Staranais

Hey, try clicking and driving at the same time... :rolleyes:

So don't get mad with me for asking you to clarify or back up the information you provide. I have an inquiring mind too. :rolleyes: Turns out Dr Jean Dodds is much more conservative in what she claims about vaccine side effects than many people on this thread have been (although obviously much more convinced of the importance of vaccine side effects than many vets are)... interesting to get the info straight from the horse's mouth. Thanks for the email address, Oakway.

I work different things in one session, but to make it clear to the dog that we're changing behaviours, I usually change where we're working, or the "prop" we're working with. So I'd do some perch work, then take away the perch and do some heeling, then move to the other side of the room and do some sits/down, etc. That's the way we handle it. There's no need to do clicker training exclusively, but if you're brand new, using it on simple behaviours like sit and down can start to get your head around it. You can also lure and clicker train at the same time, so for sit, for example, lure your dog into a sit and then click. Then fade the lure into a similar hand signal.

Are you "STILL" working on that aggression problem Aidan :D What on earth are you talking about? I can heel my dog past other dogs, I am just sensible about it and put her on the other side if appropriate. Your comment is highly inappropriate and ignorant of any facts. Why you would seek to discredit me is unfathomable, I have made no personal attack on you. I am not the first trainer that you have tried to discredit on this forum, what is your agenda? I don't know the history of the dispute, but I do know aggression isn't always easily or readily cured, no matter what techniques are used. Aggression isn't aggression isn't aggression. Sometimes being able to heel a previously aggressive dog past other dogs while retaining that dog's focus is a huge achievement. I know how proud I was when I was able to work my old stafford offleash in obedience competitions, given his history of extreme dog aggression.

I'd really like to see something scientific to back up this "theory" which to my mind sounds like nothing more than "someone on DOL said it so it must be true". Bone and meat digest at different rates, meat and vegetables digest at different rates, fat and muscle digest at different rates. If a dog eats an entire small animal, all the parts of the animal, including the contents of it's digestive tract will all digest at different rates. Yes, I have heard the theory, but don't buy it myself. The theory as I heard it was that grains take longer than raw food to digest, so feeding a mixture of grains and meat holds the raw food in the gut for longer, allowing any pathogenic or opportunistic microbes more opportunity to colonise the gut. I guess it could be true, but lots of things digest at different rates, even within a raw diet. And as I say, almost all dogs I've seen (and most owners I've talked to) who mix raw and kibble seem to have no issues with it. However, even if the theory is dodgy, that doesn't mean that some dogs don't still have issues digesting raw and kibbled food served at the same time. At least, I don't see why the owners would have lied to me about what they'd experienced. :D

I'll take care not to give you any then...

Uh huh, right. So when all those veterinary drug companies say the research is "on file", that actually means they've published it? Plus veterinary vaccines don't need to be approved by the FDA, as it doesn't regulate veterinary vaccines. Ah yes my bad, I was thinking humans for a minute. They are regulated by the Department of Agriculture Vet Bio centre. End result is still the same. They have to have the research done or it doesn't get approved. Did I say anything about it being published in a vet journal? nope you did. Well, if it's in the public arena, where is it published? You were the one saying you'd be able to read it, and I take it you don't work for the Department of Agriculture... Obviously the data is provided to the regulatory body, there are a whole bunch of hoops for manufacturers to jump through before a new drug is approved, that doesn't necessarily mean that the information is published for the general public to freely access.

Uh huh, right. So when all those veterinary drug companies say the research is "on file", that actually means they've published it? Plus veterinary vaccines don't need to be approved by the FDA, as it doesn't regulate veterinary vaccines.

Most drug companies don't publish their in-house research, Whippet, so you couldn't consider it even if you wanted to. ;)

I'm not sure that it's the mixing of trhe foods they don't do well on, as much as a particular component of the mixture. For example, if you gave a dog chicken and rice kibble, and added some minced lamb and the dog didn't do well, you might blame the fact that it's a mixture without further investigation. It could be that the dog is sensitive to raw lamb. Swap the lamb for beef, chicken or fish and the problem might very well go away. Yes, people could easily make that mistake. But I've also talked to people who insist their dogs do well on raw, and do well on kibble, but say they get stomach upsets if the two are mixed. My dogs have never had that issue, and I don't think it's at all common, but IMO it's a case of do what suits your particular dog. :D

I invited other dogs around to meet my pup - dogs I knew were vaccinated and well behaved, so pup would be safe. And I invited friends round to my house for coffee or lunch, so pup could meet them too. I took her to the "dog free" park with me in the middle of town and sat her on my lap to watch the ducks and traffic while we drunk coffee. If you're discrete, most council officers will overlook a tiny puppy on your lap. And little kids will come up and ask for a pat. I also took pup out in the car a lot - we hung out in the car at busy locations like train station, service stations, outside primary schools, near sports fields, so pup could watch all the different people going about their business. Watching people is as good as meeting them when you're socialising, IMO. I took her to work with me on the farm to see the stock, ride on the quad bike, and paddle in the creek (no other dogs lived or worked there). And to a friend's house who had chickens and calves, so pup could meet them too. Remember socialising involves exposing pup to different environments and surfaces, not just dogs and humans. We also snuck into kids playgrounds at night to play on the different equipment and surfaces. Shhh, don't tell! :D I didn't take her to puppy school, and wouldn't want to until her vaccinations were complete. Most are held at vet clinics, or in areas like parks where other dogs frequently go, so IMO they are parvo risks.

I don't use different words for the same exercise, but then again I regard competition exercises as different exercises with different criteria. "Heel" for us means heel with attention and focus and precision right next to me, doing the turns like we practiced, and you might get a drive reward for it. That's different to just wandering along next to me on the street, which for us is "by me". They have different words, since they're different things, and I want the dog to expect a different type of reward for doing them. "Front" means race over and get into a nice precise front position until you are released, and you'll get a super reward for it. That's different to "puppy puppy" which just means get your butt over here please. "Ous" for us means release instantly and you'll get a rebite. My OH and family are forbidden to use it, for the reasons described by Huski! They're only allowed to use "ta". :D

If you mean together in the same meal, in my experience, yes. Yes, it's perfectly OK for most dogs, and can be a good way to ease into feeding raw. I do half raw - half commercial for my own dog (for several reasons - firstly I can't afford to feed all raw so this is a cost effective compromise for us, secondly she's only a pup so feeding part commercial means I have more leeway as regards getting her diet right, and thirdly she's trainee SAR - I'm buggered if I'm lugging raw into the bush for her or taking it on training camps, so she needs to know how to eat dry too!) :D Some dogs apparently don't do very well on a mixture of dry and raw - I've never met one, but I've read about them. So I'd experiment and see what suits your dog best. If she's not doing well on a mixture, try raw (or a good quality dry) food alone and see if that works better. My girl often gets kibble and yoghurt, or kibble with a whole egg mashed in, for her commercial meal. She loves it!

Surely posting in the health forum counts as study.... :D OK, maybe not!

I already have. :D

Good luck - let us know how it goes! :D

How many dogs are "many"? And can you please link to the studies about non-response to vaccines being associated with being a breed predisposed to immune disorders. The only relevant studies I've seen showed that the vast majority of dogs seroconverted after vaccination for parvo. It is a shame that we breeders & pet owners dont have statistics for you on websites & books, perhaps you can ask the expert in the field to get a list of breeds & some sort of stats...Australia is very poor in such things as we have no experts here. But email Dr Jean Dodds, she visited Australia last year & educated many folk, sadly, I only know of ONE Vet that turned up at the Sydney lecture, and they were very impressed & enlightened afterward. What a shame that all Vet clinics & universities werent represented to learn about immunity. There are many of us who take our knowledge from the world authorities not the local vet. I'm happy to read and learn from any good research published by your world authorities, Oakway. I've read some good papers published by Dr Dodds, for example - I quoted one in a previous post. But I'm not happy taking anything as gospel merely because Dr Dodds (or anyone else) says so, no matter how much of an authority she is. That's faith, not science. Even world authorities need to produce statistics and studies to back up what they say, so that other people can read those studies and see if they agree with the conclusions that have been drawn from them. When I go to advise my clients on vaccination in 2 years time, then for ethical and legal reason I need to have concrete evidence to back up what I'm recommending - actual peer reviewed studies that I have read myself, not just "some lady on the internet told me that vaccinations give dogs cancer".

I do not disregard the research, but I am yet to see any reputable research paper which shows that dogs remain immune for life after only a puppy course. I've seen a few: Showing protection lasting at least 3 years after puppy course in the majority of animals, challenge and serological studies: * Gill, M., Srinivas, J., Morozov, I., Smith, J., Anderson, C., Glover, S., Champ, D., & Chu, H.-J. (2004). Three-year duration of immunity for canine distemper, adenovirus, and parvovirus after vaccination with a multivalent canine vaccine. The International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine, 2, 227 - 234. 32 pups challenged 3 years after their puppy C3 course from Fort Dodge. * Mouzin, D. E., Lorenzen, M. J., D, H. J., & King, V. L. (2004). Duration of serological response to five viral antigens in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association, 224, 55 - 60. Three core antibodies last longer than 3 years in 98% of the dogs tested. Showing protection lasting 3 - 7 years in the majority of animals, serology study: * Twark, L., & Dodds, W. K. (2000). Clinical use of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody titers for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 217, 1021 - 1024. 95% of the 1441 dogs surveyed had protective parvo titres, and 98% had protective CDV titres. A large proportion of the dogs had recieved their last adult vaccine between 3 and 7 years before. It's not conclusive, of course, not at all. Unfortunately none of the study groups titred directly after vaccination, so we have no idea if the dogs that weren't immune when challenged with the virus at the end of the protocol never seroconverted, or whether they were once immune but lost their immunity over time. The puppy challenge studies also don't challenge any of the pups one year after vaccination, so we have no idea whether the vaccines were as protective after 3 year as they would have been at 1 year post vaccination, which could be very relevant information in a high parvo area. And nothing I've found tested dogs more than 7 years after vaccination. But some reasonable research on that topic is out there. What I haven't seen is any good evidence proving that vaccines cause cancer, allergies, or thyroid issues in dogs, although the hypothetical link between these problems and vaccination is often quoted as if they are fact. Whenever I ask, people either link me to an unreferenced website, they say "Jean Dodds says so!" but can't give link to where she has published any evidence, quote me a study that doesn't exist or doesn't prove anything at all, or are just too busy to find me the references. But everyone assures me that the evidence is out there if I just keep looking. Kind of like the X-files.

How many dogs are "many"? And can you please link to the studies about non-response to vaccines being associated with being a breed predisposed to immune disorders. The only relevant studies I've seen showed that the vast majority of dogs seroconverted after vaccination for parvo.

Oh oops, sorry, didn't read it properly. Will get onto it straight after exams!

Happy to, if you send me her email address, and the web link to that whole statement you quoted her from. But I suspect she'll just say it's a hypothesis at the moment? As in, they've noticed more vaccine reactions occuring since the MLV have been introduced, but can't actually prove any connection between the two? Personally I think Cavalier is on to something, in that we just notice vaccine reactions more these days since we pay more attention to our dogs - they are more likely to live in the house with us, they are more likely to sleep on the bed with us, they get annual vet check ups, we do more diagnostic testing when they get ill, etc. But it would be pretty interesting if Dr Dodds had information to the contrary.

Just throwing it out there as extra info. Edited to add: I'm pretty sure the latest WSAVA dog and cat vaccine recommendations paper recommends MLV over killed vaccines too, though.

I'm not Cavalier, but that's an interesting opinion, since I've been taught that MLV vaccines tend to have less observable side effects than killed vaccines. Killed vaccines generally need to have adjuvants (various chemical nasties) mixed in with them to make them work, often causing local reactions, and often need to be given more frequently than MLV vaccines, since they don't work nearly as well.

Thanks, Cavalier! Not if you're sensible with the rate you give it. Pup will just pee it right back out if he doesn't need it.

We're talking dogs, right? Because I can link you some good ones for cats and vaccine site cancers. You've probably already seen them, though. I too would like to see any good studies linking "over" vaccination to allergies in dogs, though. I haven't found any myself, although I've heard lots of people claim a link between allergies and vaccination. There was one I saw a while back that linked production of thyroid autoantibodies to rabies vaccination in beagle pups, however I don't believe anyone has been able to demonstrate any clinical signs related to the presence of those antibodies. I agree there is a lot of scaremongering about vaccination.