Willem

wrt parvo: http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/parvovirus-2/ http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/parvovirus/ ...some will say it is BS...for others it still maybe interesting... what I took from the article is another advantage of doing titer testing I wasn't aware of: e.g. if a combined parvo-distemper titer test discloses that the dog is immune against parvo, but not against distemper, you need only the distemper vaccine for a second shot thus minimising the risks associated with the combined shots and unnecessary stress for the immune system.

our 17 kg BC has 2 lab friends (both over 40 kg) and they all like to play pretty rough - however, if it is too much for her she can outrun / outmanoeuvre the labs easily - a dachshound won't be able to do this and getting constantly hit by a 35 kg and heavier meatball could do a lot of damage to his spine. If you want a smaller dog as a companion for a lab, have a look at BCs, Kelpies and the like as these breeds are used to deal with bigger sized animals.

our dog trainings club had an open day yesterday with demonstrations, booths from council, vets and shops etc....so I took the chance and got the chip checked - still there where it should be. I also used the opportunity for discussions. Rough guess from the rangers was that approx. 1 out of 10 dogs they have to deal with don't have a chip. Had also some discussions with a vet about desexing, vaccination regimes, diseases and so on...one of his comments that made me laugh was:...a sure recipe for starting a fight during a vet conference is starting a discussion about vaccination ... :D ...I think that are at least some positive signs that something is happening. Conversely the topic desexing respectively the associated possible negative side effects seem to be widely acknowledged.

...there are even adult dogs that show no sign of symptoms at all, however they can carry the virus. This is one of the reasons why Parvo is still around as it is easily spread by such older dogs. Parvo is a puppy killer as it only attacks fast reproducing cells of the intestinal lining - conversely the mortality rate in dogs over 2 years is relative small. Talk to your vet if you don't believe this... Vaccination during the first 16 weeks can reduce the risks for puppies, but won't prevent Parvo 100% as seroconversion is not tested (I assume it would be also very tricky to test it as the seroconversion takes time, so there is a lot of speculation and hope involved when we talking about protecting pups against Parvo via vaccination.) Eta: ...if it had the same mortality for adult dogs as it has for puppies I would also assume that the problem with straying dogs would be close to zero.

Very dangerous website. That window, between 8 wks and 16 weeks, is were most parvo deaths occur. There is good reason for the multiple jabs that most vets recommend. Sure, if you live out in the middle of nowhere where there are no potential sources of parvo around, one jab at 16 weeks is adequate protection. Most of us don't have that protection, and when you buy a pup from a breeder, the breeder probably doesn't have that protection either. . LISTS of possible adverse reactions are meaningless without data on how frequent the adverse reaction is. Most are VERY rare. ...less probable than the chance of getting in a car accident when you go out your driveway. Arguments about yearly vs. three yearly are well supported by evidence . . . three yearly is adequate and annual is a waste of money as well as a tiny risk of adverse reaction. But you'll find this advice all over the place. Shultz's work on the rabies vaccine, which it was hoped would show lifetime immunity, has, so far, shown that immunity has begun to wane at 5 years. To my knowledge, equivalent tests have not been done for parvo. Risk:benefit studies often flounder on how you weigh the costs of a death . . . in these cases, a death with extreme suffering (parvo is a hideous disease). For communicable diseases, they also flounder on how to cost the risk of transmission to others . . . and the benefit of wiping out a disease in a community. No question. . . there are vets and clubs and boarding kennels pushing vaccination regimes that aren't supported by science. But I'd hate to see people walking away from puppy jab schedules to save money . . . with the consequence that distemper comes back and parvo becomes even more prevalent. Titer testing is no panacea. You can come out with an inadequate titer result when the dog is still immune, and the titer is generallhy much more expensive than a vaccine. ...That window, between 8 wks and 16 weeks, is where most parvo deaths occur... of course - but what is the impact of vaccination or no vaccination on this stats?...the parvo virus attacks growing cells (a healthy adult dog might well shake parvo just off) and the window when the maternal immunity fades out and seroconversion might not have happened is of course the most likely time the virus can attack. ...Arguments about yearly vs. three yearly are well supported by evidence... nope, no scientific evidence backing up a 1 year or 3 year vaccination regime; even Merck states that the protection last longer. When the guidelines where changed to 3 years it was a compromise between financial interests of the pharma industry and the findings of recent studies. Quote from material listed in previous posts: In 2011, the AAHA updated their Canine Vaccination Guidelines once more to every 3 years or more with the following comment: Among healthy dogs, all commercially available core vaccines are expected to induce a sustained protective immune response lasting at least 5 yr. thereafter... But despite their recommendation of no more than every three years, the AAHA Task Force admitted vets that vaccines protect for a much longer period of time ... wrt titer testing: the test for parvo and distemper cost me AU$ 120 vs AU$ 90 for the CV3 shot - Adenovirus titer test cost AU$ 144. Over the life time of a dog much cheaper than a yearly vaccination regime, and still cheaper than a 3-year vaccination regime - and that doesn't consider the future savings due to avoiding all the nasty side effects of over vaccination requiring medical treatment. http://truth4pets.org/2012/06/titer-testing/ wrt rabies and the possibility of a fading immunity: ...we luckily don't have it here so, but even if I would live in a country with rabies I would prefer a titer test every 5 years over the shot (which is one of the most controversial shots anyway). Eta: ...from the free vaccination guide that can be downloaded from the DogsNaturally website:

... a few shopping trollies and a grinder would do for a start :D ...

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place. For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed. We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this. What we are seeing now is • Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits. • Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance. • High rates of impounding and euthanasia. • And more and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility. As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation. There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance: • All dog breeders to be licensed • Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information • Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act ...so the current desexing strategy is in place because it doesn't work thus protecting the sensible economy associated with the pet industry, while at the same time it gives the impression the authorities are doing something to address the pound issues and overpopulation?

I am fully committed to give the pup whatever he/she needs to be happy. Thanks for your suggestions, I really appreciate it. So, I should opt for a puppy rather than an older dog? I just had a read of your older thread a year ago...obviously things changed ...and when you are younger things are changing even faster - to be fully committed is one thing, to maintain this commitment for a longer period another. Hence, what would you lose if you wait another 6 months and spend some voluntary hours in a pound (might be also helpful wrt picking the breed that is right for you) before you make a final decision?

well,...I think I slowly understand where the problems that cause the overfilled pounds are coming from....

an other option would be to engage a dog walker for the first months ... or get the neighbours involved somehow. What you definitely don't want is coming home from work and have to deal with a pissed off neighbour because the dog was barking the whole day...

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong. Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped . yep, for our area the council can fine dog owners with unregistered dogs (which requires the chip number - no registration without chip number) with up to AU$ 2,200! And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work For me the most important reason to register our dog is actually not to avoid punishment respectively fines, but to increase the chances that our dog can be found and safely returned if it would get missing so it is really more for the safety of the dog. I think it is also a requirement for getting membership in many dog clubs for obedience and agility training and the like. Eta: ...maybe it has also something to do with the wide spread 'no worries... should be fine attitude' when people embarking on a dog ownership? ...it is good to be positive, but sometimes it is even better to consider possible consequences...

no one is criticising people who are leaving dogs on their own due to work commitments! ...of course it can work out fine, in your case with more than one dog the risk of boredom was likely anyway minimized. However, IMO, there is also a relative high risk to create a 'problem' dog, the ones that end up in the pounds at the end...

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong. Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped . yep, for our area the council can fine dog owners with unregistered dogs (which requires the chip number - no registration without chip number) with up to AU$ 2,200! Eta: that's valid for any dog 6 month and older...if dogs are not registered after 6 month you will get a reminder first, next step is the fine...

I think the associated risks are too high - if the pup starts to become an annoying barker, how does the OP want to correct this? ...what about the 'destruction phase' when they start investigating everything?...o.k. a safe kennel in the garden might be option here, but would require further investments.

yep, sorry, meant '2-3 weeks' ...consider that dogs need 1-2 years to mature (depending on breed), if they lack the required training / learning for the first year it will be very hard to fix it when the dog is matured. Having not enough time for a pup is a good recipe for a problem dog.

2-3 month is definitely not enough!...even 2-3 months would be too short. wrt CKCSs:...no experience with this breed (but others will help out...); as there won't be many dogs with the required criteria (older, trained, not too bored in case left alone for 10 hours) I wouldn't focus too much on a specific breed. You also have to consider what you can offer for the 10 hours your are away: garden / backyard - is the garden safe?...or do you have to keep him in house all the time? ...crating the dog for 10 hours shouldn't be an option!

I think the only dog that would suit would be an older dog that is already used to those conditions - you can't do that with a puppy if you have no one as a backup.

...so far for one dog (17 month old): AU$ 210 ...that's AU$ 150 on average per year :) ...that includes 1 puppy shot when we got her and the titer test for parvo and distemper.

That's another very comprehensive study clearly disclosing the increased health risks due to desexing and the increased behavioural issues: http://www.caninesports.com/uploads/1/5/3/1/15319800/vizsla_javma_study.pdfMy link quote: Logistic regression analysis revealed that the odds of gonadectomized Vizslas having behavioral problems (fear of storms, separation anxiety, fear of noises, fear of gunfire, timidity, excitability, submissive urination, aggression, hyperactivity, and fear biting) after gonadectomy were significantly (P = 0.035) higher than the odds for sexually intact dogs... If dogs shows anxiety, nowadays owners often claim that the dog was badly treated in the past - considering the above the only 'bad treatment' the dog might have encountered might be just that he had been desexed. wrt different desexing strategies in different developed countries: It’s actually only Australia and the US where desexing is so heavily promoted as the silver bullet for all kind of problems (overpopulation, health issues, behavioural problems). While not all European countries adopt Norway's stricter legislation regarding desexing, the numbers of desexed dogs in these countries are much lower (e.g. in Sweden only 7% of the dogs are desexed). Despite the higher rates of entire dogs, it seems that these countries don't have the same problems wrt overfilled pounds and straying dogs. There is enough scientific evidence rebutting the claims of the desexing lobby that dogs would be healthier and that desexing is a reliable cure for behavioural problems, hence these arguments backfire heavily. That leaves the argument for addressing overpopulation, but how strong is this argument considering the experience in other developed countries really?...and if this problem is really so huge, why are all the other competitive options (vasectomy, tubal ligation) not offered as an alternative? It is hard to see how the current strategy is in the best interest of dogs and owners.

makes me think that the idea with the dog lotto might not be so bad at all to promote microchipping - subsidise the first draws so it becomes really attractive, keep the payouts reasonable (many smaller payouts instead of one big to increase the chances of a win)....the microchip number is the ticket...easy to setup, and all the owners without registration would miss out... wrt post #228: Steve's summary hit the nail!

...just for the records: I usually use bing instead of google :)

http://www.paw-rescue.org/PAW/PETTIPS/DogTip_Temperament.php

I think asal refers to the low percentage (maybe 15%) registered breeders contribute to the overall dog population - they feel the whole heat of the current legislations despite that their impact on the pound problem is minimal (due to the numbers and due to their way doing their business, interaction with potential buyers etc.). At the moment it seems that the legislation has only consequences for the registered breeders, hence the big question is how to make these legislations work for all the other breeders that provide the other 85%?

I admit I have some problems following this thread, e.g. I don't understand the connection between leadership and dominance - IMO these are 2 different things. wrt the link http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/ provided earlier: the concerns about using previous wolf studies to explain dominance behaviour are widely acknowledged, however, I can't see that using behaviour studies based on a group of neutered dogs is in anyway more suitable to rebut the older theories. quote from http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/why-not-dominance.php: The study, described in Bradshaw et al. (2009) investigated the interactions between a group of 19 dogs housed together in a ‘sanctuary’ environment. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these neutered domestic dogs , which had been in the group for at least 6 months and were freely able to determine interactions between group members, formed a hierarchical structure as predicted by the ‘dominance theory’. Neutered dogs behave differently (obviously they will have some issues filling out a parental role :) ), hence it is a little bit keen to use the findings of such a study as evidence for any behaviour of entire dogs.

while this link doesn't contain something new, it give a very good summary about the advantage of titer testing vs the widely adopted yearly vaccination regime. The owner of our dog's lab friend told me a few days ago that he was due for his yearly vaccination shot - at the same vet clinic where I discussed the titer testing for our dog a few weeks ago. It just shows that if dog owners don't ask, they just go on and on with this risky vaccination scheme.