sandgrubber

I don't so much agree, I think you can have the healthiest, most well bred pet but in the end, things happen. . . . I was speaking about probability. Of course, some individuals with dogs from healthy stock whose owners did everything right will have serious health problems. But odds are, that their pet health bills will come out to be less than their insurance fees in the long run. If it were otherwise, the insurance companies would go broke!

Not all Lab puppies are hellians. I've raised at least a dozen of them and have never had serious behaviour problems. Ok, I have a big yard and allow digging in the field . . . I'd have garden problems if they were confined to a small yard. I suspect the reason Lab pups have a bad reputation is because so many first time dog owners get steered toward Labs. People who don't know how to raise dogs are likely to end out with behaviour problems no matter what breed they choose. The better known show breeders usually keep long waiting lists and do not advertize. If you find There are some fine breeders who aren't all that well known. There are many people who breed healthy labs with good temperament who don't much care for the show ring. If you want a working type, try going to some retrieving trials . . . or sitting in on some beginners retrieving training sessions . . . great place to look for pups who are easy to train. You say health and temperament. Get a better definition of temperament, and make it clear to the breeder what sort of Lab temperament you are looking. Labs can be lazy laid back or quite high drive. I think all decent breeders will say that aggression or the lack of an off switch is a temperament fault, and biddibility is desired. But past that there's a lot of disagreement. Do not fall into the trap of equating the things that are tested (hip and elbow scores, PRA, and EIC) to health. Make sure to ask about longevity, epilepsy, skin problems (alergies and hot spots), patella problems (according to OFA 5% of labs have patella problems), bloat, or cardiac problems. I wouldn't worry greatly about EIC unless they intend to work the dog really hard. Many (most?) EIC affected dogs never have an episode, and when they started testing a lot of people were shocked to find their favorite working dog was EIC affected. It's a bonus to be unaffected. But as we get more and more genetic tests, we're going to have to recognize that some of them are more important than others. A breeder who can follow health matters back into the pedigree, and out into half siblings and siblings of sire and dam is good. If they say no problems anywhere, don't trust them. Ie, I'd almost consider it good if they say the grandsire's half brother had epilepsy. It doesn't greatly increase the chances of epilepsy and tells you that they know their lines well.

I'm also in the put-money-aside camp. What I'd like to see i what fraction of the $ spent on pet insurance actually goes to paying for vet care, and what fraction goes to paying salaries, expenses, and dividends to stockholders in the insurance company. My guess is it's something like 80% to paying claims, 20% to the business. If that's a good guess, then, all and all, vet bills are inflated by 20% by people going the insurance route. But it's worse than that. Buying insurance is essentially a bet that your dog is less healthy than average and you are unskilled in selecting vets who give quality service for reasonable prices. If you select dogs from healthy stock, feed them well, and follow guidelines re exercise, etc., you should come out ahead of the curve. Especially if you are sensible about not prolonging life into the stage of rapid degeneration, low quality of life, and big vet bills. Worse still, more and more vet practices who are managed by a business administration type instead of a vet. Ie, they are keen on getting you to do as many expensive procedures as possible, they spend money on making their offices 'attractive', and they get big on 'reminders' about vaccinations that aren't necessary. Such practices LOVE pet insurance. The insured client has, in effect, already paid for vet care, and thus will not question extra tests, etc., and will gladly go the extra and unnecessary mile.

The question of purity can get silly in the case of East Asian breeds, such as poms, pugs, or shar pei, that have been greatly modified after being introduced to the west. From one perspective, a bonemouth shar pei is purer than most western shar peis . . . even if it doesn't have a kennel club pedigree. The same can probably be said of many 'primitive' breeds. See, eg. http://www.hkshar-pei.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&id=114529&pageid=1

Congrads. Good to hear things are going well. Hope you get several more healthy years out of your boy. Wish I could get portion control down for myself . . . and take off a couple kg in a week :) I find it interesting that so many seem to hold higher standards for their dogs than for themselves.

Great story. Thanks for posting. If dogs can smell gunpowder and other chemicals, it's not surprising that they can smell bones. If they did more archaeological scent detection training, it wouldn't surprise me to hear dogs were finding sites that are many thousands of years old. I do wish they would stop distinguishing Labradors by color, though. Black, yellow, chocolate . . . they're the same breed.

One person's purebred is another person's mutt. If we want to look at the really fine points, we could ask whether pure bred and purebreed and the same thing.:)

Not really, however the breed I am seriously in love with/ dreaming of importing etc has a cross breeding program going currently. The aims of this program are to increase the gene pool and also to try and reduce a breed specific seisure disorder. Obviously the dogs won't be crossed with just any breed, the crosses themselves are approved before the matings take place. After 5 gens, the crosses will be considered a pure example of the breed. Although if the dog is a good example of the breed they can be classed as 'pure' sooner. A 3rd generation bitch I believe went BOB at the national championship. This is a recognised breed by the kennel club in it's country of origin so can be shown in champ shows along with all other recognised breeds. Personally, I'd be proud to own a dog whose health prospects were improved by a well-designed outcross-backcross program. It's the right thing to do. If people put notions of purity above health considerations, that's their problem.

You could say the same of any breed in any home setting other than those expressly bred to be lapdogs. Plenty of DOLers have herding breeds, plenty of DOLers have vermin hunters. Why ping the royals for what so many DOLers do exactly the same? Or maybe you do. I said I don't get it. No criticism. Picture half a dozen herding dogs walking around through polished marble corridors. I went to the official Royal website (http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/RoyalAnimals/Familypets.aspx) to try and fill out the picture. Turns out I that the Queen has three Corgis and three 'Dorgis' . . . daschund x corgi crosses, all castle-bred. Oh my ! She's a BYB (with a very large and posh back yard). Now, I'd completely understand if she'd taken a few of those lovely Sandrigham Labradors as companions :)

No surprise. Pack encounter between two different groups of scrappy dogs. It's beyond me why anyone wants a pack of herding dogs, or a pack of vermin-hunters, in a palace environment. But . . . I don't get royalty.

The article I recently posted in "Studies About Dogs" may be of interest. A group at U. of Barcelona followed a dozen cases of pain-related aggression reported to vets. HD was the #1 cause. The article is one of those technical ones you have to pay for, but has been widely discussed and summarized online. Google "dog pain aggression Barcelona" to find various summaries/reports. The paper went into behaviours associated with pain and factors (eg. hunger) that may make the aggression worse.

Comments like this amaze me. The majority of Dolers refer to their dogs as their kids &/or best mates, as long as they are well trained, I can't see how people can make such statements. Do you think the dogs know the meaning of the words? Sorry, but I have very little patience with people who are so 'gushy' over their dogs that they 'humanise' them to the point where the poor bloody dogs end up with no idea where they come in the 'pack' order, and situations like this (as we are discussing) occur. Are you actually suggesting that dogs should have dominance over their owners??? Or perhaps people should not realise/accept that dogs have fur, not skin, have 4 legs, not two, and don't have the intellectual ability of a human child? Sure dogs are certainly clever and intelligent animals, but they are not human, and never will be - they are still animals and tend to do what is programmed by nature into them, as animals do. People may refer to their dogs as 'their kids' but treating them as such, ie: humanising them, is a recipe for disaster, as this idiot owner has discovered. Dominance theory, as advertized on TV, has been broadly discredited in animal behavioural science (ethology). I'd be willing to bet that more dogs have turned violent as a result of abuse than as a result of being babied. Of course dogs are of a different specie and not endowed with human intelligence. No one who talks of their 'fur kids' really thinks they are kids. And yes, I'm sure dogs are sometimes confused by misdirected loving attention. But there is no question that loving relationships between dogs and people, by-in-large, benefit both the dog and the owners.

Bslsux included enough text for my purposes. Besides which, .pdf's are among the safest of file types. It is important that the ABA has taken this position. Mostly you find activists of one sort or another talking about BSL. Lawyers aren't my favorite group of people, but having the leading lawyer group in the US come out saying BSL is bad legislation may have a greater impact than any group of dog-lovers declaring the injustice of bans. Below are the first couple paragraphs of the text: CHICAGO, August 9, 2012 - On Monday, August 6, 2012, the American Bar Association’s 560- member policymaking House of Delegates met during the ABA’s Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL to discuss policies relating to a broad range of issues which are advocated for by state and local bar associations, specialty legal groups within the ABA or affiliated with the association, and individual members. As a result of the meeting, the ABA Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section’s (TIPS) Resolution 100, which urges all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions, was adopted. According to Ledy VanKavage, Immediate Past Chair of the TIPS Animal Law Committee, “People love their pets, no matter what their appearance. This is America. Responsible pet owners should be allowed to own whatever breed they want. They should not have to live in fear of their pets being seized and killed simply because of their appearance.” The measure is timely as the Maryland House of Delegates is taking up a bill on Friday to repeal the finding that all “pit bulls” and “pit bull crosses” are inherently dangerous. The Governor of Massachusetts signed legislation last week making breed discriminatory legislation illegal in that state- becoming the 13th state in the nation to reject canine profiling. Miami-Dade citizens will go to the polls on TIPS Fall Meeting ▪ October 11-14, 2012 ▪ La Quinta, CA ABA Midyear Meeting ▪ February 7-10, 2013 ▪ Dallas, TX TIPS Spring Meeting ▪ April 25-28, 2013 ▪ Washington, D.C. ABA Annual Meeting ▪ August 8-12, 2013 ▪ San Francisco, CA August 14th to decide whether to continue their breed ban. “Dogs, like people, cannot be fairly judged solely by appearance or heritage. The leadership of the ABA, TIPS and the TIPS Animal Law Committee in urging adoption of “breed neutral” dangerous dog statutes that will, hopefully, help the citizens of Miami-Dade County when voting next week to determine whether to uphold the ordinance banning ownership of animals based on description alone,” said TIPS Chair-Elect Eugene G. Beckham of Miami, FL.

brain tumors are not the only biological cause that may turn a dog aggressive! Pain-related aggression in dogs: 12 clinical cases Tomás Camps et al. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research Volume 7, Issue 2 , Pages 99-102, March 2012 Abstract The aim of this retrospective study was to describe the main features of pain-related aggression in dogs. Twelve dogs presented for aggressive problems at the Veterinary Hospital of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, were included, and a questionnaire was used to gather information on the context of the aggression, body posture during the attack, impulsiveness, and aggressive behavior before the onset of the pain-eliciting condition. The most common cause of pain was hip dysplasia (66.7%), but no relationship was found between the cause of pain and the characteristics of the aggressive behavior. Dogs were classified as having been aggressive before or after the onset of painful condition. Dogs that had not been aggressive before the onset of the pain-eliciting condition were more impulsive (df = 1, χ2 = 5.3, P = 0.0209), showed aggression as a result of manipulation context more frequently (df = 1, χ2 = 6, P = 0.0143), and adopted a defensive body posture more frequently (df = 1, χ2 = 3.733, P = 0.0533) than dogs that had been aggressive before the onset of pain. These results suggest that previous expression of aggressive behavior has a major effect on the pattern of pain-related aggression in dogs.

brain tumors are not the only biological cause that may turn a dog aggressive! Pain-related aggression in dogs: 12 clinical cases Tomás Camps et al. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research Volume 7, Issue 2 , Pages 99-102, March 2012 Abstract The aim of this retrospective study was to describe the main features of pain-related aggression in dogs. Twelve dogs presented for aggressive problems at the Veterinary Hospital of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, were included, and a questionnaire was used to gather information on the context of the aggression, body posture during the attack, impulsiveness, and aggressive behavior before the onset of the pain-eliciting condition. The most common cause of pain was hip dysplasia (66.7%), but no relationship was found between the cause of pain and the characteristics of the aggressive behavior. Dogs were classified as having been aggressive before or after the onset of painful condition. Dogs that had not been aggressive before the onset of the pain-eliciting condition were more impulsive (df = 1, χ2 = 5.3, P = 0.0209), showed aggression as a result of manipulation context more frequently (df = 1, χ2 = 6, P = 0.0143), and adopted a defensive body posture more frequently (df = 1, χ2 = 3.733, P = 0.0533) than dogs that had been aggressive before the onset of pain. These results suggest that previous expression of aggressive behavior has a major effect on the pattern of pain-related aggression in dogs.

Too large is any number that means individuals don't get attention and feel their particular needs are met. Some trainers may communicate well enough to handle a dozen or more in a class. Others probably shouldn't go past four. A larger class that allows some time for individual work, or work for smaller groups interested in specific issues might be a useful compromise. I wouldn't mind lots of work on generic sit/stay/heel if it were usefully integrated into a program that builds toward off-lead work. Most of the training classes I've gone to seem to do sit/stay/heel just cause it's what you do . . . no rationale provided. I would very much appreciate getting some written notes with exercises, saying why things are taught the way they are, giving references, and explaining where the elementary exercise is going. I'd love to work with a group trainer who kept a library of DVD's showing other trainers doing the same thing and/or providing slow motion, annotated, detail conscious explanations. Body language is important. Often the trainer says "Watch this" but what you see is from a different angle than what the trainer sees, and may be obscured by viewing angles or other people and dogs . . . and it may happen too fast for you to take it in. Being able to view clearly and review critical points would be very helpful. Too small? Yes, if you're trying to teach socialization you need a mix of sizes and temperaments. Also, some people learn well by watching and emulating others. Solo classes may eliminate that style of learning.

Most of the things I'd like to see have been mentioned (ie, polygenetic disorders, better understanding of dangerous dogs). One that hasn't been mentioned is research on the dog major histocompatibility system (ie, the part of DNA responsible for most immune system disorders). Specifically, some regard MHC/DLA homozygosity as a better indicator of inbreeding problems than pedigree-based indices such as the COI. If this can be definitively shown, it would be good to see further research into the technology done so that it becomes an affordable tool for breeders. This sort of research is actively going on. Hope it yields results we can use.

Quality pedigree breeders don't produce enough pups to satisfy market demand. I don't know what percent of pups come from BYB's but I'd guess it's 10-20%. Remove that fraction and the market would compensate: - Pedigree dog prices would rise and low income people would be less able to afford the investment. - More people would end up with cross-bred oops puppies, or puppy-farm bred DD's. - Many BYB's would convert to being registered breeders . . . and continue on their way, but producing pups with pedigrees. The BYB vs. registered breeder dichotomy is an oversimplification. There are some people who the show world would call back-yarders who pay proper attention to health. Say I wanted to breed a non-brachy line of pugs or old-style GSD's, and I found my best prospective breeding stock among non-registered dogs. The quest for improved health would force me to join the ranks of those who get called BYB's. On the other hand, the pedigree dog world is not without disreputable breeders. The Balfours (http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/239070-breeders-sentenced-in-cruelty-case/) were pedigree breeders, and he was a show judge! Many of the large puppy farms in the USA (I use the word to mean places that raise dogs in cages and keep hundreds of dogs, producing puppies on a highly commercial basis) produce pedigree pups, with the blessing of the AKC.

Reasons for not going to training 1) It's a long drive 2) I have yet to find a training group that didn't have some serious problem . . . too big so you can't hear what the instructor is saying . . . trainer who uses the check chain in a harsh manner . . . so slow and repetitive that I get bored out of my mind . . . problems with aggressive dogs. 3) the training that's most important to me, recall at distance under distraction (ie, being able to call the dogs off when they find an animal to chase or something really stinky to eat and or roll in), is rarely covered while things I'm not interested in (stylish heelwork) get lots of time. 4) I have a fenced 13 acre property and my dogs behaviour is fine for the environment they live in. They are biddible, and have picked up the things that matter to me without formal training. 5) for some in training the activity seems to be a social event for the people. I'm not very social.

You can't change other people's reactions. You can change your own reactions to other people's reactions. So unless you enjoy being offended, I'd recommend trying to take such comments sympathetically.

Sure. No need to pts a Labrador that won't fetch and doesn't like water. Such a dog may well make a great pet. But breeding from such a dog -- or allowing one to become a much used stud -- harms the breed. As for breeding from dogs with "shite conformation" . . . I see no harm to this if the dog is exceptionally gifted in working characteristics, or the breed standard is being interpreted to encourage extreme conformation and the dog looks 'old fashioned' by modern standards (eg., a pug or pom whose nose isn't particularly flat, or an old style GSD). It is more important to preserve diversity in our breeds than to have all dogs look like the show standard of the day.

It's amazing that the dog wasn't killed. Maybe the police deserve credit for shooting to disable rather than to kill? Drugs are abundant in the East Village, street life is 'colorful', and it's a place where squatters are being forced out by gentrification. A guy out cold on the concrete with backpack spilling could be epileptic, but that's not the first thought that comes to mind . . . especially as the guy is motionless in the video clip. Having a guard dog stand over you when you seize is not a conventional, or recommended, way to deal with epilepsy.

My impression of this very sad story is that we're talking about the particular aggression that a pack will show to outsiders, or perhaps toward prey. Something like territoriality, but a little different. It's a dangerous form of aggression because multiple dogs act together in attack.

Ugly, but is there a realistic alternative? It's sad that a loyal companion ends out getting killed for doing its duty. RIP, unnamed guardian. That doesn't look like a great neighborhood. Police are probably under-resourced. If the average police person ends out confronting a dog only once every couple years, it's not realistic to expect them to carry special equipment or take special training to learn to handle aggressive/protective dogs. Police are generally allowed to use a gun against a person who actively attacks. Dogs don't have civil rights. Street people using dogs for personal protection is not a good direction for a bad neighborhood.

It makes sense, but it's not the only way to read history. Using dogs to pull carts has been banned for almost as long as dog-fighting, and, unlike bans on dog fighting, this ban has been successfully enforced. I would be surprised if you didn't find some breeds are more inclined to pull than others. Without active selection, it takes a long time for a trait to drop out of a breeding population. As for frequency of DA, ask anyone who runs a kennel or rescue if they find bull breeds more inclined to require veterinary treatment for puncture wounds than other breeds. In my kennel days we had a couple of regular clients who had more than one staffy x and required that their two dogs be kenneled separately. We did supervised play groups. While there were individuals bull breed dogs who were goodl in play groups, there were as many who just weren't reliable with other dogs. I'm not saying bull breeds should be banned. But I think people need to be realistic if they buy a bull breed dog, and I'd love to see more breeders actively screening dogs with DA tendencies out of their breeding programs . . . or even better, actively selecting for dog-sooks.