Willem

interesting you say this .. she is the only pup that got vaccinated with C5 rest where c3...would it react 5 days later a she was fine till wednesday lunch ...here you go...yes, it would...if she already responds to a C5 shot with those side effects, a C6 or C7 shot could have been life threatened. I would ask the vet to record it. ETA: here an older thread: http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/55368-c5-vaccination-side-effects/

...if the dog got his puppy shot it could be a reaction to the shot (in case it got a shot hopefully it wasn't a C6 or C7); a reaction is not unlikely - however it seems that vets are reluctant to record those reactions as side effects. In some parts of the world there are data bases where side effects should be entered, but these data bases cover only the first 3 days after the shot...if there are side effects noticeable on the forth day....bad luck.... ETA:...ok, I wrote this post while other responded at the same time...

...was the puppy vaccinated against Leptospirosis via a C6 or C7 shot?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937 ...this is a scientific study about "Neutering Dogs: Effects on Joint Disorders and Cancers in Golden Retrievers"...not a Blog or someone's opinion about neutering....I hope you are aware of the findings respectively that your vet discussed all these findings with you.... ETA:...http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102241...the findings from the first study prompted this study from 2014; the second study confirms the finding from the first, also indicating that the Golden Retriever is a breed that is very susceptible regarding an increase in severe diseases linked to early de-sexing. ETA:...my apology for going off-topic.

of course everyone has hers / his own understanding regarding responsibility and animal welfare, however there are also 'THE FIVE FREEDOMS' accepted widely as some kind of standard for animal welfare. These are Freedom from thirst and hunger – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area Freedom from pain, injury, and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment Freedom to express most normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering Now the RSPCA claims that they believe in these guidelines: http://www.rspca-act.org.au/about-us/ .... however, how does the recommendation of de-sexing a 8 week old pup complies with the 4th rule 'freedom to express most normal behaviour'???? ... with all the scientific findings evolving now, rule 3 and 5 also collides with promoting mandatory de-sexing at such a young age. http://www.doglistener.co.uk/neutering/rspca.shtml ...and at the same time they want you to believe that they are the keepers of the grail for animal welfare ...

eliminate breeders or restrict as much as possible how many they can breed so hopefully there will end up so few available there will be less available than people who want them perhaps? ...would this turn an irresponsible dog owner with an entire dog like me into a responsible dog owner with an entire dog????

@karen15: wrt the number: you also have to consider that Sweden has a much smaller population (less than 10 Mill)...but that's not the point. The point is that approx. 900,000 of these dogs are entire and causing no threat regarding overpopulation at all! The point is also that de-sexing dogs at young age actually can create behavioural issues - and these dogs ending up in pounds too, and these are actually the dogs that need to be pts!!!...so the RSPCA and all authorities that promote such stupid, science contradicting ideas are actually responsible for the high euthanasia rates! ...according to the last figures for euthanasia the RSPCA published, 4,700 dogs out of 6,765 had to be pts due to behavioural issues! from the article: ...Responsible ownership and enforced leash laws mean that animals, that aren’t neutered do not breed uncontrollably. ...God I love this sentence....and in Australia "responsible ownership" according to the RSPCA means???

I'm in NSW...and I'm not a dog, so there is hope that I keep my balls :) the problem with all this 'troubleshooting' actioned by politicians and other authorities is that they think that Australia (and USA) is the centre of the world ...and that such an attitude is easy to sell to the public. I'm more for copying solutions if they proved themselves elsewhere instead of trying to reinvent the wheel again and again....and would like to ask the people responsible for such laws how can it be that all the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Schweden, Finnland, Denmark) can cope with less than 7% of the dogs desexed?....HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?...clearly, there must be an overpopulation, straying dogs, unwanted litters, puppy farmers everywhere.....IT MUST BE HELL FOR ALL THE REPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS THERE....it must be even worse in Norway where dog owners are not allowed to de-sex their dogs at all: how do they survive??? ....How can it be that a behaviorist in Germany would struggle to earn his crust as there are not enough problem dogs? What are the answers of these politicians to those simple questions?... Sorry I thought you were in SA. Dunno why. Its because the same crazies infest us and the USA and they have copied PETA'S strategy. ...no need to say sorry...with 1 out of 100 Australians ending up in age care (yes, that's pretty much the same ratio of dogs ending up in pounds) and no chance of rehoming you never know what mandatory surgical tributes are required for us in the future with such qualified politicians in charge....there are civilized countries and there are countries just claiming to be civilized... this is from a report investigating in stray animal control in Europe 3.9.2. SWEDEN 3.9.2.1. The situation in Sweden Sweden has a good national record of dog licensing and registration. This approach towards dog control was adopted alongside rigid quarantine laws in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century to control the spread of rabies (Carding, 1969). 3.9.2.2. Legislation Swedens Animal Welfare Act and the Animal Welfare Ordinance both enacted in 1988, outline animal welfare provisions and prohibit animal neglect, abandonment and cruelty. They outline basic provisions concerning animal management, husbandry and treatment, and requires breeders to be licensed. Municipal legislation is mainly concerned with the enforcement of dog control laws, typically; leash laws, dog prohibited areas and dog fowling. Animal shelters are not governed via national legislation; they are exclusively run by non government organisations and are self regulated. 3.9.2.3. Registration and licensing It is a legal requirement in Sweden for dogs to be registered and permanently identified from four months of age. Since 2000, identification by way of a microchip is preferred over marking with an ear tattoo. Dogs must be registered with the Swedish authorities within four weeks of being transferred to a new owner, regardless of whether the dog has been obtained from a breeder within Sweden or imported from abroad. The cost of registration is approximately 70 SKr (7.5 EUR) and implantation of a microchip costs 150 SKr (16 EUR). The Swedish Police in conjunction with animal welfare inspectors (Durskyddsinspektoremas Riksforening: DIRF) and veterinary practitioners work together, checking that dogs are identified and registered. 3.9.2.4. Responsibility for strays Dogs found loose in public places are quickly removed either by vigilant members of the public, by the police or they are collected by animal welfare inspectors (equivalent to dog or community wardens). The police may house dogs overnight before passing them on to animal shelters for the remainder of the statutory period (7 days). Owners are charged a boarding fee if their dog is housed overnight. However most owners are re-united with their dogs within a couple of hours of them being found, because they are readily identifiable from a tattoo or microchip. 3.9.2.5. The owned dog population Swedens owned dog population is estimated at 950,000 dogs, this has increased over the last five years. Approximately ninety percent of owned dogs are pure breeds and they are obtained directly from a breeder (Egenvall et al., 1999), they are expensive to buy and represent a considerable financial investment for owners. The majority of breeders operate on a small scale and are controlled through legislation and voluntary codes of practice outlined by the Swedish Kennel Club. Dog ownership is more common in rural or semi-rural areas than in large cities (Egenvall et al., 1999), and the majority of people who own dogs do so for companionship rather than for utility or working (Sallander et al., 2001). Dogs are considered members of the family by Swedish owners and they therefore occupy a high status in society, this attitude stops owners from readily abandoning their pets (Personal Communication, Swedish Veterinary Association). Furthermore owning more than one 30 dog is uncommon in Swedish society (Egenvall et al., 1999). In the event that owners cannot look after their dogs because they have a change in circumstances they relinquish the dog directly to an animal shelter. Animal shelters are numerous (150 200) and widely distributed across Sweden. 3.9.2.6. Origins of the stray dog population The only stray dogs in Sweden are dogs that have become loose and are not accompanied by there owners. Over ninety percent of dogs are reunited with their owners within twenty-four hours of being collected by the authorities. 3.9.2.7. Additional factors a) Neutering The routine neutering of dogs of either sex is uncommon in Sweden, less than seven percent of bitches and four percent of male dogs are neutered (Egenvall et al., 1999). Consequently there are no subsidised neutering schemes operating in Sweden. b) Responsible pet ownership education The kennel club runs owner education programmes, offering advice on responsible pet ownership, dog regulations and requirements, and provides prospective owners with breed specific information. 3.9.2.8. Concluding remarks There is an enormous commitment by the Swedish people and authorities for strict dog control and an impressive degree of social responsibility where dog ownership is concerned. Owners readily comply with the law. Furthermore the high investment and status of dogs within Swedish households means that they are not readily disposed of or abandoned. Responsible ownership and enforced leash laws mean that animals, that arent neutered do not breed uncontrollably. ...only 4% of male de-sexed and less than 7% of bitches de-sexed...and it works .....and our solution?....mandatory de-sexing...

we have 4.2 Mill dogs (approx.) in Australia, assuming an average life span of 10 years and an average litter size of 5 it just needs 84,000 entire bitches (that's just 2% of the dog population) to maintain the status quo (producing 420,000 dogs each ear). I fail to see what difference it makes if the private pet owner is forced to de-sex his dogs to avoid the occasional accident - the off-springs from those accidents have no impact at all when there are enough entire dogs on puppy farms and with breeders - mandatory de-sexing is only promoted in USA, Australia and partly Canada...the rest of the civilized world shows that even dog-populations with less than 7% de-sexed dogs won't lead to overpopulation or killing in pounds! We would need de-sexing rates 95% and higher to see an impact on dog population numbers in Australia due to such measures...even if such laws would be introduced in all states and territories you never will get close to such required de-sexing ratios if there is a demand and market for dogs and breeders and puppy farmers would respond to the market ...there is no country where over 95% of the dogs are de-sexed...it is a stupid approach that never worked elsewhere....

I'm in NSW...and I'm not a dog, so there is hope that I keep my balls :) the problem with all this 'troubleshooting' actioned by politicians and other authorities is that they think that Australia (and USA) is the centre of the world ...and that such an attitude is easy to sell to the public. I'm more for copying solutions if they proved themselves elsewhere instead of trying to reinvent the wheel again and again....and would like to ask the people responsible for such laws how can it be that all the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Schweden, Finnland, Denmark) can cope with less than 7% of the dogs desexed?....HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?...clearly, there must be an overpopulation, straying dogs, unwanted litters, puppy farmers everywhere.....IT MUST BE HELL FOR ALL THE REPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS THERE....it must be even worse in Norway where dog owners are not allowed to de-sex their dogs at all: how do they survive??? ....How can it be that a behaviorist in Germany would struggle to earn his crust as there are not enough problem dogs? What are the answers of these politicians to those simple questions?...

Oh William how unusual of you to bring up the whole desexing debate...... ...the title of the thread is "Rspca Euthanasia" so I believe my comment is not off-topic...there is enough scientific evidence that allows to link de-sexing to a negative impact on endoctrine imbalances and low thyroid levels: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2013/09/30/neutering-health-risks.aspx ....and there is enough evidence to link a low thyroid level to dog behaviour issues: http://www.dogs4dogs.com/JR_Articles/dog-thyroid-and-behavior.htm ...and here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8175472... now you can ignore the correlation between dogs with behaviour issues in the pounds that need to be pts and stick to the promoted de-sexing regime to ensure that the same issues can be discussed over the next years without any change ....or you start thinking why other countries where de-sexing isn't promoted the same way as it is in the US and Australia have less problems with anxieties in dogs.....and why other countries with a ratio of less than 7% dogs de-sexed have no problems with overpopulation... ...the links and signs are all out, what's missing is a specific study that assess the impact of interrupting a dog's normal development of his hormone system when he goes through one of his fear stages. here the "RSPCA view" on de-sexing: The RSPCA practices early age desexing from the age of eight weeks, when the surgery is simple and the recovery is rapid. This ensures cats and dogs cannot produce any unwanted/unplanned litters, reducing the number of unwanted companion animals in the community and thus the number of animals entering shelters and pounds. This will in turn help to reduce high euthanasia rates. ...'from the age of eight weeks'....and when does the first fear imprint period starts?????

...the more interesting data IMO can be found here: https://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/website/The-facts/Statistics/RSPCA_Australia-Report_on_animal_outcomes-2014-2015.pdf The document shows, that 1 out of 100 Australien dogs (approx.) end up in pounds - is this number / ratio too high?...IMO not necessarily considering that dog owners die, have accidents or end up in age care where dogs are not allowed (BTW: 1 out of 100 Australiens approx. end up in age care ...to put the '1 to 100 ratio' in some perspective...)... those dogs end up in the pounds and it happens all over the world and it is one of the reasons pounds exists. The source also show far more interesting data, e.g. table 3: behavioural issues are by far the most frequently reason why dogs are pts! That's interesting! Why?...because there is strong scientific evidence that de-sexing can actually lead to severe behavioural issues. What puzzles me is that 'fear phases' in dogs are well known amongst dog handlers, behaviourists with and without PHD etc., however, it seems that no one ever thought it would be 'interesting' to know what impacts early de-sexing has on a dog that goes through a fear phase?...What happens if you play havoc with a dog's hormone system by neutering him?....since 1 year I try to find a study that sheds some light...didn't find anything. So while obviously a lot of damage can be done to a dog during a fear phase just by handling the dog the wrong way, it seems to be very, very unlikely that neutering a dog, thus interfering heavily with their hormones, while going through a fear phase won't have any negative effect wrt behaviour. Can the RSPCA answer this question? ...I doubt it...still they promote early de-sexing...just to whinge about all the dogs they have to put down due to behavioural issues that are caused by???? (....found that I'm still a member here, so thought I throw this in in the hope that someone find a study about early de-sexing during a fear phase and impact on behaviour.)

I'm using the flirt pole to train the 'LEAVE-IT' / 'TAKE-IT' cues, and the game itself has the highest value for her - it's above the best treat. Over a while the response really became a strong reflex - when you watch the footage in the link you can see that she really interrupts the chase with a reflex like response. Chasing the lure or an animal - that's the same for her and she responds to the cue always in the same way by interrupting the chase (because she got rewarded with another turn when playing the game). A few days ago one of our guinea pigs managed to get out of the compounds - she went stalking it and was so aroused that she was trembling, but also in this high aroused state she responded to 'LEAVE-IT'....with this tool working I think I can start now her 'guinea pig herding' training without risking casualties :) . Picking up food is different, and when I train her not to pick up treats or food from the ground I use a different cue - 'NO'. It's part of the agility and obedience training: before and after the official training I put treats with a 'NO' in front of here on the ground, to reward her I pick it up and she gets it from my hand.

...'cruel' is feeding to much so a dog becomes overweight...

yes, it becomes a cue, but that's actually the requirement that would allow punishment (re. corvus' comment post #7) or corrections as consequence if the dog doesn't respond to the cue. The dog doesn't know that he shouldn't chase the cats - the 'LEAVE-IT' cue, once taught, will communicate the message to the dog and the cats will be marked as 'LEAVE-IT' items. @ the OP / shekinah wrt methods playing take-it / leave-it games without the flirt pole (Rotties are indeed not suitable athletes for this game - too heavy and not agile enough): you can start just with 'tug of war' using a toy. Use a toy with a flat surface where you don't have problems to retrieve it when you teach the 'LEAVE-IT' cue. Dog is only allowed to take it on the 'TAKE-IT' cue. Lots of rewards (treats and another turn) and he will learn the cues fast. Later you can attach a rope (thick rope, not for the strength but to avoid nasty cuts) to the toy and pull it behind you - that simulates a real chase game better than just 'tug of war' without the risks involved in the flirt pole game. Eta: the 'LEAVE-IT' cue has also the advantage - once the dog understands the cue - that it can be used for all other animals (and objects). E.g. you walk the dog and bird or other wildlife catches his attention - he might know now that he is not allowed to chase cats, but he wasn't taught that he is not allowed to chase all these other interesting creatures....again, the 'LEAVE-IT' cue would allow to communicate the message easily. ...just to demonstrate how handy the cue 'LEAVE-IT' can be: dropbox link Note: in many scenarios a recall would do the job too, but if you want to prevent that the dog launches at another animal that is close to the owner or hold by the owner - the dog might even be on leash - the 'LEAVE-IT' prevents that the dog launches for the other animal. ...if I allow her to chase the seagulls she goes nuts: dropbox link

Which is fine if you're there 100 per cent of the time. Most people aren't. I might be just lucky, but I noticed that after calling her off from the fence in the past she does it now on her own (even if the neighbours don't interfere). She might take 5 seconds longer and have a few barks more, but then she retrieves from the fence, no further interventions required. We are more or less surrounded by dogs, and one neighbour (we share only the corner) has 3 of these little annoying barkers that are going on for hours, but she just ignores them.

wrt de-sexing: you might read about the negative side effects regarding de-sexing first before you make a final decisions; GR are one of the breeds where the negative side effects are pretty good covered in studies http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2014/11/05/neutered-golden-retrievers.aspx. wrt impact of de-sexing on behaviour: it is not predictable, but recent studies indicate that actually the opposite is the case - bitches showing a dominant or more aggressive behaviour before de-sexing will become more aggressive (note that there is a huge difference between dominant and aggressive so) after they have been de-sexed. What you describe is typical puppy behaviour - it is up to you to teach her what is wanted and unwanted behaviour. Start obedience training ASAP, in a club or with a hired trainer, the longer you wait the harder it will be to erase the unwanted behaviours. You have to be absolutely clear for her: she is not allowed to bite, harass or chase the kids or anybody else. Keep her on a leash in the house as a temporary solution if this is the only way to control her for the moment. Wrt playing with other dogs: you have to find dogs that have the same energy level and where the character match each other - that's independent from the size, e.g. our 17 kg BC best friends are 40 kg labs - don't allow her to intimidate other dogs as this is a sure recipe to start a dog fight when she finds 'her match' one day.

I'm the type who tries to avoid reinforcing unwanted behaviour... So you are the type to ignore the plight of an animal you once owned to prove a point? there no plights associated with animals I own as I try to avoid reinforcing unwanted behaviour...sorry, can't help you further if you don't understand what the bolded text means... Eta:...and I adopt this attitude for animals and humans...

feed quality food, but much less...plus 1 day fasting per week (make sure dog has access to water all the time)...if you use treats for training, use quality treats that can replace normal food. 2 kg overweight for such a little dog is a significant health burden. FEED LESS!

I'm the type who tries to avoid reinforcing unwanted behaviour...

...if my dog meet the neighbours dogs at the fence and starts barking I call her back - if the neighbours haven't called their dogs back before me...problem solved. (Barking never last longer than 10 - 20 seconds).

...if a buyer claims ... 'I can't take her back, problem is I love her to the moon'...and this 'love' fades away because the buyer underestimates the hard work and associated costs that have to go into training - despite being warned about the issues - I can't see that this is the breeder's fault.

...the breeder has done this????...if I buy a car and the seller discloses all the flaws and warns me about the consequences, but I still insist to buy, I can't blame the seller for selling me a lemon...

..no need to panic http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/factsheets/Pages/Rat-Lung-Worm.aspx

...read first post: ...the OP 'was warned about the issues'...it seems the OP got enough advice about the potential consequences that came with the buy...you can only lead a camel to water...