Staranais

Oral disorders esp. periodontal disease are definitely the most common cause of halitosis in dogs. But I've also heard of persistent halitosis being caused by kidney issues (causing an ammonia smell due to ammonia not being cleared from the blood), diabetes (ketone smell) & abscesses/foreign bodies/tumours in the lungs, trachea or the GIT. Probiotics never hurt anyone.

Mandela fell on his feet when he ended up at your house, Erny! He's a lucky wee boy to have an owner who is so determined to sort out his issues.

I can't comment on chicken pox, since I don't know much at all about human medicine. Was just commenting on your question about why re-vaccination is ever necessary once an animal has been proven to seroconvert once. I have no idea why the body can produce a life long immunity against some disease causing agents, and loses immunity against others - I don't think anyone does know - but I'll be fascinated to learn what the mechanism is when they find out!

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series. But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say). But just because a titre test shows there are no demonstratable antibodies lurking around does not mean the animal is not immune. The memory cells are responsible for the amnamnestic response which is what would protect the animal if it is resensitised. Proving that an animal seroconverts ensures you have stimulated a response and the animal will then have memory cells for this atigen. Having no antibodies present in a titre test three year on does not mean that the animal does not have immunity. I think you misunderstand me. Of course an animal may still be immune to a disease without showing a current antibody titre. However, I'm not talking about serology tests. I'm talking about animals catching a disease that they have previously been protected against. Since some animals do not remain immune to some viruses even after natural infection (e.g, pigs & foot and mouth disease, cattle & papular stomatitis, sheep & contagious pustular dermatitis), it's not really surprising that every viral vaccine doesn't cause permanent immunity either. Luckily, the 3 canine core vaccines seem to protect the vast majority of dogs for at least several years. However, there's no cut and dry rule that immunity from vaccination always lasts forever.

I love her videos and articles too. I actually agree with her, since she specifies in her articles that she keeps the jump heights very low when the dogs are young. Remember that she runs very small dogs, too, only about 10kg, which mature faster and are far less prone to joint issues than large dogs are. At the level she competes at, she's probably right!

Depends, I think. Chasing things that you throw & bringing them back to you is usually prey drive - the dog is bringing the "prey" back to you so you can make it run away again. But just randomly picking things up and bringing them to you could just be soliciting attention. My girl does this all the time when she's bored & wants me to interact with her, & she's not in prey drive when she does it.

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series. But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say).

They're selectively bred for growing really fast. That's why commercial egg producing breeds are different from commercial meat breeds, they're both specialised for different things, the male egg breed chickens don't grow fast enough to be profitably grown for meat so they're disposed of as day old chicks.

Maybe in America? Growth enhancer hormones aren't fed to chicken in NZ, and I'm pretty sure they're not fed to chickens in Aussie either, even intensively farmed ones.

For a chunk of raw sweet potato?? LOL! Hmmm, well I am a student I guess...

I am thinking- she does get a 'special' treat for the 'wave' trick..maybe I should discontinue that now? Ha, well I'd keep waving too!

Very cute! I'm having a similar problem with my dog at the moment actually. For us, I think it's a combination of several things: a) some commands are more "fun" for her (better known/have a stronger reinforcement history) than others, b) she's often too excited to bother to make the effort to actually listen to me, and c) so far there's no penalty in being wrong (I just give her another chance). So when she's particularly excited she'll quite often "try" a sit when I go to give a command instead of listening to what I actually want. Then she will correct herself a moment or two later, or wait for a second command to correct herself, to get the reward. I think she's gambling - after all, sometimes the sit pays off, when I have co-incidentally actually asked for a sit! I've just instituted time outs for incorrect responses. By that I mean, I've started telling her "too bad!" when she gives the wrong response and stopping the game for 20 seconds. Will see if that makes a difference. Hopefully it's enough of a penalty to encourage her to actually listen to what I'm saying, while still being a mild enough punishment not to lower her drive for the game. Not sure if that's helpful or not. I guess you could also try not asking for her favourite commands for a few weeks, while asking for (and heavily rewarding) the less favoured ones, so her predilection to offer them becomes more "balance" (so to speak!)

Yes. The veterinary dermatologist that lectured us at vet school reckoned that allergies occur in dogs, in descending order from very common to rare, were: Flea saliva allergy Atopy (allergy to inhaled or absorbed allergens) Food allergy Contact allergy From what I've seen in practice so far, that definitely seems about right to me. He also noted that dogs with one type of allergy were far more likely than your average dog to develop a second type as well.

How can they if you can't measure memory cells....? Challenge trials, not serology (titre) trials, are generally held to be the "gold standard" for vaccine testing. Get a bunch of animals, vaccinate some, wait a while, then challenge them all with the disease, and compare how many animals in each group contract the disease. If the vaccine still works adequately at that point in time, fewer animals in the vaccinated group will contract the disease. Challenge trials have been done & published for most major feline and canine vaccines. This is what the AVA base their recommendations on.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D Which, to me, is fairly alarming. If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog? I have no answers; I'm just wondering. No some people are just thick (NOT speaking of the case at hand but another example) and have no idea about how their behaviour is perceived by a dog, and in turn, how to interpret behaviour exhibited by a dog. A member of my family is thick when it comes to dogs (of course he cannot see this and thinks they all get along well.) He makes sudden movements in front of their faces, and with one particular dog, pushes him in the chest and stares him in the face at close range. I say, "dont do that you will get bitten" and go into xyz reason why. Thick ignores what I say because he cant see how uncomfortable the dog is and the signals the dog is giving him. Then one day the dog snarls and lunges at him. I say "see that was a warning, do it again and you will get bitten." Thick keeps going, until the dog really has a go, knocks him backwards and the dog's teeth stop about 2mm from his face. I say, "that's the last warning you're going to get. The next time he's going to bite your face off / maul your head and it will be all your fault." The penny drops and Thick no longer behaves like an idiot with that particular dog any more. Isn't that all the more reason to place certain conditions on dog ownership? Compulsory training for a start should be introduced to train both dogs and humans. I don't see pet ownership as a right I see it as a privellidge, like driving a car it comes with certain conditions and responsibilities that have to be learned and followed. The larger our population gets the more idiots there are going to be, it has to be regulated somehow. I also think that it shouldn't be tied up in endless discussions about rights, most people have the right to get a driver's license but some people don't because it impacts on the safety of others, it should be the same with dogs. In theory I agree with you, but who will administer the tests, or decide what criteria a person must fulfil to own a certain type of dog? I'm not sure I trust the RSPCA, or the local council, to do so. And also, who will enforce the rules? At the moment, many problem dogs are unlicensed, and no one bothers to enforce the licensing laws. I suspect that a "dog license" scheme will be similar. So the scheme will just end up being an inconvenience to responsible owners, and will be ignored by irresponsible owners.

Yes. :D If there must be breed specific laws regulating pitbull ownership or breeding, then I'd rather see something designed to weed out bad dogs and bad breeders - perhaps making it compulsory to get a CGC or obedience title on any pitbull that is to be bred - rather than just ban breeding pitbulls altogether and drive it underground. Mind you, with any law, the problem is enforcing it. They don't generally bother enforcing the current BSL laws around here, so the only people breeding pitbulls are the people who don't care they're breaking the law. What a way to ruin a breed.

Or a smaller/weaker victim! I agree with Tess32. The fact that the dog is attempting to maim or kill a person is more relevant than whether or not the dog actually manages to accomplish the deed.

Oh that poor little girl! Words can't describe how terrible that is. :D

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/vick.dogs.rehab/index.html That's a lovely story but I am not sure why you highlighted it to me? I haven't said that a dog can not be rehabilitated. :D I am only arguing the point that we can't claim that genetics do not help determine a dog's temperament and that we make a mockery of our claims of the certainty of the characteristics of a purebred dog by arguing this. Simply because you said that we all know that the results of abusing a pitbull would be far different to what would happen with a more docile breed. I don't necessarily think that's true. Sometimes the "less docile" breeds can undergo horrendous abuse and come out with lovely characters - as in this case. But yes, I certainly agree with you that genetics do help determine a dog's temperament. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent so much time investigating the breed, and breeder, of my current working dog - I would have just saved money and gotten any old puppy from the pound.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/vick.dogs.rehab/index.html :D

On one hand I agree with you. I have a working line malinois. Some might say she was bred to be "aggressive" - actually, it's a whole lot more complicated than that. She's a sweetie who has huge prey drive, is possessive and dominant, and needs a strong leader. She was physically defending her bones from me, and trying to hump other dogs, at the tender age of 4 months old! So yes, she could be an absolute nightmare in the wrong hands, just due to her innate temperament. A very different temperament from a pug. But on the other hand, probably a lot better working dog. Different strokes for different folks. On the other hand, the pitbulls I've met (and staffy I've owned), even the very dog aggressive ones, tend to have no human aggression whatsoever. Traditionally, they're bred to have rock solid nerves and be strictly inhibited from biting humans, even though many can be rather feisty around other dogs. I've pulled my stafford out of dog fights before in the complete confidence I wasn't going to be bitten. I couldn't do that with my malinois! My only worry is that now there are so many scum BYB of pitbulls breeding for human aggression. I don't think I've met a single pitbull breeder who works their dogs or temperament tests their dogs, so many people now seem to breed them for "head size" and human aggression - how long before the breed loses the traditional tolerance of humans? :D

double post sorry

Ha ha, fair enough then. I'm pretty familiar with Susan C's website, and like it, was just hoping for some inside info on what I could expect if I bought the book. Happy training!

It sounds like an awesome experience. I'm very jealous of everyone that got to go!

There can be. There are differences between various bloodlines too. It's important to let the breeder know exactly what you are looking for in a BSD. Hopefully he/she will be able to direct you to a breeder who has the temperament you are looking for. How much do pups usually go for? I think it depends a little on where you live and which breeder you pick. I have heard figures quoted anywhere from $1000 to $2000. Personally however, I'd suggest you find a breeder you really like and then commit to paying what they want. If that sounds over the top, please remember that although a good belgian can be a joy to work with, a badly bred one can be a real pain, even dangerous. I've talked to a few people, and heard of several more, who have had to have their malinois euthanised because it was too nervy or too sharp & they simply couldn't justify the liability of having such a dog. And have talked to others that couldn't work the dog in the venue of their choice as it was too shy. Investing in a good breeder will be well worth your while - buying a belgian simply isn't a time to save money. Talk to breeders, meet as many of their dogs as you can, ask for testimonials, and ask ask ask every malinois person you meet about breeders and lines, before you decide which breeder to go for. For the record, my young lady is a Vanrusselhof girl, and I'm very happy with her temperament.