sas

$350.00 is a great adoption fee and that's what I list my rescues for but I have seen many rescues of popular sorts list dogs upwards of $500 and that is too expensive in my opinion because my belief is that a rescue should be more affordable that what someone can get the same/similar from a breeder on Gumtree for. I understand the notion that if people will pay it why not, I guess, my personal goal is just different to that. If someone finds $350.00 too much then I'd probably say that I was sorry that I wasn't able to assist them at this time and not enter into a conversation about it because they're not going to care if you break it down for them. If a person thinks $350.00 is too much then their value of a dog in general needs to be questioned.

Rodney Habib would be keen to hear from you, he and Dr. Karen Becker research longevity in dogs and love hearing from owners of very old dogs. https://www.planetpaws.ca/

Hi, there are different modalities that may assist such as Taping to offer pain relief and support, laser, acupuncture, gentle soft tissue work etc.

I wouldn't recommend a Great Dane if you want long-lived, although not many giants are. My last oldie passed at 13, however, she was smaller at 29". It's often said that it unlikely they get into the double digits or if they do, it's not pretty i.e. mobility and health issues - generally, the bigger they are, the harder they fall and there has been an upward trend in taller Great Danes. It wasn't all that long ago that the average male in the ring was 34" and now that's more like 37"+. We're seeing the breed become more and more emotionally sensitive which is also leading to an increase in fear-based aggression - certainly a trait you do not want to see in a giant dog. Good luck with your search. I'd recommend you head out to some dog shows and meet the dogs and their breeders

Given your dog has black skin indicating a chronic condition I wouldn't be taking any further advice from your Vet. Ask for a referral to a Dermatologist and get on a correct food elimination trial with them and then onto intradermal skin testing to actually ascertain your dogs issues and get onto a desensitising injection program where appropriate. With all due respect to well-meaning people, I wouldn't be taking their advice either, just get to a Dermatologist whose education & experience is what you need. Whilst Hills Science diets ingredients are broken up so much they won't cause a reaction, the quality of the food itself so so incredibly poor that you're potentially affecting your dog's future health 5-10 years down the track. Rather than use a band-aid, get pooch to a Dermatologist and work at the actual issue. You could also look into food intolerance testing at http://www.nutriscan.org/ In terms of Novel proteins, maybe Croc, Goat, Horse, sometimes it takes some creativity when you have a mature dog.

Jules, you didn't need to delete your comment. You're more than welcome to disagree with something. Although I didn't say 'you' irk me, I said your comment irked me. Why not have a polite debate about what we both feel, isn't that how we expand our knowledge if both are willing?

Dave, Species appropriate and very little evidence of negative effects aren't the same. We can feed dogs lot's of things that we 'believe' have very little negative effect but that doesn't mean it is 'species appropriate for them' especially in larger quantities i.e. the top 5 ingredients of a kibble. Species appropriate means what that species is meant to eat....kibble isn't it to start with but that's another topic. "A lot worse" is a comment that doesn't sit well with me because it infers that it's ok because there's worse out there.

It becomes a low cost filler when it's not species appropriate.

I think the general consensus is to feed what your dog does best on. If people want info about raw feeding that is provided. If they want info on a kibble that is provided. Then people cam make their own minds up. It's probably one statement that irkes me. People could feed Coperice and think they're dog is doing 'best' on it when in reality it's not, it's can't. They see the 'Now' not the 5-10 years down the track. People's interpretation of 'best' is different for many people, often it means good poos.

Kefir here, home made, cheap :) Click here for info on how to make

So sorry for your loss Were you able to confirm it was the heartworm injection and not the vaccination or the combination of the two?

The top 5 ingredients are what we want to look at: Chicken - Good, however, will lose a lot of water weight when cooked so will probably not be in the number 1 position so this is potentially misleading. Chicken meal - Cooked down into a meal, so processed but still a specific meat protein in the top 5 ingredients which is what we want to see. Peas - Filler. Ground white rice - Filler. Pea flour - Filler. So I'd comfortably rate it at 2.5-3 out of 5, it's not something IMO you would feed for improved health & mobility 5-10 years down the track. It's a survival not thrive food, dogs can't thrive on food like this no matter what people who feed it say, they feed it because it's: Probably cheap Donated Get a discount on it All that's available Unfortunately believe its a good food.

Kefir, Bone Broth, Berries, NZ K9 Naturals pellets are some of my favs.

It is lovely to see her coming out of her shell. I wondered if it was an oestrogen affect. I've just read some articles on its affects on women but I think any possible risks are outweighed by the benefits for my GSD. Absolutely, quality of life...

Consider a 'performance' kibble that has a higher fat percentage such as the Meals for Mutts one that is around 20%.