Willem

without knowing I bet AU$ 10 that your client's dog is a retriever? ...I think the potential market is likely limited to those breeds...but then they carry whatever you give them, so why spending $$ on another leash?...because people can, oh well....

it is definitely not a probiotic...and a softer poo at night time (after a sleep the poo is mostly a little bit softer as there is less compaction due to muscle usage) is nothing that point to digestion issues in the first place. Dogs get older, metabolism can change and so the periods between poo ime... Were did I say it was a probiotic? not you - in the first post concerns have been raised whether previous administered ABs could be the cause for the changed poo pattern, and whether giving probiotics could help. (It is actually a myth that 'probiotics' can replace the good flora destroyed by ABs - what they do is that they can help bridging the time till the organism hopefully builds up the good flora again. If the organism can't build up a healthy flora, in the meanwhile they also do 'poo transplants' for humans - I guess a dog just eats poo from other dogs with the same results).

it is definitely not a probiotic...and a softer poo at night time (after a sleep the poo is mostly a little bit softer as there is less compaction due to muscle usage) is nothing that point to digestion issues in the first place. Dogs get older, metabolism can change and so the periods between poo ime...

WOW!....that will 'help' wrt your concerns mentioned in post #1 - why would you give a dog AB when all he does is a normal poo (not running) in the nighttime? ...ABs shouldn't be given lightly.

that's too late; one of the big differences (maybe the difference) between dog and wolves is that wolves have a much earlier socialisation window. If you take them from the mother with 8 weeks all the most important socialisation already happend and the window is closed, so of course they behave differently then. So sorry, but their experiments are somehow flawed:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130117152012.htm and http://www.everythingwolf.com/news/readarticle.aspx?article=38 ETA: so wolves and dogs are not sooo different, just a different socialisation window. ETA: had to remove the 'ellipses' :) ETA: form the link:"My gut feeling is that there is the same kind of gene variations in the wolf population," Professor Jensen said." ...he might be right here :D

...thanks for the effort, you put a lot of work into it - I really very appreciate this!...reading through all the stuff and links will keep me quiet for a while :D ...just wrt 'correlation does not equal causation and the like'....that is valid both ways, or?...and I'm still looking for an example where de-sexing dogs really worked wrt dog population control...doesn't work in USA, doesn't work here, and other civilized countries doesn't promote it the same way.

...that is what happens if you give a 'straight' answer :) ...my understanding is that also the 'reproduction' is a kind of behavior, and as even the RSPCA admits, there are alternative methods to address this specific behaviour respectively the drive that leads to such behaviour. However, as the alternative methods are more complicated and more time consuming and therefore less convenient, people tend to choose de-sexing - not for the welfare of their dog, but for their own convenience. But that's the exact reason why the RSPCA encourages people to desex! Because they are well aware that most people do not and will not use the more complicated, time consuming and less convenient methods. Therefore the only way to prevent unplanned, unwanted litters is to get people to desex their pets. And because it is the RSPCA and the AWL and the council pounds and the other shelters and the rescue groups that then have to deal with these unwanted dogs they target the EASIEST, most convenient way to reduce the problem. Do you really think the RSPCA or any other regulators are going round to houses where entire dogs are safely contained and not causing problems, or up to random people walking their well behaved entire dogs on the street and saying they have a problem with those dog being entire? ..while promoting education and training might be a slow process, the current strategy is not only contradicting animal welfare, but can't work at all and never will, not here in Australia or in USA or elsewhere! I mentioned the maths already elsewhere: we have 4.2 Mill dogs in Australia, to maintain this numbers all it takes are just 84,000 entire bitches (males you need obviously less), that's just 2% of the dog population (assuming an average lifespan of 10 years for a dog and an average litter size of 5). Even if all 'private' owners would have their dogs de-sexed, there are enough entire dogs left on puppy farms, backyard breeders and registered breeders that can and will flood the market with puppies. The occasional accident prevented by this strategy doesn't matter and won't have an impact on numbers. Furthermore there are strong clues (see the link I quoted above - I'm still waiting for others who claimed that there have contradicting evidence to reveal these contradicting studies) that the most frequent reason to surrender a dog are behaviour issues ...and these are the dogs that get pts. And there are also strong, very strong hints that early de-sexing can have a significant negative impact on behaviour (Viszla Study etc....). Therefore the RSPCA is promoting a strategy that causes them to have to euthanize more dogs, not less!!!! ...there is no substitute for the right thing to do, no substitute for education and training no matter how inconvenient it is! ETA:...in a way RSPCA's strategy does pretty much the same the greyhound industry was criticised for: it produces wastage!...more dogs with behavioural issues plus less training equals more dogs to be euthanized.

you mean 6 years?...sound like a reasonable approach to me... Why are you ok with it being done at 6 years old? Do you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue because someone has told you that you aren't a responsible dog owner because your girl is entire. I wouldn't de-sex my dog - that doesn't mean that I can't accept if someone else decides to de-sex a bitch for medical reason when she is 6 years old. If someone dealt with an entire bitch for 6 years he/she obviously knows what it means, and I assume that the decision for de-sexing is not thoughtless made as a result of the RSPCA campaigns - there have been obviously some concerns and thoughts about the risks wrt de-sexing her earlier. The risk of Pyometra is a serious concern - you know this - and I can't ignore this. My approach is to keep my dog as healthy as I can, lean, exercised, with a strong immune system - but I admit that this is no guarantee that she will never get Pyometra. So if someone decides to de-sex his / her girl with 6 years to minimize this risk - well, I don't advocate it, but from all the various reasons mentioned for de-sexing a dog this is the only plausible one for me if done at an older age.

you mean 6 years?...sound like a reasonable approach to me...

...that is what happens if you give a 'straight' answer :) ...my understanding is that also the 'reproduction' is a kind of behavior, and as even the RSPCA admits, there are alternative methods to address this specific behaviour respectively the drive that leads to such behaviour. However, as the alternative methods are more complicated and more time consuming and therefore less convenient, people tend to choose de-sexing - not for the welfare of their dog, but for their own convenience.

sorry for this, but it is a complex topic. In general IMO de-sexing - or any other surgical modification - should be the last resort to address any normal behaviour of a dog, not the first. And 'normal' covers a wide range of drives and instincts - I'm convinced that most of the unwanted behaviours (which in a way can be still 'normal') resulting from those drives and instincts could be addressed with appropriate training and education. However, making de-sexing mandatory makes this measure a first choice being not only in contrast to current animal welfare, but also neglecting all the advantages of appropriate training.

...we both are lucky, you in VIC and I'm her in NSW...but what happens if we have - e.g. due to job changes - relocate to SA or ACT?...and how does RSPCA's stand on 'Surgical Modifications' compares to their stand on 'Responsible Companion Animal Ownership' ???? ...how hypocritical is this? ETA:...and before someone discloses how brainwashed he/she already is arguing that the RSPCA also mentions ...'other safe suitable methods ' ...as alternatives for de-sexing (thus acknowledging that there are other suitable measures out there) in the link about 'Responsible Companion Animal Ownership': considering their stand on 'Surgical Modifications' how can they seriously promote de-sexing if there are other measures out there???? ...it is like saying: ....'preventing unwanted/unplanned noise from your neighbour through killing him or other safe suitable methods' ...No!...your are not allowed to kill him if there are other safe and suitable methods!...not even in self-defense...

Neither perse nor I said said you did Willem. We were agreeing with each other that there can be impacts of bitches in season being out in areas other dogs frequent, beyond the impact on the individual bitch and their owner. Mandatory obedience training, if even possible to implement, would not solve the issue of accidental, unplanned, poorly planned, unwanted etc etc etc litters. A beautifully trained bitch pottering in her yard while in season can still be mated by a beautifully trained entire male who jumps the fence. true, a lot of things can happen which are very unlikely - and if they happen, are the numbers resulting from those accidents really the ones that causes the overpopulation and problems in the pounds?...I don't think so, and also other countries, e.g. Sweden with less than 7% of the dogs de-sexed, clearly indicate that this is not the case. Accidents will happen in Sweden too, but the chances that it happens are small, hence no impact on pound numbers. I think the correlation between those accidents and owners who don't care much about their dogs at all - whether it is general training or state - is pretty obvious. ...have a look at my response to Jules...what else do I need to say :) ? ..well, I recall a thread where I was called names from a few members here when I mentioned that I walked my dog even though when she is on heat... I understand that de-sexing can be one tool in the box for good dog management, and in special scenarios it can add quality to a dog's live, however, IMO the public presentation is IMO pretty one-sided and misinforming....and many people fall into this trap just to struggle later with all the unwanted consequences. Hence I thought demonstrating that dogs in heat (and in most other states) are still normal dogs via the footage might help some dog owners to make a more balanced decision. Unfortunately some authorities and organisations push the 'mandatory de-sexing approach' instead of a 'mandatory obedience training approach' for dog owners. While both of these options might be hard to enforce anyway, I think the later one is much smarter and would achieve by far the better results. Sorry, I'm still not clear on what your stance is. Am I correct in thinking you believe that all dogs here in Australia should be kept entire unless there is a specific reason to desex them? If yes, what are your specific reasons for believing that? A clear, direct answer would be very much appreciated, in the interest of valid discussion. ...why would you de-sex a dog without reason? ...a dog is a dog, bred with balls and uterus, the systems developed over thousands of years of evolution - somehow effected by breeding, but still close to nature. We only know the peak of the iceberg how the hormone systems change over the lifetime and what impacts it has if we mess with it...interfering with it is like letting an apprentice running a nuclear power station. IMO it is the pinnacle of ignorance to say that de-sexing a dog at young age, thus interfering heavily with their hormone / immune system, is a safe thing to dog, especially if there are strong scientific hints telling us that it can backfire heavily wrt behaviour and health issues. Saying this, there are of course scenarios where de-sexing can have its merits, e.g. saving a dog's life or improving quality of life, and would therefore be justified - but every decision should be evaluated carefully based on the individual unique scenario. However, I don't think that the later happens ...most decisions for de-sexing a dog are driven by our desire for convenience, it is easy to believe vets / RSPCA etc. (why bother to read a little bit outside the box?) and they are baiting you with this convenience... De-sexing, in USA and Australia, has become a bad, bad substitute for appropriate, but time consuming training. We expect from a companion dog (it is the only mammal where we have so high expectations!!!) that it is well behaved, obedient and controls all his natural drives and instincts, but when it comes having to put the effort in for education and training, we are looking for shortcuts and more convenient measures. Look at all the biting accidents: they happen due to the lack of training and education!...not because of removed or not removed balls and uterus'. I love dogs, because I love training dogs, and because they don't give a damn how much followers you have on twitter or how many likes you have on Fakebook, my dog even doesn't care whether I get bashed here on this forums for my comments or not :D ...and I always accepted them as the entire living organism - I found that is a pretty good approach if you want to get the best out of them. The Norwegian Animal Welfare Act states that surgical procedures are not to be used to adapt animals to the needs of humans, unless strictly necessary!...and IMHO they got it right; here you get heavily fined for cropping a dog's ears or tail, but it is absolutely fine to take the balls off or the uterus out - I always have problems if I have to deal with those hypocrites who are misusing their power for justifying their own desire for convenience.

He's always eaten RMB up until he had the dental, he will still have a chew on one now but it's slow and takes him forever. He had the bad breath before the dental. He didn't need any teeth pulling out. So your saying he could have a rotten tooth and they can't see it as it's inside the tooth? My thought is it's coming from his tummy but I could be wrong. Pers if it was tonsils would they see it if they looked in his mouth? I've had a look and it all looks fine. What I can't work out is he was chewing hard treats bones etc fine before the dental but not after and nothing changed with his breath. I'm just going to have to take him back to the vets and be more persistent. yes, it is not uncommon ...to role out that it is from the tummy you need to check the stool ...I guess there is not much if he doesn't eat properly, but how was it before he stopped eating?

...rotten tooth? ...they can be shiny white and rotten from the root ...if the throat is not infected it is very likely a rotten tooth, hence he is reluctant - due to the pain - to bite on treats. You would likely have to get an X-ray for a final diagnose....and yes, kibble is known for causing all kind of dental problems - nothing cleans teeth better than a meaty bone (chicken necks, wings, drum sticks or frames don't do much, at least not for our BC as they are more a crunchy snack than a good work / clean out for the teeth). ETA:...I should add that my wife works in the dental industry and has some experience with rotten teeth and the smelly breath they can cause...

http://bellambivet.blogspot.com.au/ ...looks like I finally found a vet that ticks most of the boxes :D ... ...and again, the credit goes to Skip (or skip)...

Thanks for this - interesting. ...just 4 hours of mandatory obedience training....and then they are surprised that it doesn't make a big difference?...I remember the first months of our official training...pure chaos and jealous looks to the more advanced groups...

Yeah...way too far away for me, but might suit Willem. Shame because I really like the ADAA courses. ...and Albion Park too (I have to ask the experts from our club) ...all relative near by...

...that's interesting...especially if you want to compete with a Golden Retrievers where the risk of ligament injuries is dramatically increased for de-sexed dogs....it is not required if I register my dog with ADAA (TBC)...?... Not sure with ADAA, but to compete in ADAA competitions you will need to travel to Queensland ...with the Grand Prix excepted as that is held in Tamworth once a year. But I know that until your dog is desexed you will not be able to register it with ANKC. As far as Golden Retrievers go, they can't compete until they are 18 months old & by then they would probably be desexed. There are ADAA competitions in NSW :) Some breeds that have an alternate registry to ANKC can go on the Sporting Register and not need to be desexed to compete in sports. Eg Kelpies registered with WKC, Koolies registered with the Koolie club. I think there are a few sheepdog registeries too, which register on merit/ability rather than pedigree, so Willem could get a BC on Sporting Register through there if his dog had ability on sheep. Not up my way there isn't :laugh: So to register your dog on the working dog register, I would have thought that you would still have had to have bought that dog from a WDR breeder & that it would come with WDR papers. Sorry to hijack the thread but I have a new dog in my class at agility. He is an 18 month old backyard bred BC...lovely dog but definately no papers. The owners didn't even know the correct name for his colour....they thought he was a golden BC. He is entire, simply because the owner thinks it's sissy to desex your male dog. I am going to have to break the news to them, that if they want to compete in ANKC sports, then he is going to have to be desexed. ...no need to be sorry, and I really appreciate this kind information - thanks also to Kavik....I might do ADAA...but my / our fun in training doesn't depend on it...

we are close to 100 posts in the meanwhile, and most of these posts contain more interesting information, however, I'm concerned that I get shot if I repeat it again :)

...that's interesting...especially if you want to compete with a Golden Retrievers where the risk of ligament injuries is dramatically increased for de-sexed dogs....it is not required if I register my dog with ADAA (TBC)...?...

GREAT NEWS!!!! ...first: all credit goes to skip who informed me about this vet in Russel Vale (a tad north of Wollongong). I just had a chat with a very friendly vet who confirmed that they do the VacciCheck as a standard service, and she wasn't even shy to call the testing best practice!!! The test itself cost AU$ 85 and comes with a yearly check that costs another AU$ 45 ...so in total AU$ 130 - for existing customers, who visit the clinic on a regular basis she even waives the check fee. Here the link to the clinic: http://www.animalclinic.com.au/contact-us1.pml She also mention that you have to wait 1-2 days for the results - the test itself only takes less than 30 minutes, but considering the daily traffic in a clinic I understand that this is something you want to do after the normal business hours so you can focus on it without getting disturbed by phone calls etc... I will make my appointment in approx. 2 weeks when our dog is out of season...I already 'warned' her that she should be ready to order the next kit as there will be a higher demand for it in the next weeks. For all the dog owners interested in the VacciCheck, but living around Nowra: she also mentioned that they cooperate with a vet in Nowra and that this vet offers the VacciCheck as a standard service too. ETA: ...forgot to mention: you will receive a letter with the test results as an official document that can be used for e.g. dog clubs that request vaccinations respectively proof of immunity.

wrt 'pure breed forum' (someone - I think it was Jules - mentioned it): we also need to consider that the criteria, how a dog / blood line can cope with early de-sexing was never part of the breeding standards. Now the following can happen: a litter gets de-sexed at an early age, and 50% of the pups show behavioural issues at a later stage due to the interrupted maturing as a result of the hormone imbalance caused by de-sexing. The breeder, not aware of the cause for the negative breeding result might stop breeding these dogs to avoid further disappointments. So if we implement mandatory de-sexing in every state, does the capability regarding how the dog / a line can cope with an early de-sexing has to become part of every breeding standard?...and what about the semen sourced from overseas?

we have to look at countries that implemented solutions that actually work, and have to copy them (maybe with slight amendments)...copying is not a bad strategy if you copy the right thing. The only countries that promote de-sexing as the silver bullet for everything are USA and Australia (and partly Canada due to the influence of their mighty neighbour)...and does this strategy work in USA or in Australia?...other countries focus on what is really important and have no problems with pounds, straying dogs and overpopulation. In Norway it is even forbidden to de-sex, in Sweden less than 4% of the male dogs and less than 7% of the females are de-sexed and they have no problems with overpopulation - if you follow the arguments of the RSPCA here, this is just not possible....so is all the information about Sweden or other countries wrong?...or are the arguments of the RSPCA heavily flawed? ...the problem is that we have to deal with what I call a 'tobacco-brainwash-syndrome': advertising and bombarding people with information will get the majority to believe in it, no matter whether the information is right or wrong - once you reach this stage of acceptance it takes ages to turn this around.... ETA:...unfortunately the reason why these tobacco-brainwash-syndromes work lies in our nature: if someone offers us 2 solutions for a problem, we always tend to take the more convenient one also this one might not have the better arguments from a factual point of view...smokers were told for decades that smoking has no health effects and doesn't cause addiction ....and even when they could feel all the signs indicating that this wasn't true, they still wanted to believe in the lies the tobacco industry told them...

...seems someone has to do it as the RSPCA is too busy because they have to euthanize all the dogs with behaviour issues... ETA: ...now that is really interesting stuff: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45251733_Behavioral_Reasons_for_Relinquishment_of_Dogs_and_Cats_to_12_Shelters ...some quotes: ...The NCPPSP RegionalShelter Study found that behavioral problems, including aggression toward people or nonhuman animals, were the most frequently given reasons for canine relinquishment... and ...Neutered female dogs and cats and neutered male dogs were more frequent in the behavioral category of relinquishment. Oh good, 16 year old 'science'. Good googling..... Not to me mention correlation vs causation. ...now that is an interesting stand ....don't trust science because it is 16 years old ...I guess the next thing is that you guys come up with that there was a time when people believe the earth was a disk?.... Skinner's doctrine are how old?... No. That's not what I said. I said correlation vs causation. There's actually a number of studies that identify entire dogs being a risk factor for turning up in shelters. And I don't go rattling them off as a reason for desexing either. Your use of scientific literature could be called selective at best. ....can we see these studies and how they compare to the 16 year old study I quoted?