YOLO

I haven't really read the article in question. Years ago I bought my wife a darling GSP. Beautiful dog and my wife got plenty of exercise taking her on daily long walks. We had a minor issue in that the dog would try to "boss" our youngest child around, but it was working out ok and she was learning her place in the family. She was hyper-exuberant (even for a GSP) but that wasn't a problem and we were training her. Then my wife became pregnant again, unexpectedly. We knew from previous pregnancies that she would get extremely sick, extremely tired, have such bad back & hip pain that she could barely walk. Her ability to exercise and train our GSP was going, I wasn't at home enough, and our other children weren't old enough to do it alone. Furthermore we worried that she might actually be too exuberant for a pregnant lady and later for a toddler. With much pain in our hearts we found her a home, literally on a small farm with paddocks to race around, an active family, and a lady who was keen to do obedience and field work. It was hard. We caught up with her a few times, and it was clear we had made the best decision for her. I don't doubt that she missed us, but she was young and readily fitted into her new family, and positively thrived in her new environment.

Whether we like it or not, dogs tend to develop a "pecking order." The intricacies of this can vary, and it is usually arrived at by mutual consent. ie Each dog decides what they are prepared to put up with. This doesn't have to mean that either dog is particularly dominant, they will decide what they want and what they can tolerate. Jasper is our older dog. He insists on being first out the door, and Chloe allows this. If he thinks she is the way, he will lick her face until she butts out. She will tolerate the licking for a while, then move. When they play, generally she will rollover, although sometimes they BOTH lie down. They will compete in fetch (they ARE retrievers) but won't fight over a toy. It's ok to MODERATE your dogs behaviour, but be very careful that you're not punishing the older dog. He IS senior, that is the way of things, and he WILL push the pup around until their roles are established. The first issue sounds like simple chasey. Some dogs seem to do it. I discourage it because our dogs are meant to retrieve, NOT "keep" and be chased! LOL But I think it is basically harmless. They key phrase for mine is That he stops indicates its not bullying. Sometimes, when Japser and Chloe get a bit TOO excited, I will simply say "play nice you two" and they pay attention to me and settle down for a bit. I only do it because they like nibbling on each other's ears, and like a doting parent I worry that one day they may actually scratch each other. It's very important that you're not constantly saying "Jager NO," or "Jager STOP." He will think that he is being punished (and he already feels "put out" by the interloper.) SOME older dogs do get very annoyed by new pups, and even gentle placid dogs have been known to harm (and even kill) young puppies. So you are right to be careful and watchful. However its my opinion that any such severe annoyance would manifest quickly, and that provided the rough-housing remains good-natured, you should not do too much to interfere.

Brown ones are adorable

Sorry, but this is why rednecks should not be allowed to own guns or dogs. The saddest thing is that it was completely preventable, if somebody just had half a brain and stopped listening to the "Pit Bulls make wonderful family pets" brigade. I love dogs, but I don't believe that "ALL dogs are wonderful," any more than all animals are "wonderful," or "all people are wonderful." Destroy the dog, stop idiots breeding them, and the problem goes away.

It's incredible what can be bred into a dog. We had a GSP who would Point, without ever being trained or even seeing another Pointer. Obviously our dogs are retrievers, but there is something special about "tennis" balls. Even the chew-ball (which is also bouncy) does not have the same effect. If I hide a chew-toy, they simply lose interest, but hide a "ball" and they will go to any lengths to recover it. As mentioned, Chloe will collect multiple balls and cuddle up with them. Sometimes we'll hear her whimpering, and find that she has rolled a ball behind a cupboard.

Jasper was quite ill a couple of years back, and endured a little too much probing. As a result, touching him near his bum (or putting on rubber gloves) will get him upset. He's such a gentle soul, he will give a little growl, then start licking. Silly thing is, he will hop up and sit on me (on my hand if available otherwise on my legs) THEN complain because I am "touching" his bum. At other times, he will wag his tail such that it hits a door or furniture, then growl at the door because its touching his tail.

My dogs are OBSESSED with balls. They are retrievers, so they will fetch anything. They also enjoy a good chew-toy, and even the occasional rope tug-of-war. But what is it about balls? Hold any inanimate object without moving and they have no interest unless I move to throw. But hold a ball and they will sit fixated, and indefinitely so. Not even FOOD can hold their attention like a ball. I don't know if they understand what "toy" or "rope" is, but say "where's your ball?" and Chloe will immediately stop WHATEVER she is doing and run off in search of a ball. In fact, say "where's your rope?" and she will still go searching for a ball. As I said, she enjoys having a chew on a chew-toy, but once she is finished, she simply drops it and ignores it, but not balls. She will spend hours simply carrying a ball around in her mouth, and then curl up to sleep with the ball under her chin. In fact she likes nothing better than to accumulate multiple balls and curl up with them. Most of these balls have the appearance of tennis balls, so I wonder if the slight furryness triggers some kind of maternal instinct?

Over the past few years I have seen these guys at the show. Not sure how long its been going on, probably a lot longer than I realise. My understanding is that these are mostly dogs that didn't make the grade racing, or have retired. Now, I'm not debating the suitability of Greyhounds as Pets. As I understand it they many redeeming qualities and can make very loyal pets. If you want a rescue dog, and a Greyhound fits your lifestyle, kudos. However my question is what becomes of these dogs otherwise, and why is this program even necessary. What happened to these dogs before this program? The horrible truth is Greyhounds deemed unsuitable for racing are routinely killed. Not just a few either, several THOUSAND every year. I have no issue with Greyhound racing per se, PROVIDED the dogs are treated humanely. However I find the idea that non-performing dogs are simply killed to be horrific.

Praise him when he pees outside. When he does it inside, hold his nose in it and scold him severely. May not be PC, but works.

I can't think of many reasons for tubal ligation. Most of the reasons advanced (eg Pyo, Mammary & Ovarian cancer) will remain. The only one would be if you believe you would otherwise be unable to stop her reproducing? I suppose if you had both male and female dogs. And since it was mentioned, there is basically zero reason to perform a vasectomy, again unless you have entire male and females and consider it easier to sterilise the male.

I'm not sure why people can't comprehend that even if you neutered 99% of all dogs, that STILL would not stop BYB's and Puppy Mills.

Personally I think that is a good use for Cats, better than using Kangaroos.

I think your conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons you think.In a culture where dogs live in small apartments, are taken everywhere including cafes etc, and often carried on public transport. By necessity people have to buy small, heavily domesticated dogs who have been bred for placid temperaments. Because Australia has a heavily rural modern history, even our urban dwellings have traditionally had huge back yards, and we tend tend toward s an "outdoor" lifestyle, we have tended towards different breeds. (Often working breeds not far removed from their working ancestry.) Not only do people not worry about lack of "social niceties" in their dogs but a tendency towards guarding property or people is often seen as a good thing.

A couple of issues: Firstly, you should have been more proactive in ensuring that the correct x-rays were taken and hocks checked. That said, I would certainly be insisting they do it for free, or at the very least at a discount. If they refuse, I would complain to the relevant body and look for another vet. Also, I am often appalled by the lazy attitude of some vets when it comes to sedation. It seems that for the simplest procedure they want to put the poor animal to sleep. I had a vet who wanted to put my dog under to remove a burr from his ear, so I went home and did it ourselves. (He was an extremely placid dog who barely moved whilst I held his head and dad fished it out. Had he been more prone to agitation I would have agreed to the sedation.) In the past, I have worn a protective (lead?) apron and held my dogs limb whilst it was x-rayed.

So tired of this pluralistic BS. If a person commits an assault, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, all people have the potential to be aggressive." ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive. What we perceive as "aggression" (anthropomorphism) is a function of breeding, upbringing, and training. Dogs that have been bred for security work, some forms of hunting, (and yes fighting) often have "aggressive" traits bred in. Unfortunately dogs bred "wildly" or carelessly bred without regard to "temperament" may also have these traits. It's like responding to a fatal white-pointer attack by saying "all fish have the potential to be aggressive."

This wasn't because of the breed of dog that bit you, it was because the dog had bite inhibition and/or only wanted to warn you to go away, not injure you. These things are due to training and the temperament of that individual dog, not because the dog has some kind of physically weak jaw because of its breed. Small dogs can easily cause serious, lasting damage to people's hands - people losing fingers, permanent nerve damage etc. A dog the size of a Flatcoat can also do serious damage if it wants to. That dog chose not to injure you severely, it wasn't limited by its jaw. You weren't there and you have no idea what you're talking about.

My understanding is that Goldies are very similar to Flatties and other retrievers. They make excellent family pets, but are not dogs that should be left alone. They crave attention, and are exceptionally intelligent. If you have the time and patience they can be trained to a high standard. However they are also boisterous, and if left alone will become destructive (digging, chewing, etc. Personally, whilst I love retrievers, I would not recommend them for a single person with a busy life. I don't know too much about Westies, but from what I have heard they are excellent little dogs. Based only on what I have read, Pugs have a lot of issues with skin and breathing problems.

I know the old sage advice about leaving them to cry, teaching them to be independent, blah, blah. Puppies are like children. Eventually they'll WANT to be independent, but not when they are little. We gave up on the traditional methodology with our penultimate puppy, and didn't even bother with our last. They cuddled with us in our bed. Have you tried putting her with your other lab? Pups crave PHYSICAL contact.

I'll be honest, that I don't follow a lot of the technical arguments, over charters, regulations, and such. But IMHO there is most definitely an "us and them." For better of for worse the ANKC and their affiliates are dedicated to the interests of those who breed and show pedigreed dogs. I'm neither a breeder nor shower (although most of my dogs have been pedigreed) so I have no real opinion on how well they do that. However the vast majority of dogs are bred outside that system, and that's never going to change without a drastic change in laws. I am firmly of the view that there needs to be some recognition of that, and some attempt to bring many of those dogs within a regulated system. To be honest, I feel that some of the problem stems from the narrow mindedness of some. Nobody wants to see dogs coming from puppy mills, being destroyed because they didn't sell in the pets store, or being bred for profit in squalid low-budget conditions. However the simple fact is that even if we discouraged poorly considered purchases, Pedigreed breeders cannot supply the demand for dogs. And yes, there is some disagreement over what constitutes a "Puppy Farm." And heres the issue. There was a much besmirched breeder in Perth, and one of the criticisms was that "they always have puppies advertised." Ignoring other issues for sake or argument, why is that a problem? A responsible breeder with several bitches could responsibly produce 2 or 3 litters a year. Personally, I don't like the idea of dogs living in kennel runs, but that doesn't mean the breeder isn't taking the best medical care of their dogs. On the other hand, you have some yokal who gets their hands on a couple of bitzers, locks then in the old chook run, and lets them churn out litter after litter. Which are then flogged through gumtree at low cost without any veterinary involvement. Hardly a "Puppy Mill," but certainly not a good thing.

Even if the breeders of pedigreed dogs (and their representative bodies) relaxed their stance dramatically (and why should they) it's not going to go far enough to encompass all "breeders." Whilst I feel they should become more adapted to what the majority of dog owners want, I get the feeling that is NOT what they want. They represent the best interests of a particularly group of people (their members,) and why should anybody tell them to do otherwise?

We have real timber in our Kitchen & Meals area, and ceramic tiles in the Entry & Passage. Our clumsy goofs often scrabble for traction on both surfaces. No dramas really. The issue with laminate "timber" flooring simply comes down to quality. Some of the very cheap stuff will scratch through because the grained surface is very thin and its only particle-board underneath, but it's more likely to get damaged by chairs, furniture, and Stilettos, than doggy paws.

Anyone know if Dancingate is still in business? Just curious as I haven't seen them advertising for a while?

Wow, never experienced that. Jasper will bring throw-toys to me when he wants to play fetch, and drop them at my feet. Not as much now, but when he was on his own, he would do it a lot. Chloe loves to play fetch, but she also wants to play keep. She loves to play chasey with Jasper, if he gets the toy she will chase him around the yard. But Jasper won't chase her, and neither will her humans. So she will come trotting up with a ball or toy in her mouth, looking very proud, and trying to induce a chase, but she rarely ever gives.

I agree that teaching a child that it could do this with ANY dog would be a horrendous mistake, but that is really just speculation as we have no idea what the parents are teaching the child, whether this was a once off, etc. What this debate highlights is the great divergence in peoples' definitions of their "wonderful family pet." Everybody is zeroing in on the fact that the Baby is right next to the dog, and the dog is playing with a bone. But the fact is that if you have children, and you have "wonderful family pets" the opportunities for interaction are many. That dog is a wonderful family pet, clearly it has demonstrated its trustworthiness, and the parents would feel comfortable having it around the family home. I've had a few wonderful dogs, but only one did I trust near a toddler.

Great example of a wonderful family pet. Why are people acting so freaked out? The owners obviously know their dog well and were supervising the play. My eldest daughter would also play with my Flattie Ralph when she was a toddler. He was an unfailingly gentle dog. Jasper is also a wonderful Flattie, but I wouldn't let him play with a small child like that as he can be a bit crazy at times.