skelp2

Apple cider vinegar is a man made product, so therefore not a naturally occuring substance, and not exactly 'natural'. As to it's effectiveness against paralysis ticks, who knows? I remember one of my sisters cursing over a plague of head lice at her kids' school. She tried all the so-called 'natural' cures and preventatives, including spraying vinegar on the kid's hair and hats. The only result was that they smelt like a fish & chip shop. They still got head lice with monotonous regularity. I would presume that ticks are just as impervious to smelly stuff as head lice are? I guess a 'natural' death of a pup or dog, at a possibly young age, to a disease or nasty parasite like a tick, is preferable to using proven disease and parasite preventatives which are deemed 'unnatural', to some people? We have been blessed by clever people who have invented methods to prevent horrible diseases, so why this swing against using these preventatives because they are not 'natural'? I just don't understand it.

If the threat is true, it's not just dog owners who should be concerned. Very young children could also eat stuff off the ground.

No-one knows what the dogs are really 'thinking' because they can't exactly verbalise their thoughts, can they? I suppose some dogs may be patient, long suffering and well behaved enough to put up with it all. It is still treating an animal like a toy.

Dogs like attention such as pats, throwing a ball, being taken for a walk. Normal grooming would be a bath, a clip and being dried, would it not? Not hours of standing while someone paints ridiculous motifs on the poor creature.

I can't fathom how anyone would consider that doing that to a dog is even remotely acceptable. Just how long did those poor creatures have to stand on a grooming table? I would also hope that the dye and presumably glue used is non-toxic and non-allergenic? Some people should just get a toy, rather than a living breathing animal, if they have so little respect for what should be a companion animal.

Hi, The Blue Mountains have become a major P Tick area.....alot of our Vet have maps on their wall, pin pointing where the dogs have come from that they have treated for P Tick........my local Vet used to have this map up only through Summer....it's now up all year round.......I live in the mid Mountains, and this is the first year where I have gotten both bush and P Ticks all through winter.....even though my dogs are on prevention, I check them daily From what I have read, the problem is also partially due to Currawongs (as well as Bandicoots, who are a favourite host). Currawongs used to spend winter in the coastal areas and migrate back to the ranges in spring. Due to more food sources in built up coastal areas (ie: bird feeding tables, suburban gardens) they have stopped migrating early in spring, if at all and are staying far longer in coastal areas. Being omnivourous, they eat fruits/berries but will also hunt out other birds nests in spring and eat the baby birds, favouring smaller bird species. Many smaller woodland birds are insectivorous and eat ticks. Declining populations of these smaller birds, due to Currawong predation, has led to the proliferation of ticks. There has also been a resurgence of Bandicoots in some areas due to fox baiting and people being more cautious about letting cats roam.

I live in an area that has paralysis ticks, and it does NOT look like an adult paralysis tick. They are quite pale and a light blueish grey. They used to be colloquially called 'bluebottle ticks' due to the blueish look of the adults. It is also too small to be an adult paralysis tick, so may be at the nymph stage and therefore not as toxic. Early stages of tick poisoning can show up in dogs as unusual drooling/dribbling, gagging and/or vomiting and changes in breathing. It then can progress to wobbliness and eventual paralysis. Seeing the Vet was certainly wise. It would be worthwhile using a preventative too, with Advantix and Preventic collars being, in my family's experience, the only products that work well, plus regular checking. We have also found that the tick season has extended, whereas it used to be the summer months when ticks were at their worst, it is now a year round situation. Don't waste your money on/or risk using gimmicky or 'natural' tick preventatives. They don't work. Check inside dogs lips, in their ears and between the pads on their feet. Ticks have been found up noses, and in anal and other orifices too. A childhood mate lost his dog to a tick up it's nose. From what I understand, paralysis ticks are most commonly found on the Eastern seabord to roughly 20-25 klm inland and sometimes further inland, from most of Qld down to East Gippsland in Victoria. If you live further inland, bush or cattle ticks are more common. Paralysis ticks seem to prefer humid coastal habitats.

My nephew has sailed around Clontarf and Middle Harbour fairly often. He won't go into the water there, as he has seen far too many bull sharks. I wouldn't let a dog stick it's big toe in the water there.

A cousin of mine did just that. Her old Rottweiler was kept alive far longer than he should of been. I considered it bordering on cruelty, but she was adamant about keeping him alive, even though by the end he had to be lifted up and helped outside just to go to the toilet. Dogs can't verbally tell you that they are suffering and have little or no quality of life, as a human can. We have the ability to end suffering painlessly. I may try certain medical procedures with a younger dog, but old dogs deserve a peaceful and pain free end if they have serious medical problems and we, as humans, should put aside our own need to keep the dog with us.

They have sensible advice on their website. Many thanks. I will forward the site to my friend.

It is mandatory for Labrador breeders to Hip and Elbow score their dogs (you can't get the pups predigree papers if this is not done). The lower the score the better. You will find many breeders will have information about this on their website. Many breeders today also test for PRA and EIC. This helps with the breeding program as they can ensure the puppies are not not affected by breeding clear to clear or clear to carrier. There are alot of lab breeders, so my recommendation is to set a few criteria. For example, do you want show lines, do you want working lines, what colour, do you want a breeder that does something with their dogs? Thank you buddy1. I guess I will have to google what PRA and EIC actually mean? All my young friends want is a healthy pup, as a family pet and both come from dog owning families. They don't plan to start a family for a few years, so getting a puppy now is best, given that it will be a mature dog before any babies arrive.

Interesting that this topic has come up. A young friend rang me yesterday and asked about how to find good Labrador breeders around Sydney. She and her husband are rather keen on a male pup, and preferably the chocolate colour. I may have had dogs for many years, but I am not very knowledgeable about breedsers, so any breeder recommendations would be appreciated and advice as to what to ask/look for in a breeder. I did suggest to check about hip testing, as I am aware that hip dysplasia is a problem with some Labradors.

Isn't it just a case of semantics? I can't see all the complications? A purebred is an example of a specific breed. A 'pedigreed' purebred is one with papers to prove it. A 'purebred' that is bought from a pound or a rescue organisation is purebred because it is obvious that it's antecendants were all of the same breed, and it looks exactly like that breed, but it is not pedigreed unless there are papers to prove it. For instance a Pug - it's obvious if a dog is a pug and if found at the pound and sold, then that person has bought a purebred pug, because a pug crossed with another breed is very obvious (and usually downright ugly). They have not necessarily bought a pedigree pug however because it's breeding is unknown and if it was bred by a legitimate breeder, the papers to prove it are not available.

At least the man has a sense of humour, using an element of fact in the process. Some Aboriginals are still throwing spears at each other, as evidenced in recent NT court cases. As to the Royals paying taxes, by law they were exempt from paying tax, but voluntarily chose to do so. Ouch, I don't find racist comments funny. As to the last, they started 'voluntarily' paying taxes after an outcry by British taxpayers. In 2011, the Queen's personal wealth (outside of any property, etc, she holds in trust for the nation - as if the nation has access to it ...) was $500 million. Interesting article on the deliberate murkiness of royal finances. An interesting source to substantiate your argument. :laugh:

At least the man has a sense of humour, using an element of fact in the process. Some Aboriginals are still throwing spears at each other, as evidenced in recent NT court cases. As to the Royals paying taxes, by law they were exempt from paying tax, but voluntarily chose to do so.

Oh dear, what a vitriolic diatribe. I would suggest that if you have to ask what they do that benefits anyone else - that you look at the Princes Trust, which helps young people, plus the many other charities that all members of the Royal family are involved in, including many charities and organisations that help animals and the environment. Prince Charles used to be widely panned for his interest and involvement in organic farming and the preservation of the environment, until it became trendy that is. As for Prince Phillip, perhaps you should digest part of a speech he made some time ago, a speech from someone who doesn't care huh? "It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world's natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted. The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint." Edited to add - the Royals do actually pay tax. It does rather help to actually be informed as to the veracity of a statement before you utter it.

If he is finding it hard to get up or lay down, then arthritic pain, particularly in the hips may be affecting him? The constant pain from arthritis makes people grumpy, let alone dogs. I found Cartophen injections were useful with an arthritic dog, and certainly eased the pain. The Vet visit is very sensible and I hope discovers the cause of the problem.

The breed of dog used more commonly as guard dogs are an example of the more dominant breeds. All breeds have intrinsic characteristics, and yes, training, environment and an individual dog's nature needs to be taken into account. All breeds have been bred over the centuries to have particular characteristics for use in particular areas, such as herding, ratting or guarding and dominance is one characteristic that has been a desirable trait in certain breeds. Dogs used by Police and Security forces have to have a degree of dominance, + confidence and training, otherwise they would cower in a confrontation and are selected for that characteristic. It's the old argument about nature v nurture. Both are vitally important, but by nature some breeds are more inclined to have a dominant nature and 'nurturing' either reinforces it or not, dependant on the use required of the dog.

'BYB' I gather means backyard breeder. My understanding is that BYB is done for profit, usually by bogans after a quick buck. The Dachsund/Corgi cross came from an accidental mating several decades ago between one of the Queen's Corgis and Princess Margaret's Dachsund, with the resulting pup being a much loved dog and was long before the poodle or other small fluffy breed cross became popular. As the Royal Family don't sell the cross bred pups in the local rag's classifieds for a quick buck, and keep them (and only from a few matings) how can they be described as BYBs? I don't understand the vitriolic and populist hatred of the Royal family. Who would want a job that involves working until you die, with no retirement, having to meet and host all sorts of people, even in your own home, and even if you despise them, and still remain polite etc. etc.. Then there is an almost total lack of privacy, with the world's press watching your every move. You can also add that much of what the Queen 'owns' is not in fact owned by her but held in trust. She can't flog off Windsor Castle and retire to Marbella.

If people actually read the story, it seems Prince Andrew was in control of the terriers, so there were two dog walkers, not one. The Corgis would see the palace as their territory, whereas the terriers were visiting, presumably living elsewhere when not on holidays. Both are fairly feisty little breeds so it's not surprising that an incident occured in a confined space. The Queen is apparently an expert gun dog/retriever handler. A very admiral lady in my estimation.

Comments like this amaze me. The majority of Dolers refer to their dogs as their kids &/or best mates, as long as they are well trained, I can't see how people can make such statements. Do you think the dogs know the meaning of the words? Sorry, but I have very little patience with people who are so 'gushy' over their dogs that they 'humanise' them to the point where the poor bloody dogs end up with no idea where they come in the 'pack' order, and situations like this (as we are discussing) occur. Are you actually suggesting that dogs should have dominance over their owners??? Or perhaps people should not realise/accept that dogs have fur, not skin, have 4 legs, not two, and don't have the intellectual ability of a human child? Sure dogs are certainly clever and intelligent animals, but they are not human, and never will be - they are still animals and tend to do what is programmed by nature into them, as animals do. People may refer to their dogs as 'their kids' but treating them as such, ie: humanising them, is a recipe for disaster, as this idiot owner has discovered. Dominance theory, as advertized on TV, has been broadly discredited in animal behavioural science (ethology). I'd be willing to bet that more dogs have turned violent as a result of abuse than as a result of being babied. Of course dogs are of a different specie and not endowed with human intelligence. No one who talks of their 'fur kids' really thinks they are kids. And yes, I'm sure dogs are sometimes confused by misdirected loving attention. But there is no question that loving relationships between dogs and people, by-in-large, benefit both the dog and the owners. Where did I say that people don't or shouldn't love their dogs? I have met a few people who seem to think their 'fur-kids' (stupid expression that it is) are substitute children. It's not healthy for the poor dogs. The expression is somewhat cringeworthy. As for 'dominance theory as advertised on TV', it depends on the breed and the owner. I presume you are referring to Cesar Milan. He is certainly not unknowledgeable in dog behaviour. Fact - dogs are pack animals. Fact - there is always a leader or dominant dog in a pack and members of the pack work out the hierachy. Dogs,kept in family homes see humans as part of their pack. Fact - certain breeds tend to be more dominant and require an owner who understands the intrinsic character of that particular breed. Fact - some people should never own certain breeds of dog. eg: Would you suggest a Presa Canario as a suitable pet for just anyone looking for a dog? I don't think so.It cannot be denied that they are a dominant breed of dog. When was the last time you heard of someone being attacked and hospitalised by their Cavaliers?

Dogs lick their rear ends. Would I like to use a spoon a dog has licked, even after washing? Don't think so!!!! For someone to share their coffee and utensils with their dog, well, it's disgusting.

Comments like this amaze me. The majority of Dolers refer to their dogs as their kids &/or best mates, as long as they are well trained, I can't see how people can make such statements. Do you think the dogs know the meaning of the words? Sorry, but I have very little patience with people who are so 'gushy' over their dogs that they 'humanise' them to the point where the poor bloody dogs end up with no idea where they come in the 'pack' order, and situations like this (as we are discussing) occur. Are you actually suggesting that dogs should have dominance over their owners??? Or perhaps people should not realise/accept that dogs have fur, not skin, have 4 legs, not two, and don't have the intellectual ability of a human child? Sure dogs are certainly clever and intelligent animals, but they are not human, and never will be - they are still animals and tend to do what is programmed by nature into them, as animals do. People may refer to their dogs as 'their kids' but treating them as such, ie: humanising them, is a recipe for disaster, as this idiot owner has discovered.

As they described their dogs as 'their children/best friends' I would suspect that these dogs placed themselves as pack leaders. Dopey people.

If necessary, 2 bread bags, or 3, or 4 perhaps? I find them adequate to contain 2 poos if you tie them like sausages. Just to add, a few non-dog owning friends do actually save them for me too, which helps.