Salukifan

You have been given a warning. Your older dog is prepared to take issue with access to food. Resource guarding like this isn’t uncommon in the breed. She wasn’t scared. She was possessive. Adjust your management accordingly. Feed separately. Ensure the dogs cannot get to each other’s food. I’d be feeding in crates. And yes, be very careful with treats. Resource guarding is perfectly normal canine behaviour. Your job is now to manage it. Can I suggest a home visit from a decent trainer to help you take their relationship forward?

Talk to her breeder. Is the top left incisor behind the bottom one?

A more comprehensive literature search would have informed these researchers that this has been known since 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24975239/ There is a big difference in amylase levels between dogs that have evolved in agrarian societies and those that evolved elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, as an ancient breed that evolved in the Fertile Crescent, the Saluki’s amalyse levels are the highest measured. Basenjis and Sibes are among the lowest.

The ANKC considers each of the recognized sizes of poodle to be separate breeds. Interbreeding is not permitted. To do so would be a breach of the Code of Ethics. The pups from such a mating would be considered crossbred.

Know the feeling Yep, been there got the t-shirt too. Thanks for the bullying guys. No value add to the thread but plenty of boots stuck in. Oh the irony - it seems some are safe targets but others are fair game. I apologised for causing offence. Seems that the DOL police have decided that they must serve up their version of justice. You win. I am leaving. There is clearly no place for people expressing concern about dogs anymore lest they be singled out for passive aggressive bullying. What a shadow of a forum this place now is. 12 years of membership and hounded out by a few people who want to say it it all goes down here. Forget it indeed.

Deleted.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope. No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope. Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up. "Animal Rights activists said so" is not a valid inductive argument. No but since valid inductive arguments seem to have little role in what is shaping the political agenda for animals here in NSW, I'll stay focussed on what is. As a student of political science it concerns the hell out of me that based on what everyone admits is a deeply flawed report, people who have done no wrong will have their livelihoods destroyed and be offered not compensation. Frankly it should be concerning a lot of people but most, poorly if at all informed and reacting emotively on an issue that has no blow back on them, are crowing about the win for greyhounds. It won't be for those dogs in NSW from where I sit.

Really? Lots of steps are being made to achieve just that. Mandatory desexing is another step.

That was never my intention and for that I truly do apologise.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope. No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope. Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up.

Deleted

Deleted

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope.

Deleted

As far as I know, the industry in Tasmania is not being shut down. No industry is being shut down 'based on such iffy stats and figures'. The NSW greyhound racing industry is being shut down due entirely to its own failings. In the decades during which it has been operating, it has failed utterly in its responsibilities in relation to animal welfare. There have been plenty of opportunities for the industry to reform, but it has failed to do so. The opportunity to clean up the industry has now long since slipped away. So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Deleted

Most of my friends with dogs agree with those website reviews - more or less.

Thanks for the info Anne. On this table I am trying to keep it very factual and measurable. When I first started looking at all these breeds it was around December last year and my first criteria was size, however I have further researched these breeds into areas such as temperament. Whilst there are a lot of dogs on this list, I have no intention of owning many of them, however I still wanted to put them on my table due to similar shared physical characteristics, as I wish to make the table as extensive as I can with these breeds. Do you have any suggestions for reliable websites that have information that covers overall common breed temperament, rather than just some anecdotal evidence? Your purebred puppy Personally I'd be figuring out what temperament I want in a dog first. Dogs of similar physical characteristics can have quite varied temperaments dependent on the function they were developed for. You're also going to have some trouble finding quite a few of those breeds. Starting with the ANKC recognised breeds would narrow the field. I'd not restrict your search to Victoria, especially for some of the rarer breeds.

Motor cycle ramp?

No specific advice but I have found a good meat broth will increase the palatability of food. Bone broth maybe? You can buy that powdered to make up.

I think the new owner is doing precisely the right thing. It's what I would do. No one humps anyone in this house.

At least the dog IS walked. The fact it might not be walked as we would do is beside the point. I wouldn't take water for a dog for a half hour walk either. In fact I never do.

What kind of kidney failure? Acute, early stage?? I see you have a second appointment. Hopefully you get more information. I managed a dog with early stage kidney failure for another 18 months on Hills KD. IMO its time to put your feeding philosophy to one side and give the dog the best possible chance of quality of life for the longest possible time. It may be that someone has the knowledge to prescribe a raw diet that will perform the same function as a KD diet but I don't know of anyone. Diagnosis of renal failure in a dog, while scary, is not a death sentence. I hope this is an early stage diagnosis and you have plenty of time left to share.

Word of warning: Do NOT under ANY circumstances open the crate until you are in a secure (think fenced) area or room. It is better that the pup toilet in the crate than do a runner when you open the door OR slip its collar or lead. If you don't own the crate then you need to bring one with you to transfer the pup into for the trip home. Or take the pup home and open the crate there.

This is what works for me: Coat the pill in something tasty and slippery - I find yoghurt works. Open the dog's upper jaw with your hand over the muzzle. Insert the pill with your other thumb and forefinger and put it down the throat. Close the mouth, hold the head up and stroke the throat. Once they swallow, give a treat. You can get "pillers' from the vet that hold the pill so you can get it down the throat. Hiding pills in balls of mince is worth a try too. Give a few without a pill to keep the dog interested. If you get really really stuck, see if a compounding chemist will make up what you need in a paste that can be syringed down the throat.