Willem

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure.... Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test . as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)...

well, as you can see we made some mess - a typical case of classical conditioning where some people respond pretty reactive to a certain stimuli (= my name and avatar) without taking much notice of the content of the particular posts :) . back to your first post: your dog might be able to live for another 5 years, even if he won't be able to walk the stairs anymore...in this case the inconvenient and stressful transition teaching him to sleep downstairs seems to be (IMHO) a little price to pay for the option of facilitating his access to the outside world on his own terms. It will cause stress for your dog, but how much - long-term - stress will alternative options cause?...at the end it is of course your decision which everyone should respect. However, if you think it is the best for your dog to live downstairs: be aware that every response (if not aversive) to his barking will reinforce his behaviour / barking, hence it is best to ignore it.

A lovely post. Could not agree more. how cruel and distressing to the dog Yep - when we went through *kind of* similar with our last senior - we moved her INTO our bed so we could feel her fussing and take down for the loo. We went to the effort of quickly teaching our "new senior" (adopted at 10 years) the "go do wees" command to help with night time toileting. To the original poster - It can be done. It can be managed. I think if you guys are sharing sleeping downstairs to help your pup out - you're unlikely to leave him to 'cry it out' but in case the thought does cross your mind - please dont. Our seniors, especially, deserve a bit of fuss. there will be always people who feel better if they can force their pets into dependencies ...and they will always people who prefer leaving their animals some dignity... Jesus christ you really are offensive and thoughtless. what I wrote is not offensive, but if you feel offended it might be worthwhile to contemplate why you feel so.... Conversely saying that I'm thoughtless is indeed offensive!

A lovely post. Could not agree more. how cruel and distressing to the dog Yep - when we went through *kind of* similar with our last senior - we moved her INTO our bed so we could feel her fussing and take down for the loo. We went to the effort of quickly teaching our "new senior" (adopted at 10 years) the "go do wees" command to help with night time toileting. To the original poster - It can be done. It can be managed. I think if you guys are sharing sleeping downstairs to help your pup out - you're unlikely to leave him to 'cry it out' but in case the thought does cross your mind - please dont. Our seniors, especially, deserve a bit of fuss. there will be always people who feel better if they can force their pets into dependencies ...and there will be always people who prefer leaving their animals some dignity... Eta: ...spelling...

how cruel and distressing to the dog cruel? ...maybe...what are the options???...distressing?...yes, that's why the wanted outcome should be achieved ASAP to minimize the stress! If the dog won't be able to walk the stairs again, but is still healthy enough to enjoy himself to poo and pee outside on his own terms I prefer to let him have this dignity instead of forcing him to mess up the rooms.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

is he on painkillers (a pinched nerv is normally pretty painful) and could the drugs disturb his metabolism thus making it harder for him to control defecation?...if so a crate wouldn't help much. if there is a chance for improvement (depending on his overall heath condition) I would try to minimise any additional stress - conversely, if it is not likely that he will ever be able to walk the stairs again I would start keeping him downstairs ASAP. Wrt barking: if you respond to it you will reinforce him to bark every time he felt left behind. Best would be just to ignore it - which might be a problem with neighbours?...if the distance to the neighbours is far enough: headphones might get you through the first days / weeks.

looks more like a wire-haired dachshund for me...

some questions for the experts (I hope it is not too off-topic): why are insurance costs for purebreds in general higher than crossbreeds? why do the insurance companies consider parameters like size of dogs, age and breed, but not whether it is a pedigree or just a purebred without papers? why are the insurance costs for e.g. a French Bulldog significant higher compared to e.g. a Border Collie?

wrt the negative side effects of annual heartworm injections here an older thread: http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/80088-annual-heartworm-injections-adverse-reactions/ It is a mystery why annual shots are still available and allowed in areas where heartworm infections are seasonal!!!!!! ...and for areas where it would be really required all year around monthly administrations would keep the toxic levels at least on a much lower threshold.

this comprehensive paper from June 2009 raises some inconvenient questions, which IMO are not answered respectively addressed by the current version of the AVA guidelines.

wrt vets: I fully understand if a vet sticks with the AVA guidelines first and won't offer a titer test as an alternative for a routine core vaccination. The reason: if something goes wrong (and there is always Murphy's law) after they recommended an alternative approach that doesn't comply with AVA guidelines, it might get them in a position where they have to defend themselves. Conversely, if e.g. a dog would die due to side effects following a routine core vaccination the vet can always refer to the AVA guidelines and is from the hook respectively covered by their insurance. However, I assume most vets - at least my vet was - will be very happy to discuss the pro and cons of titer testing if the dog owner suggests it. here another interesting article (not from R.D. Schultz): http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/17538/DeCramer_Efficacy%282011%29.pdf?sequence=1

I actually believe that the current AVA guidelines contribute to these outbreaks! There are only 3 possible groups of dogs that can be affected by the viruses: a) puppies too young to vaccinate and without maternal antibodies, b) dogs not vaccinated at all - (that's the responsibility of the owners and has nothing to do with guidelines), and c) dogs that fall into the 5% group of dogs without seroconversion after the puppy shots. (Note: 5% is an approximate figure, based on puppy shots given at the age of 16 weeks and older). The current AVA guidelines won't prevent the '5% group' from being vulnerable till they get the required booster shot! The only way to address this issue (vulnerable 5% group) is titer testing after the puppy shots with a subsequent booster shot if they fail the test.

The question is whether the above is the best we can do for our dogs (and our wallet) based on science. Why boosters?...because it is not 100% verified that the dog has an active immunity. So instead of doing a relative simple testing that requires only a blood sample from the dog we administer booster vaccinations knowing that there are severe side effects. If the dog gets the last puppy shot with the age of 16 weeks and older, the likelihood that it will have active immunity is over 95%. Based on these figures only max. 5% would fail the test and would require a booster with subsequent second testing. Such an approach would minimize the health risks associated with over vaccination dramatically. The financial side: assuming that we administer the booster after the puppy shots and then subsequent boosters every 3 years: that's sums up to 4 x AU$ 90 over 10 years ...x 4.2 mill dogs...that's still a potential 1.5 billion dollar business. How does it compare to a titer testing approach with significant less side effects?...100% plus additional 5% (for the required second titer test) would have to pay AU$ 264 for the titer test, that's 1.05 x 4.2 mill x AU$ 264...equals approx. 1.16 billon $ over 10 years (it is actually more than 10 years considering lifetime immunity)...plus we have to add the 5% boosters required: 0.05 x 4.2 mill x AU$ 90 equals approx. 19 mill AU$. Conclusion: such an alternative approach would not only be significant cheaper (20%), but would give the surety of active immunisation and would avoid all the health risks associated with over vaccination. Furthermore, avoiding the health issues linked to over-vaccinations would lead to significant subsequent cost savings...and healthier dogs.

so, price for titer test is: AU$ 120 for parvo and distemper AU$ 144 for hepatitis seems reasonable; our dog got the second and last shot when she was nearly 21 weeks old, so it is very unlikely that maternal antibodies respectively the 'windows of susceptibility' would have prevented an active immunisation. It's AU$ 174 more than the shot, but once her active immunisation is confirmed it will save the $$ in the long run as I won't bother with vaccinations anymore...and of course I will avoid all the potential health risks associated with booster shots. Eta:

...that seems to be the common believe, however, studies undertaken by R.D. Schulz showed clearly that the immunity doesn't wear out once the dog got the shot: ... 'The results from this limited group of dogs clearly demonstrated the Norden modified live vaccines provided immunity for at least 11 years against CDV(distemper) and CPV-2 (parvovirus) ... other studies were aborted after 7 years - all dog involved had immunity till the end of the study, with no indication that it would wear out in the next years.

the post card has boxes ...ticked were the boxes for distemper & hepatitis parvovirus kennel cough (Note: hepatitis is caused by Adenovirus)...so it would be a C5 booster... I went in yesterday to discuss side effects and options (titer testing - he will give me a price for titer testing this morning) - I believe it is actually a pretty good vet and highly recommended in this area, and he was open minded to discuss the pro and cons.

...this regime is not backed up by science and contradict the findings from e.g R.D. Schulz. The AAHA is sponsored by four vaccine manufacturers: Merck, Merial, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim so there is some conflict of interest, however even they had to acknowledge that 'the core vaccines had a minimum duration of immunity of at least seven years'!

the AVA still states:...'A booster vaccine should be administered approximately 12 months later' ...http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/Other/AVA_vaccination_policy.pdf ...and here http://www.ava.com.au/policy/66-vaccination-dogs-and-cats

4 billion $$$!!!!... that's the money dog owners in Australia will likely pay over the next 10 years for yearly vaccinations that are not required! why 4 billion $?...that's approx. 4.2 million dogs x AU$ 90 a shot x 10 years. I got the reminder for the yearly vaccination for our dog, and I recalled reading about the negative side effects of (over-)vaccination. So I had a second look: http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/purdue-vaccination-studies/ ...this time following up also a few of the links / sources cited in this article, and no matter how I read it, the outcome is always: there is hard scientific evidence from independent studies that the puppy shots are absolutely enough to protect the dog from distemper, parvo and ardenovirus for lifetime and that no booster is required! Furthermore, booster shots are not only not required, but generating a significant health risk for dogs that still get the booster shots. These results prompted the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) in 2003 - while noting that the core vaccines had a minimum duration of immunity of at least seven years stated that 'Revaccination every 3 years is considered protective'. 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'.

actually - from a scientific view - it is, it might be hard so see because the roles are changed: the dogs apply this aversive stimulus to you now - they want the lollies and they learned that they get it by applying highest tension via the leash to reduce your behaviour (trying holding them back). if you want a better example where leash pulling is not aversive: e.g. dogs pulling a sledge. Way to change the argument so that you can "win". And you still aren't correct, because the dogs' pulling hard did not reduce Corvus's behaviour in holding them back. ...not about winning for me, and conversely to others I think I kept the discussion pretty factual.

actually - from a scientific view - it is, it might be hard so see because the roles are changed: the dogs apply this aversive stimulus to you now - they want the lollies and they learned that they get it by applying highest tension via the leash to reduce your behaviour (trying holding them back). if you want a better example where leash pulling is not aversive: e.g. dogs pulling a sledge.

Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. ...the subtile irony here is that you provided a pretty good example for what can happen when self-absorbed people forget to apply negative punishment when it's needed - you got what you asked for: positive reinforcement... No, I think the irony was not subtle and was quite lost on you. I was trying not to engage, because that always seems to be an exercise in frustration with you. Seems not engaging is even more frustrating than engaging. As it happens, you put the cart before the horse again, which is exactly why I brought up this example in the first place (hence, screaming irony lost on Willem). You assumed I avoided negative punishment. I don't even know what exactly I should have been removing, but I can say the whole reason why the dogs move so fast and pull in those circumstances is BECAUSE they have a history of me stopping them from obtaining the things they really want to obtain by using the leash. If they can move faster than I can, they get the goodies. If they can pull me a step or two unawares, they get the goodies. It's not just that they happened to pull and get rewarded because I somehow failed to... what? Remove the reward they actually had not obtained yet? Remove their ability to go forwards? They only got rewarded when they pulled as hard as they could, because that's the only way they could get to the goodies before I could stop them. Imagine that, pulling HARD has been reinforced - ergo, pressure is not negatively reinforcing IN THIS SCENARIO. Ergo, Corvus' point withstands. It's neither here nor there how this might or might not have been prevented with negative punishment. The point is pressure is not necessarily aversive. We should not make these assumptions, because they are too broad. For the record, I teach clients to train LLW with negative reinforcement. Leash pressure means we stop. Slack means we go. Dogs should move into the leash pressure to create slack. My older dogs were taught with treats and moving forwards but no leash pressure. Mostly I control them with my voice and the leashes are gathered into my hand so we don't all trip over them, and our walks are very easy and pleasant and there's little difference between on leash and off leash. We could easily argue there were aspects of negative punishment to their training and in the way I now teach this, but what would be the point? It would be difficult to tease the quadrants apart and I'm not sure what we would gain from it except to wave our butts in the faces of other trainers. Lots of people struggle with LLW. If pressure was always aversive, this struggle would be vastly easier to overcome. ...'ergo, pressure is not negatively reinforcing IN THIS SCENARIO.' I never said this is 'negative reinforcement'...your dog's unwanted behaviour (hard pulling - or just moving fast - to catch you off guard) was rewarded with the lollies, that's clearly 'positive reinforcement', and that is what I stated in my previous post. And because you let it happen, the hard pulling / pressure is not 'negative punishment'. Now that this unwanted (I just assume that it is unwanted) behaviour is reinforced it is even harder to eliminate. By using just 'negative punishment' now it will be likely very difficult to eliminate the behaviour without adding also positive reinforcement. I'm not a trainer, but my simple approach as a normal mortal would be: 'negative punishment': laying out lollis, treats or other goodies the dog is attracted to on a course (can be marked with a tent peg so the location is easier to recognize); I would walk the course making sure that the dog can't reach the 'appetitive stimulus'. If she pulls hard to get there I change direction (removing the appetitive stimulus by applying force via the leash). The setup allows me easy repetition of the exercise in a controlled environment. 'positive reinforcement': when she passes an 'appetitive stimulus' without pulling, I reward her with a treat.

Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. Willem, I seem to recall that you did a fair bit of work making really rewarding for your girl to focus on you and respond to your cues (commands) in the face of distractions, and rewarded a loose lead as well. Crazy walking involves a lot of focus on handler work, which you had built up a reward history for, so I wonder whether that contributed to her stopping pulling as much as, or even moreso than, the punishment aspect of the pressure of the lead. Border Collies do tend to find engagement with their handler quite intrinsically rewarding. ...of course it was also a lot of positive reinforcement involved...and of course the lower the tension in the leash the more praise she got - but could I have done it with a string attached to her collar instead of the leash?...I doubt it. Wrt 'reward history': it is definitely one important pillar that the dog 'learns to learn' respectively that he finds out that he gets rewarded for the right choice...the other important pillar is - IMO - the time spent with the dog, whether for training or just on walks. I guess one of the reasons why I like dogs is that they are authentic - they don't care whether your clothing is fancy, what job you have, or whether you are a behaviourist with a PHD or just a normal mortal: they always see the real person in you - you can't hide your mood from them. They sense when they scare you (luckily I was never scared of dogs) and they sense when you are confident. IMO recognizing this is the real key to a successful training. The different training tools are just this: tools, techniques...but they are not a substitute for a strong bond.

Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. ...the subtile irony here is that you provided a pretty good example for what can happen when self-absorbed people forget to apply negative punishment when it's needed - you got what you asked for: positive reinforcement...