the debate is not about where to source her pup. I have been burned by a registered breeder recently and my intention was to get some recommendations and some insight to the health issues with SBTs so she had a heads up on questions to ask to make sure she gets a healthy pup. I just thought a bit of encouragement from people to spend the extra money and go through a registered breeder from this forum may sway her decision rather than buying "cheaper" through the paper. Thanks anyway

Becandarch - I have the poster from their website on my fridge. It is a good conversation starter and has educated quite a few people about the horrors of pet shops. :D So do reputable breeders sell their pups for around $500 in the paper??? I guess I assumed these would be back yard breeders since she said the average price from the registered breeders she had filled out the application for was around $1000 but in the paper they were $500 which was more affordable for them. I don't agree with people breeding their pet to make a quick buck and I would have thought that the majority of litters in the trading post were from BYBs out a quick dollar? Since "reputable" breeders seem to have waiting lists I would have assumed (wrongly obviously) that they would have no need to put ads in the paper?? And with the number of ads in the trading postr how on earth does the average person go about sorting legitimate from non-legitimate?? Would it not be better just to educate people to choose reputable breeders instead?? I guess when she sees this link she will go through the paper anyway I just hate the thought of putting five hundred dollars in someone's pocket who sees their pet as a source of income PS She did find the breeders on the net and filled out application forms with details about her home and lifestyle and was approved but her husband doesn't see the point of paying $1000 when they are in the paper for $500