Staranais

No longer registered I hope?

They tell us that most complaints against vets to the vet board are misunderstandings that could have been avoided if vets were better communicators. So you are definitely not alone in your experience! On the other hand, one of the very best surgeons I know is not a great communicator, but he's an excellent, excellent surgeon. I guess it's rare when a talented surgeon is also naturally a great communicator. But, I agree that lots of vets (and doctors!) could work on their communication skills. I agree with your statement that's nice to offer gold standard to clients. Interestingly though, there was just a thread in general where some people were saying they hated being offered different options for spay surgeries, and just wanted one option. So, I guess some folks don't like it if you overcomplicate things, either. Hard to please everyone, I guess.

If that's true, then this idea might help the ANKC prove it. ETA - it would also be really interesting if the chip had to state not just who bred the dog, but also who sold the dog, i.e. would let us know how many rescues were initially bought from petshops as opposed to registered breeders or non-commercial BYB.

That's a very fair point. Some vets do not keep up to date with new developments in particular areas. I've met many that are a bit behind the times as regards vaccine protocol, for example. And I've met lots of others that would love to change to a less frequent adult vaccination protocol, but their terms of employment mean that they can't go against their clinic protocols (i.e., all the vets in the clinic are supposed to recommend the same protocol, and they haven't persuaded their colleagues to agree to a change yet). However, I think people should also remember that just because a vet has come to a different conclusion than they have on a certain topic, doesn't necessarily make the vet uneducated. Asking the vet why they are recommending a certain measure will tell you more about how educated they are. Perhaps they are ignorant or not up-to-date. Or perhaps they've read some articles, or been to a seminar, that you haven't, and have come to a different conclusion. You'll never know until you ask. I've met vets that I really respect (and vets I don't) on both sides of the raw feeding debate, for example. From my own point of view, I don't think I'll be automatically recommending a raw diet or titre testing to all of my clients when I go into practice - and I'd consider myself pretty cluey on both subjects.

If the current requirement for a dog to be microchipped before sale was extended to include a record of the breeder I think that would make it doable. Yup, that would work. You could even extend it to BYB/non-registered breeders of certain breed types and crosses, then, which would also be interesting.

I think people only believe it's controversial since it has no calories or vitamins or other nutritional value, so people don't want to pay for something that they see as only a filler. However, dogs do need more than calories and vitamins in a food. Beet pulp is supposedly put into the food as fibre (good for gut health), and as a prebiotic (enhances growth of good bacteria in the gut). Whether that is beneficial or necessary, I don't personally know. I don't know where wild canids get their fibre from, or even if they need it (I've seen video of wild wolves happily eating fallen fruit, which would contain fibre, but that would not occur year round). Perhaps the hair coat of the prey does a similar thing in a natural state? Or perhaps the rumen & intestinal contents that inevitably get ingested along with the guts is sufficient? Or, perhaps wild canids don't need fibre at all, and fibre only becomes necessary/beneficial for a dog when they are being fed their diet in a artificially low-moisture format? Some people also claim that saponins in the beet pulp are harmful, but I believe that has been debunked.

I think that would be really interesting data. Wouldn't it be hard to organise though? I'm especially thinking that most dogs coming through rescue wouldn't have rego papers any more, even if they started out life with them, so it may be hard to track down their breeder or prove they're even purebred?

I can think of one reason why a f.n.a may not have been done - unlike many types of lumps, in a sarcoma the tumour cells often do not exfoliate well, making an aspirate a waste of money since it will be non-diagnostic & you'll still need a biopsy/removal done for a diagnosis. But if you want to try an aspirate before a biopsy in case it does work, then you could always ask and see what they say. Good luck.

I have a really good one that Nekhbet imported for me years ago, think it was from ForDogTrainers? Has lasted well & still really strong.

You might get more help in the training forum.

Having milked cows, I'd say the answer is likely yes! If a cow can tell when it's time to be milked, a dog would presumably have some concept of time as well? I don't know if we'd have much better sense of time than a dog does, if we were to live in a society without clocks and watches.

Still a worry, in some ways. I mean, it's good that people know how to make legitimate complaints about dangerous or roaming dogs. I just hope that this doesn't inspire a rash of malicious ones, from people who don't like their neighbours, don't like any dogs, or don't like living next door to a certain breed...

What happens after someone calls?

Dogs need to learn to learn, they're not always born as good students. It takes a while for dogs to realise that learning is worthwhile and rewarding, it takes a while for you to work out a communication/marker system. If you're new to training, it will take you a while to learn what you're doing as well. When I got my last dog as an adult, he knew no verbal commands. It took literally weeks for me to teach him to drop on a verbal cue. But by the end of his life, he was a great student. The more he learned, the easier and easier it got to teach him new things. Eventually, he loved learning, and we even won a few (basic) competitive ob competitions. Just took a bit of work. Don't worry, you'll get there.

I'd guess that in general, giving a verbal NRM would be far less confusing for the dog than not giving a verbal NRM. Without a verbal NRM marking the moment the "mistake" was made, the dog has to guess what caused it to have to repeat the exercise. Having said that, this relies on the NRM being a true NRM - i.e. purely indicating loss of reward, not being at all inherently aversive to the dog. Few people I've met who use NRM manage to achieve that. Most times it doesn't seem to matter, but I can see how using a slightly aversive "NRM" would be an issue for a soft dog. I don't know if this is what Vickie is talking about, though. I get the feeling that Vickie is talking about giving the dog the benefit of the doubt, and if the dog takes the wrong obstacle, then assuming the fault is her own and rewarding the "wrong" obstacle as if it were the right one. Similar to scent work - we try to be very careful about telling the dog it is "wrong" when it is working scent, since we often can't be 100% sure what it is smelling, and we don't want to risk giving the dog a NRM or punisher when it is actually working the correct scent. If in doubt, we may just reward the dog and set up the scent problem more carefully next time.

Sorry, just something more to add. The idea of vets offering different "options" for elective desexing surgery seems to be debated quite often on DOL, with some people liking it, and some people hating it. But, I think it needs to be noted that this isn't just something that vets do with spays. Vets offer different treatment options to clients in heaps of situations. Offering different standards of treatment to fit different budgets is unfortunately a necessary part of veterinary practice. e.g., we get presented with a puppy with a shattered humerus. Gold standard option might be referral to the specialist surgical facility in a different town - cost will be at least $1500. Next best (and next most expensive) option, the local vet has a go at plating or pinning it - cost, maybe $800. Next best option, the local vet amputates the leg - cost, maybe a few hundred. And the cheapest humane option is that the dog is PTS. The point is, which is the "best" option in that situation depends partially on the client's budget. Most owners won't afford the gold standard option, but it does need to be offered for those clients that want to pay for the best. Many clients won't want to amputate, but it needs to be offered because if it's all the clients can afford, it's better than PTS.

Yes. I had this question a while ago, since my malinois often paces when I walk her, and I wondered if it was a structural issue. I found a study they'd done where they measured stride length/speed/gait in malinois. All dogs they used walked at the lowest treadmill speed, paced at higher speeds, trotted at higher speeds, and then galloped at the highest speed. Like the dogs in the study, if I bike with my dog instead of walking with her, she speeds up into a trot.

That's exactly why lots of vets offer different options. Some people are willing to pay almost anything to give their animal the most comfortable, safest surgery experience possible. Others want to pay as little as possible, even if there is a slight compromise in patient safety or comfort. Most owners are in between. Saying "if her BP is low give her fluids" is an example of what I mean. The cheapest clinics I've worked at can't do this as they don't monitor blood pressure at all! Whereas the gold standard clinics I've seen will monitor blood pressure regularly, give routine fluids, and also do their best to correct blood pressure problems using fluid and drugs. The most expensive clinic isn't always better - but more monitoring, more drugs, more fluids do cost more. ETA, It's not necessarily that one option is good, and the other is bad, either. Both types of surgery will give an acceptable result in the vast majority of cases. But some owners will want to pay more to make surgery that tiny little bit safer. Others wouldn't or couldn't do the surgery at all if you make them pay for all the optional extras (pre-anaesthetic blood test - IV fluids - BP and pulse ox monitoring).

Yes, I don't understand the argument that vets aren't recommending titre tests because they want to make more money - the clinic makes just as much from a blood draw for a titre test as they do from giving a vaccination. The titre test costs the client a lot more, though, since you've got to submit the sample to the lab. So if vets start routinely recommending titres rather than 3-yearly C3 vaccinations, lots of our clients would probably accuse us of trying to make more money by recommending the more expensive option. It's hard to win.

Donatella, by IV line JRM88 means the IV catheter. Catheter is put in while the animal is awake and still has good blood pressure. Fluids are hooked up to the catheter after the animal is induced. Many clinics do not use a catheter at all (just inject the anesthetic drugs straight into the vein), some use a catheter but give no fluids (provides IV access in an emergency), some use a catheter and give fluids as well.

Exactly. Many practices do not place an IV catheter when animals are induced, they are induced off the needle, so IV fluids require not just a fluid bag but catheter placement, as well as giving set, fluid pump, etc - it's not just the bag. The clinic will make a profit on surgical IV fluids (like with almost all drugs and services they sell), but they don't make a killing. I would never have one of my own pets animals put under a GA for abdominal surgery or dental without an IV catheter, fluids and BP monitoring. I have done it for clients out in practice, and understand why cheaper options for many surgeries are (and have to be) offered. But no way would I risk it with my own pets. ETA, just for interest, here are the approximate costs involved in pricing out IV fluids. Fluid bag, $5. IV catheter, $6. Giving set, $15. Extension set, $5. Vet nurse time to place and monitor, $5. Bandages and tape, a few $. Fluid pump and clipper replacement/maintenance, a few $. Total, about $40. Double that for profit (that's what the majority of businesses do) = $80.

Not for my working dog! She loves to work, don't get me wrong - running through the woods like a fruit loop while looking for things is hugely fun for her. But the ultimate reward is the tug game. It has to be that way so she is under control - so she follows my directions while working, and so she only hunts for what I want to hunt, since she knows this is the best chance of getting her ultimate reward. That's the theory, anyway! If working was the ultimate reward (not tugging), then the problem is that the dog can self reward just by working. So to get control, you then tend to have to use rather a lot of punishment - either compulsion/positive punishment to make bad behaviours unattractive, or somehow find a way to prevent the dog working when it does the wrong thing (rather tricky with a dog that works up to a km away from me). What you say is probably true for many working dogs, but I don't think you can generalise to all of them.

I would not again buy a dog that I didn't expect to have genetically high prey drive, so this question is unlikely to be a problem for me again. I would not personally want a working or competition prospect that did not tug well from the word go. However, if I ever do adopt a dog with high prey drive but no tug drive, I would try to develop the tug drive as a way to channel and control that prey drive. If a dog has truly high prey drive, then IMO they want (need) to express it somehow. And I would rather the dog targets that prey drive towards something I can control rather than something that is out of my control or socially unacceptable. This is the situation I had with my last dog. When I adopted him he showed hugely predatory behaviour towards cats and other dogs. We taught him how to tug and gave him ample opportunities to earn his tug, which provided him with an acceptable prey drive outlet when I began to make it clear to him that killing cats and mauling other dogs was not acceptable. It wasn't the whole answer, but I think it did help him. However, if I ever adopted a dog with really great drive for food and no desire for prey, I probably wouldn't bother to develop the tug drive further, since I could already control that dog's primary motivator.

Be careful with bloat kits. They can be lifesaving, if your dog is crashing and you are really unable to get to a vet. But, they are a risk in themselves - passing stomach tubes can rupture the esophagus, & sticking needles in to the dog can contaminate the abdomen & result in a nasty peritonitis (or if you are unlucky, you can easily hit the wrong thing!) I'm sure everyone here is sensible enough to know this, so this is mostly written for the benefit of any lurkers - sometimes you don't have a choice in what you do, but getting the dog to the vet should always be your first choice if humanely possible. When I have helped with bloats, we've done a very quick clip and prep of the site before inserting a bloat needle. At the vets, the dog will hopefully already be on shock rate IV fluids by that point, so it's not the first thing done (although it does want to be done really quickly). Some vets will pass a stomach tube first instead, but most I know prefer to decompress percutaneously (by needle) first and then pass a stomach tube when the dog is under a GA or sedation. ETA - for a conscious stomach tubing, I've been taught to tape a roll of vet wrap into the mouth behind the canines and pass the tube through the centre of that. I've never passed a stomach tube in a conscious dog myself, but I've passed nasogastric tubes in awake dogs before, and the dog certainly isn't very impressed - although I suppose a dog that was really on death's door from bloat might be a bit more accomodating.

Best would be to use a regular good quality food that he does well on, and just feed him less. If he's gaining weight, you are simply feeding him more than he needs, and you need to feed him less (or exercise him much more) - not feed him the same amount of low calorie "weight loss" food, which is inevitably full of fillers (that's how it works!). There is really no need to feel mean about feeding him only what he requires. If you can't help but feel mean feeding him less, then make him work (do a trick) for every single little bit of kibble - dinner will take longer, so he feels fuller.