Staranais

Think you can use a human one? Get a good brand that is stored in the fridge in the store - I saw a consumer report a few years ago where they tested probiotics & a lot of them had far less viable bacteria than claimed on the packet, due to being stored incorrectly & also possibly just dodgy brands.

Oh I get it, sorry. No, you're right I think. So long as the vet recommends the "right" frequency, if you choose to turn down the advice, it's not their issue if the dog gets sick, because you turned the advice down. Over here at least, it's not a law suit thing per se, it's a vet council thing (they can impose penalties on you too). My understanding is, if the vet uses the drug off label, and the dog then got sick from parvo, then the client could complain to the vet council & you would then be called to account for why you used the drug off label. You'd get off if the council agreed what you did was reasonable & good practice, you'd get in trouble if they decided what you did was unreasonable or bad practice. This is the same no matter whether the client originally wanted the dog boosted annually or not. As for the new vaccine, I don't really know what's in it, Stormie seems to know much more than I do about it. I do know that many studies show that the "old style" modified live vaccines seem to give long lasting immunity, so I would suspect that the increased titre of the "new vaccine" is just a point of difference to try to persuade you to buy it instead of using the old annual vaccine less often. But I have no evidence for that - it's just conjecture & I could be dead wrong. And like Stormie says, it does cost a lot to register a drug, so IMO the company is justified in increasing the price to cover the testing. Plus, I agree with her, that the tests used to register new drugs aren't very nice for the animals used, so I too am in two minds about the issue.

I agree. I have consulted incompetant positive-only trainers, but I have also consulted incompetant trainers who used prongs & check chains too. Neither got good results from my dog, and both blamed me (or the dog) for the problem. Incompetant is incompetant, no matter what methods you use. I would personally prefer to consult a trainer with a wide variety of methods & techniques in their toolbox. But the only real quibble I have is with trainers who do not refer to another trainer when their own methods are clearly not working for the dog, or who run down alternative methods without giving them a fair go. And I have seen both of these things occur in the positive-only and correction-based camps.

Could be a lot of different things, some nothing at all to worry about, some nasty - just like the link you posted says. I doubt anyone could diagnose it properly over the internet, especially just going on a description. Even at the vets they'd likely want to stick a need in it & have a look at the contents on a slide before making a call about what it is. Sorry.

And well, as they say... someone has to graduate bottom of every class!

I don't mind the Hills prescription diets either. Some of their prescription diets are rather cleverly designed & are well tested to prove they do what they say they do. I don't think regular Hills is a particularly great diet for a normal, healthy dog. But if your dog is ill, then you will give him drugs - including things you wouldn't ever consider giving to a healthy animal. I feel the same way about the prescription diets.

One who likes doing caesarians? Seriously though, sounds like they were asking for trouble. Not approving the whole silly crossbreeding thing, but if that was what they were going to do, why didn't they put pug dog over a british bulldog bitch instead of the other way round?

If he's been given the 3 year vaccine, I think a vet would generally have not only the right but also an obligation not to give it more often than every 3 years, since to give it every year is more often than stated on the label. If he's been given the one year licensed vaccine, the vet can always refuse to give him another shot, but if he then caught parvo I'm pretty sure you could complain to the vet council about the off label use of the one year licensed vaccine & the vet would then have to defend his choice to use the drug off label. That's if it works like Aussie like it does here, anyway. In the case of a rescue, no one knows what it has had in the past, so I can understand the decision to automatically boost if the rescue can't afford (or can't afford to wait for the result) of a titre test. Is that what you're asking?

I can only speak directly of the pitbull - it's the only one of the banned breeds I've had experience with - so I can't answer your questions as to the other breeds. But I would say that the pitbull is on the banned list, although we both agree it should not be. And did you know that the GSD went through a period of being banned in Aussie? And I think we could both agree that is silly. So to me those two cases are sufficient evidence to make me suspicious that the other breed bans are also not based on fact, but merely based on media & government panic over the lastest "bad" breed. I certainly haven't seen any real evidence that these other dogs are inherently more dangerous than other dogs, even if properly raised & handled - only hearsay & propaganda.

Yeah, there are a couple of issues, I think - at least, if your laws are the same as ours. I'd guess the laws would be similar, although I don't really know. 1. A vet is not supposed to use a drug off label without a very good reason. "Off label" means giving it at a different dose rate, to a different species, via a different route, etc, than recommended on the packet - so deliberately using a vaccine less frequently than recommended is off label use. If you use a drug off label and the animal gets sick & the owner makes a formal complaint, you can get dragged in front of the vet council to defend yourself & try to prove that what you did was reasonable (apparently this is really not fun, even if you have a good case for doing what you did). 2. You're also not supposed to use one drug off label to do something, if there's another drug that is actually licensed to do the job. So, now that we have the option of buying a 3 year licensed one, you're not supposed to use the 1 year one off label every 3 years. These are the law, vets didn't make them up. Some vets don't care - there are lots of little ways in which these laws are broken all the time by many vets. But in many ways I think the best option is to write to the vaccine company & try to get them to relabel the vaccines for being good for at least 3 years. I have no idea why they don't, the research is there - I can only presume it's too much bother & expense to do, or perhaps it is that they would end up selling less vaccine. Like Erny says, a vet can't make you vaccinate your dog annually. But they're not necessarily going to recommend using the drug off label (less frequently than the label orders) either, for the reasons stated above.

Oops double post.

Hmmm, I'm not sure. If someone could prove that one breed was significantly more likely to cause injury or harm to humans, even if trained, socialised correctly, & owned by a responsible owner, I'd be happy to see restrictions on people owning it. Of course, like all legislation, this would do nothing if the council & government did not actually enforce it. But my issue with BSL is that people have not proven anything of the sort, and they're still banning breeds just because they look nasty or because everyone just "knows" they are dangerous.

I agree with that strongly. When I was looking for my current dog (SAR trainee) I had a couple of breeds in mind, & I approached a lot of breeders & owners, asking for recommendations. I considered a bull breed for a while for several reasons, and the other varieties of belgian, but I couldn't find a single appropriate breeder. Turns out that most breeders just don't understand the difference between good working temperament & an active pet. And how could you, I guess, if you'd never worked a dog before? For example I talked to many SL breeders who assured me their dogs would be suitable for a working career, despite having no/few dogsport or working titles in their pedigrees, since apparently they just loved to play with tennis balls - a little bit different to what I was after. I hope you do well with your dog, RKD92. There's always someone who beats the odds & puts Sch3 on a show dog, or a conformation championship on a working dog, and perhaps that person will be you. At the end of the day, a good dog is a good dog, no matter where they come from. Have you had your girl assessed for suitability yet by a schutzhund club?

My old stafford was an absolute gentleman with people, and a complete mongrel with other dogs. From the many, many bull breed owners & rescuers I've talked to over the years, this isn't uncommon in the bull breeds. Depends somewhat on the lines & on the individual dog, of course. But even people who say that their bull breed isn't aggressive will often say they "won't back down in a fight" or "won't back down if challenged" which IMO is just a euphemism for a dog that is more likely to get in a fight than many other dogs. Most rescuers I've talked too also have recommended that any bull breed showing HA should be culled. The pitbull rescues I've talked to have been particularly insistent on that fact, with many having a zero tolerance policy towards HA, while being very accepting of the need to manage DA. Although sadly, I have met several HA pitbulls in my time, all owned or trained by (IMO) morons. Like Lo Pan, I'd prefer to judge people on their deeds, & let anyone responsible own what they like, with irresponsible people being allowed to own nothing. But I don't think that will happen - city councils & government do not have a great track record on enforcing the current dog laws. Lots of people around here have unregistered dogs, for example. I've seen pitbulls walked unmuzzled in the city. I've talked to people who breed Dogos & use them for off leash hunting, and to many people have not neutered their pitbulls or dogos as required by law. Whether or not you agree with these dogs laws (for the most part, I don't - I'd jump at the chance to own a pitbull if they weren't a restricted breed), my point is that the government & council simply won't or can't enforce the laws they already have. Seems to me that irresponsible owners already just do as they please, and only the good owners (who aren't the issue!) will obey any new rules.

Couple of reasons, I think. Firstly IMO it's a bit dodgy recommending someone go off & experiment with check collars over the internet (I've seen people do some really dumb things with check chains before they learn how & when to correct - the most common mistake I've seen is people correcting inconsistently or at the wrong time which both confuses the crap out of the dog & must be stressful for it). & as I'm sure you've picked up some people won't recommend this method in any situation since they prefer to train (and recommend) positive only methods. Having said that, if you have someone to show you how to use a check chain (or martingale or PP collar) properly to stop pulling, it works really well in my experience. It's a quick fix - which isn't always a bad thing.

Sorry for posting twice in a row! Corvus, I am not sure exactly which hormone or neurotransmitter causes the inherently reward feeling to a dog of working in drive, but I am certain from observation that the reward exists, and it appears to be associated with (if not directly caused by) the adrenaline dump that my dogs get working in drive. The reward may caused by adrenaline, it may be something else that gets released in the brain when the dog works. To be frank (and no offence intended), neuroscience isn't my favourite subject, so as long as I get the training results reliably I don't care what molecules are causing it. LOL.

That's at least partly training. My young mally bitch used to absolutely lose her head when she went into prey drive, she is becoming much better as she learns she must display self control and focus to earn the reward. Higher drive can give a better performance for many disciplines once the dog has itself under control. Good luck! Let us know how you do. Have you had her assessed by an IPO training club yet? Some SL definitely have what it takes to work, I think everyone here will agree on that. I think most people will also agree that if you specifically want a dog to work to a high level, it is smart to stack the odds in your favour and buy a WL dog. Just like if you want to get into conformation showing and do well, it is smart to buy a SL dog.

Just a bump! To see who's still training, what style & discipline you're training for, & how it's working out for you. I'm loving tracking more & more the further I get into it!

Yup.

It's not just the kid though - anyone could have walked into that house off the street and gotten bitten by the dog. So I think it's fair to say the police should have posted guards at the door to stop this happening.

I completely agree with you. So long as the animal has quality of life, I have no argument with it.

I hope that the AnKC stick to this story! Thanks very much Bruce Knight!

We've had this discussion a lot on the forum (not having a go at you! Just saying, ha ha, expect lots of different opinions, as people use the term "drive" in different ways & everyone thinks they're right). I personally don't call it a drive unless there's adrenaline associated with it. So for example I think just exchanging food for behaviours is different to training in food drive (where the dog is very aroused and adrenalised by the food). I think the state of adrenaline/arousal is rewarding in and of itself, hence the distinction between food training & food drive training is an important one. But this is just my opinion, and some people will say they are training in food "drive" whenever they use food. IMO a dog with some prey drive will chase balls (if it has learned that chasing balls will satisfy its drive). Whereas a high drive dog will chase tennis balls until it drops, ignoring competing motivators (food, water, etc). It's not only how high the drive is though, it is also how strong the dog's nerves are as this can affect when the drive is expressed, also how high is the threshold for the drive. A complicated subject, but a very interesting one.

The package insert I grabbed off the net said 0.2mg/kg Stormie, so 5mg for a 25kg dog = 0.25ml of a 20mg/ml solution. Although package insert could admittedly be different in Aussie? http://www.metacam.com/documents/Package_I...ADA-141-219.pdf I can only guess they used the 20mg/ml as it was perhaps cheaper? Makes no sense to me, either.

I'm guessing so, since I think 20mg/ml metacam often comes in a 50ml bottle, and nothing else makes any sense. It's just a guess, though. Hope your girl is feeling better soon!