Staranais

From my understanding K9 Force counts a dog as "neutralised" if it has a neutral value for, mildly likes, or mildly dislikes other dogs and other people, so that's the sense I use the term in. I don't mind if my dog has a mild interest in playing with other dogs, in fact I'd prefer that to a mild dislike of other dogs, but only as long as it's just a mild interest. I don't want to raise a dog that's crazy about playing with strange dogs or strange people. So yes, I want my dog to have good dog-dog manners, and I want her to be confident and calm around strange dogs. I don't care whether my dog also likes to play with other dogs or not, as long as if she does, she likes to play with me way more. Part of that is me making myself interesting, of course, but I'd also like to load the dice in my favour by ensuring she doesn't learn to become crazy excited by strangers and other dogs in the first place. I hope to do competition and possibly also work her as well as having her as a well balanced companion, and I don't want to let her learn she can get worked up around other dogs and then have to spend time later on teaching her to ignore them when we're out and about. I mean, why teach a puppy to go crazy about playing with strange dogs, when I'll just want to unteach that excitement later? We don't do that with anything else. I'm not going to teach her to jump up on me when she's a pup, or knaw on my hands, cos I know I don't want that behaviour in a finished dog. To me, it's the same thing. And I'm not concerned if my dog doesn't ever want to play with other dogs, since I'll spend enough time playing and working with her myself that she'll hardly be deprived. My last boy never could safely play with other dogs, and I know he had a wonderfully rich life with me regardless. I'm pretty content that he wasn't missing out on anything, and if we could have asked him, I'm confident he'd tell us that he was pretty happy with his lot. Hope that answers your question.

You're quite welcome to voice your opinion - was I not welcome to voice mine? Seriously though, it's nice to see a different viewpoint, but why post if you're not willing to defend what you've written? Noone's been nasty to you, or personally attacked you. We've just disagreed with what you said, because we happen to think you're incorrect. You get that on a forum. As for everyone being on one "train" here, we've actually had several nice long threads recently in the training forum about Steve's different programs, with some people strongly for them, some people strongly against them, and many just curious. If you're interested in joining in then I'm sure no one would mind if you bumped those threads to contribute.

Thanks Erny. The above was regarding a different study that the authors were discussing: Chase, I.D., Tovey, C., Spangler-Martin, D., Manfredonia, M., 2002. Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99, 5744-5749. The 19 dogs these authors actually looked at were just kept in one group, and they were passively observing their behaviour. But they also talked about studies that other people had done, and the above was one of those. I haven't had time to take a look at it, might do so later, right now I'm supposed to be studying for a pathology test not playing on DOL

Yes, I should have been studying but couldn't resist. It was ok. It was mostly just a review paper of work other people have done with wolves and feral dogs, though they also briefly described their own work with a group of 19 male neutered dogs. They observed and recorded interactions between pairs of dogs within the group. Instead of a clear dominance hierarchy within the group, they only found submissive-dominant relationships between different pairs of dogs. When observing, they defined a dominant behaviour as growling, biting, standing over, mounting, staring at, chasing, or barking at another dog, and submissive behaviour as crouching, avoiding, displacement behaviour such as licking or yawning, or running away. They then suggested the concept of RHP (resource holding potential) as one alternative to the traditional concept of "dominance". RHP states that the outcome of any altercation depends on both the animal's chance of winning an all-out fight, and "V", the subjective value of the resource to each individual animal (how much each dog wants the resource, compared to how much he thinks the other dog wants the resource). They suggest that dogs are pretty bad at estimating how likely they are to win a fight, but think that "V" is a useful concept when discussing relationships between dogs. They also think that learned behaviour plays a huge part in dominance relationships between dogs, with a dog that wins an initial altercation becoming more confident and more likely to win another altercation with the same dog next time. I think most trainers would agree that learning is an important component of dominance relationships between dogs, but these authors seem to want to emphasise how small random events can influence this learning. The initial meeting between two dogs could be affected by any number of random factors, and the authors think that this explains why putting the same individuals into groups repeatedly can result in different dominance hierachies (which apparently has been shown to happen, although I didn't follow up the paper). I found the paper interesting, but did have a few quibbles with their methodology. For example, it seems to me that a truly "dominant" dog won't necessarily continuously be engaging in the types of aggressive behaviours towards other dogs that the authors were measuring. The "dominance" of a truly dominant dog would presumably be understood by both parties and not need to be continuously demonstrated. For example, a submissive dog might not even bother to compete with a dominant dog for a resource, since it knows it won't get anywhere. The authors would have completely missed that as an "interaction", since there were no snarls and stares. So I'm not sure the researchers were actually measuring dominance, as we would understand it - I would suggest that they were simply measuring aggressive behaviour. However, I do think they have made a good case that wolf (and dog) packs don't form a rigid linear hierarchy, that "dominance" is sometimes less important in altercations than which dog desires the resource more at that particular time, that not all pairs of dogs have a conventional dominant-submissive type relationship, and that even in pairs of dogs that do, which dog will become "dominant" can be unpredictable and may rely heavily on chance events.

I'd say get a second opinion. Maybe even book an appointment with a specialist (the closest vet university should be able to put you onto someone appropriate, even if your own vet can't). I'm sure the vet is right that the excessive urination is being caused by her diabetes, but from what I understand also, if you can get the problem under better control, you will have less urinating (and therefore less drinking). Good luck!

Thanks Ness! I found a 4.5m tunnel for NZ$240 over here, so I guess mineflex won't save me any money. I might look into air conditioning ducting as you suggest.

That's a cool idea - I never thought of using ducting as a tunnel. Can I please ask, how much did this cost to buy? They don't seem to have prices on their website. And have you found it to be hard wearing?

Have you considered "going back to basics" and just treating him as you would treat a little puppy? i.e., give him no unsupervised time inside the house so he doesn't practice toileting inside (put him in a crate if you want him inside but can't supervise him directly), and make sure you always make a huge fuss of him when he does go outside. Other more experienced folks might have other ideas, but that's the first thing I'd do.

Do you mean Nobivac DHP, DHPPi, Puppy DP, & Parvo-C? The most recent product leaflet I could find for those still seems to advise vaccinations against parvo at 6 and 9 weeks if there's any chance of unweaned puppies getting infected, and vaccination against at least parvo, hep, and distemper at 10 or 12 weeks. So that's less repeated vaccines than previous protocols, but they still seem to want the parvo repeated. Or do you guys have new Nobivac vaccines in Aus that aren't licensed for use in NZ yet? Would be keen to know, since if you have new vax, they'll probably come here soon. edited to add, here's the label of our most recent Nobivac vaccine: http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/acvm-register/lab...6257-label1.pdf

Yes, this is correct. Puppies get antibodies from their mum's colostrum. While they last, these protect the pup against infectious diseases, but also interfere with vaccination. Maternal antibody protection is lost between 8 and 12 weeks in most puppies, though it can occasionally be lost as early as 6 weeks, or as late as 16 weeks. It's important to vaccinate the pup at least once after these maternal antibodies are gone, so the pup develops effective immunity from the vaccine. Earlier vaccines are given just in case the pup loses maternal antibody protection sooner, as you don't want your pup to be susceptible to parvo etc for longer than he has to be! I'm not sure what the C5 and C3 refer to, as I'm in a different country and we don't use that nomenclature here. I'll personally be vaccinating my next pup 2 - 3 times for parvo, distemper and adenovirus, then only every 3 years after that (and only then if the titres are lost). But check with your own vet, they know your local conditions best. With the new vaccines, these OVER-RIDE the mothers antibodies, this is why they can now be given earlier and have the last vax done at 10 weeks. this is what the Guide Dogs Assoc over here use, so they can get the pups out and socialising at an earlier age. Which brand & product is that, Becks? I've heard of those vaccines (high titre/low passage) being trialed, but didn't know any were commercially available yet. I'd be very keen to look into them, if you'll post the details please.

I'll bite since noone else has replied, though I don't know how much use I'll be. There was a little bit about this in the "Cadaver Dog Handbook" by Andrew Rebmann, 2000, CRC Press. They used scratch boxes and a clicker to imprint dogs on human cadaver scent & then train them to give a specific alert. Not sure if that's exactly what you're after but the principles are probably similar no matter what type of scent you want to train the dog to detect, so perhaps borrowing the book is worth a shot. You can probably get it interloan through a university library.

The ingredients lists lamb meal as the first ingredient, not lamb, which is lamb which has already been dehydrated. So there's a fair amount of real meat in this food. Thanks Stormie - I didn't realise that "lamb meal" was an already rendered product. Now I know!

The ingredients all sound OK to me, but I just wanted to point out that ingredients in pet food are generally listed in order of weight at time of manufacture, not in order of weight in the finished product. For this food, the first ingredient lamb is probably added moist (then dehydrated later in the process of creating the kibble), whereas the next three ingredients in the list are added already dried. So you're probably actually buying a product that is mostly rice and oats, not mostly lamb, by volume. It may not matter to you, but it's just something I thought you may want to be aware of.

I'm very sorry, Troppodogs.

Yes, this is correct. Puppies get antibodies from their mum's colostrum. While they last, these protect the pup against infectious diseases, but also interfere with vaccination. Maternal antibody protection is lost between 8 and 12 weeks in most puppies, though it can occasionally be lost as early as 6 weeks, or as late as 16 weeks. It's important to vaccinate the pup at least once after these maternal antibodies are gone, so the pup develops effective immunity from the vaccine. Earlier vaccines are given just in case the pup loses maternal antibody protection sooner, as you don't want your pup to be susceptible to parvo etc for longer than he has to be! I'm not sure what the C5 and C3 refer to, as I'm in a different country and we don't use that nomenclature here. I'll personally be vaccinating my next pup 2 - 3 times for parvo, distemper and adenovirus, then only every 3 years after that (and only then if the titres are lost). But check with your own vet, they know your local conditions best.

K9Force also works with pet owners, including many pet owners who post on this forum. I've done a distance learning course with him, and found him to be very helpful, although my dog was a pet and not a protection dog. I know you have every right to express an opinion, but suggesting that Steve is out of touch with the needs of the average pet owner just because he works with protection dogs too is simply untrue. I'll be socialising my next puppy using K9Force's method, with the aim of raising a puppy that is confident and happy when interacting with other dogs and other people, but which prefers to interact with me. I've seen too many dog owners that can't even recall their "well socialised" dogs to want to go down that route again. Why make training harder than it has to be? Just my opinion.

Surely they mean whole ground turkey, bones and all? Otherwise the diet as written here looks terribly deficient in calcium. I'd check the turkey details with Sunny's owner, and also suggest you give the recipe to your vet to check over as well (both in case they have a problem with it, and to keep them in the loop with what your dog is being feed to help co-ordinate her treatment with her diet). Good luck - I hope your wee girl is feeling better soon.

Like what, sorry? Many many commercial dog foods list "chicken byproduct" or "meat byproducts" without going into the details of what the exact byproduct is, if that's what you mean. Just about any supermarket product will do so. As well as Eukanuba products, Hills Science Diet products, etc.

I only know a little about e-collars, have only used them a few times, so this might not be true. But it sounds like you think that it's unfair to stim the dog before giving him a chance to comply with the command. I think that's a fair enough opinion, if the stim was a negative experience to the dog. But I don't think that this is necessarily the case. If you use the stim on a barely perceptible setting, and use rewards as well as using the e-collar, then the stim should be a positive experience for the dog. The stim becomes a conditioned signal that the dog has just gained the opportunity to comply with the coming command and earn a reward. If anything, the dog should become excited and focused when it feels the stim start, as the stim simply means: "heads up! here's a chance to earn something cool!" So IMO in that case it isn't at all unfair or unkind to stim before the command, as the stim isn't a negative experience for the dog, in fact is it positive, as it signals the availability of earning reinforcement. Just my 2 cents, from what I understand.

The problem is, though, that when I feed offal at home I know exactly what proportions of offal I'm feeding. I also know that it's excellent quality offal since I selected it myself. Whereas a company that just lists "byproduct" on the bag could be using any type of offal in any proportions. So I'm happy to buy a food that lists "liver" or "bone" or "kidney" or "tripe" on the ingredient panel. I'm not happy buying a product that just lists "byproduct". Makes me wonder what they're hiding, or whether the company even knows what's in the product themselves. If they're not prepared to tell me what's exactly in the food, I'm not prepared to buy it.

It's not useless, but it's not as useful as it's sometimes made out. Titre testing measures the level of antibody in the dog's blood serum against a particular antigen (part of a pathogen). For many diseases, if a dog has a certain level of serum antibodies against the disease pathogen, that indicates that the dog is almost certainly immune to the disease. What your vet was probably referring to is the fact that although having an adequate antibody level demonstrates the dog is almost certainly immune to the disease, the reverse isn't necessarily true - having a lower serum antibody level doesn't necessarily mean that the dog is susceptible to the pathogen. Typically, the serum antibody titre level will rise steeply after a successful vaccination, and then gradually fall over a long period of time (unless the dog re-encounters the pathogen either from a booster shot or in the environment). However, the body also produces different types of immune memory cells after vaccination, which may last for many years, or even the lifetime of the dog. These can still be present in the dog even if the titre (actual level of antibody in the dog's blood serum) is low, so the dog may still be solidly immune to the disease even if its serum antibody titre is low. So titre testing isn't "useless" - it can be a useful way of proving to a canine sports body that your dog is still immune to a disease, and therefore proving to them that you don't need to re-vaccinate your dog. Even if it's been ten or fifteen years since your dog's last vaccination, if he still has a protective serum antibody titre for that disease, then there is no point in re-vaccinating the dog against the disease, and no-one should make you do so. However, having a low or negative titre test result doesn't mean much at all, so in this case titre testing could be considered "useless". Most canine sports organisations will make you re-immunise the dog in this case, as you can't prove the dog is immune (although he may well be - there's really no way of telling). Make sense?

It's true that SOME vets are a bit behind with the whole vaccine thing, but at least where I live, most up to date vets do know that annual core vaccines (CPV + CDV + CAV) simply aren't necessary for dogs. I'm not sure about the situation in Aus, but at least over here in NZ, there are core vaccine brands that are actually licensed by the manufacturer to be given only every 3 years after puppy vaccines. So if you use those vaccines, then you shouldn't have to even titre test until 3 years after the vaccination, as up until that point you're using the vaccine as per label. (If your local canine sports authority makes you vaccinate or titre earlier than the vaccine manufacturer says you need to, then they're behind the times, and are making you spend more money than you should be!) :cool: Not sure what vaccine brands you have in Aus, but if your vet can get Duramune C3 by Fort Dodge, I'm pretty sure that's licensed for booster every 3 years. You might want to look into it. *You may not live where I live, so your mileage may vary*

I'm shocked at your chiropractor - sounds like they were talking about something they knew NOTHING about. How completely irresponsible and thoughtless of them. So glad that your vet has given you more positive news!

Thanks Puggy Puggy and Stitch! Stitch, can I ask, how did you trace problems back to the high fat in the raw diet (instead of any of the other differences between raw and commercial, I mean)? Also, why did you both choose minced chicken frames, instead of whole chicken frames - I thought one of the ideas of raw was that dogs ate large chunks of meat & bone to help clean their teeth?

Not sure if someone else has suggested this Erny, as haven't read the whole thread, but don't forget that ice is really beneficial for strains and sprains in the first 12 - 24 hours after the injury happens. Slap an ice pack or some frozen peas wrapped in a teatowel on him, every few hours, for 5 - 10 min at a time, and you'll reduce the swelling and the pain. Hope he's OK.