sandgrubber

I lived across from a Lagotto breeder . . . not a good one. She also bred Goldies. I'll second or third the 'watch out for shyness/temperament' although the breeder in question was very poor about socialisation so the problem could be environmental. I'd underscore 'coat can be problematic'. They are seed and burr magnets, and require a lot of ear cleaning. Narrow gene pool might be a problem though I don't think there are enough stats to say if it is for this breed, and if so, what form the problem takes. I wouldn't worry too much about digging. From what I observed next door, a Goldie will out-dig a Lagotto by a large margin; though the Lagottos were highly skilled in getting through holes in the fence. The truffle hunting is pretty much hype. Labradors are the preferred breed for truffle hunting in France, but many breeds are used. If I remember my breed history, they were originally hunting dogs that specialised in swamp environments.

What's better, a brusque kennel owner who cares wonderfully for the dogs, or someone who blows smoke up your @rse to make you feel good about leaving them and gives the dogs minimal care and attention? Too true. There are PLENTY of these types of kennels around that are great at marketing and customer service and you would be sick at how the animals are treated. You mean the places where 'exercise' consists of being kicked out of their runs for 15 minutes while they hose down the kennel? The places that look like no dog ever dug a hole in their lawn . . . cause no dog was out long enough to?

Sorry you're going to go through vacation worrying about your dogs. Don't worry too much. As Weasels noted, some people who are good with dogs are not so good with people. I've read kennel management books that encourage kennel managers to insist on walking the dogs to the kennel, rather than letting the owner do it. Two reasons: 1) Dogs may be well behaved with the owner present, but become surly when the kennel staff tries to handle them. It's good to recognise this initially and be able to discuss with the owner how the possible problem is to be managed. 2) walking in with the dog gives the staff an opportunity to observe how the dog reacts to other dogs . . . and thus to avoid putting it next-door to a dog it doesn't like. As for not allowing viewings . . . it's reasonable to do 'by appointment" only. When I was managing a kennel I always let people come in and see the dogs, but sometimes it was a problem. It upsets some of the dogs. And you do incur a risk if you allow people in when the floors are wet. Not to mention people bringing their kids in . . . that can be a nightmare.

I came across this in http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/the-rev-john-russell-on-how-to-make-a-fox-terrier/ . . . thought some people might find it interesting. A related blog article is found at http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/smooth-terriers-were-often-crossed-with-bulldogs/ The Rev. John Russell was a parson in the Church of England. He had studied at Oxford and was given a parish in North Devon. He was a fox terrier enthusiast and a founding member of the Kennel Club– yes. he was in the fancy. But he was never fully comfortable there. Even though he helped write the standard for the smooth fox terrier, he never showed his own dogs. He just wanted a good little fox bolter. And he would later describe how he would create a fox bolting terrier, and this strongly suggests that the fox terriers, including the terriers which would eventually be given his name are partially derived from the bull-and-terrier types– pit bulls, if you will. Russell describes the best way to create a fox terrier in this fashion: "The process," replied Russell, "is simply as follows: they begin with a smooth bitch terrier; then, to obtain a finer skin, an Italian greyhound is selected for her mate. But as the ears of the produce are an eyesore to the connoisseur, a beagle is resorted to, and then little is seen of that unsightly defect in the next generation. Lastly, to complete the mixture, the bulldog is now called on to give the necessary courage; and the composite animals, thus elaborated, become, after due selection, the sires and dams of the modern fox-terriers. This version of their origin," continued he, "I received from a man well qualified to speak on the subject." The bulldog blood thus infused imparts courage, it is true, to the so-called terrier; he is matchless at killing any number of rats in a given time; will fight any dog of his weight in a Westminster pit; draw a badger heavier than himself out of his long box; and turn up a tom-cat possessed even of ten lives, before poor pussy can utter a wail. But the ferocity of that blood is in reality ill suited—nay, is fatal—to fox-hunting purposes; for a terrier that goes to ground and fastens on his fox, as one so bred will do, is far more likely to spoil sport than promote it; he goes in to kill, not to bolt, the object of his attack ( A memoir of the Rev. John Russell and his out-of-door life , , by Edward William Lewis Davies, 1902 ed., pg. 54-55.) So Jack Russells and other fox terriers likely do have some bulldog and bull-and-terrier blood. And when you see someone who loves Jack Russells excoriate "pit bulls," keep in mind that the acorn didn't fall that far from the tree. Who knows how much a Jack Russell is actually a bred down "pit bull'?

So that make is alright does it, to let your dogs kill another living creature which poses no threat to them? What a charmer. Hey, weren't you just complaining about people being disrespectful. Are you saying your roaming cat wouldn't kill another living creature which poses no threat to it? Or advocating that people keep their cat killing dogs indoors so that your little puss can safely wander in their yards and do all the lovely things that wandering cats do? Get real!

Not impossible, but not likely. Quoting from the original story

I would say that allowing a large powerful dog, not properly vaccinated for rabies (which is not unknown in Colorado), to run wildlife on public land was pretty stupid too. The dog was only on the show cause some fire crew succeeded in pulling it out . .. .presumably the dog fell through the ice, which in most cases would have been fatal. Idiot owner for exposing his dog to that sort of risk, say nothing of putting it on TV. I'm guessing that the event took place just outside Denver. The Dogo is banned in Aurora, which is con-urbated with Denver. So there was extra reason for caution.

And some other species :D.

Chasing coyotes, breaking leash law, no rabies vaccination, fell through ice in a pond, and then exposed to a TV interview by someone who doesn't know much about dogs. I'd say the owner is a bigger idiot than the TV anchor. Would be interesting to know where in Colorado this happened.

Ellz, nothing personal. I'd be surprised if your dogs were among those likely to do harm. Though, if a 5 yr old can climb your fence, I wouldn't consider it very secure. I don't think dog as weapon is a good idea in the modern world, and I think people who choose to leave a big mean dog in the yard to protect their worldly goods are inviting trouble. Educating kids isn't so easy when they watch TV and play computer games for many hours a day, and much of what they hear is bad=good, kids are powerful, go ahead and challenge. You don't have to go as far as Grand Theft Auto and rap music to find this . . . it shows up in cartoons and lots of stuff directed at the pre-teen or young teen kids. How often do you see a kid scaling a fence/wall or doing some sort of break in/tresspass? Have you ever seen one TV show where a kid encounters a dog who puts him in the hospital? There are a lot of naughty kids out there, some of them full blown hoons. Dog owners must be realistic about kids. Sure, sometimes the judiciary takes a tough love attitude toward the bad/naughty kids. But that doesn't guarantee you'll go scott free if your dog attacks a kid who enters your yard. Even if you end out being found not guilty, being brought to court because your dog did major damage to a little bugger who snuck into your yard isn't going to be much fun.

I've been trying to understand the genetics of immune response. Came across the following statement . . . which at root says it's complicated and genetic predisposition to react cannot be ignored: Both killed and modified live vaccines are potentially allergenic, though for very different reasons. Killed vaccines contain chemicals called adjuvants that enhance the efficacy of the vaccine without exposing the dog to the pathogen. The adjuvants can cause an allergic reaction. In the modified live vaccines, the toxins produced by the pathogen are what cause the reaction. One should keep in mind that in both cases, the vaccines are not the cause of the allergy, but the trigger. A dog must be genetically predisposed to allergies for the reaction to take place. I'd recommend reading the whole article, which refers specifically to Australian Shephards, and non-dogmatically regards inbreeding as one possible contributor to genetic predisposition to allergenic responses. http://www.ashgi.org/articles/immune_rising_storm.htm

When I was a child this was understood too, and kids still got bitten. The difference is that people are more likely to make a fuss if their kid gets nipped or ripped by your dog than they were some decades back. Kids don't always do what they are told. Toddlers often don't understand what they are told . . . and the education programs teaching kids to act sensibly around dogs often don't start until the kids are five or six years old. If your dog is likely to do damage that requires more treatment than a few stitches, you should take protective measures, like a muzzle and liability insurance. Don't expect tolerance if little Johnny wanders away from Mum, tries to pat Guardian Fido, and ends out needing major surgery. p.s. I had permission to pat the Irish setter who gave me a good bite to the face when I was four. My parents took it in stride. I can still find the tiny scar among my face wrinkles, but no one else would notice it.

If I read correctly, this only says items it is a defense when (a)(i) or (a)(ii) occurs. It doesn't guarantee that use of this defense will be successful. In the case that the intruder is a child, I think there's a good chance of being found guilty. also . . . someone needs to play devil's advocate . . . or in this case, child's advocate. Was I the only one here who wandered as a child? Stealing fruit was a big game to us kids. I've never much liked grapes, but some of the gang used to go the fence and risk getting a backside full of buckshot to steal grapes from the person we called 'the Old Frenchman'. We had another neighbour, an older widow, who loved having kids around and told parents it was fine if kids snuck into her garden to steal prunes and apricots. People have gotten much more guarded about their kids in recent decades, and the old tradition of fruit stealing has declined . . . but that doesn't mean it's dead. If you happen to end out having to defend your dog's behaviour before a judge who stole fruit as a child, you may find yourself in trouble. (I thought people were having trouble getting kids to eat fruit these days . . . from one perspective, it's good to know kids will still bother to steal it). see, eg: http://ask.metafilte...-outside-the-UK The tradition of stealing fruit (usually apples) is old enough in the UK that they have a a word for it! As do the Swedes, and the Koreans . . . also, apparently noted and not condemned in the Bible! Deuteronomy 23 sanctions scrumping in a vineyard or field—provided that you don't carry any goods away in a container. The debate has raged about who exactly is allowed to be there in the first place; but once you're there, the principle is this: If the owner denies you handy nourishment and refreshment, he is a greedy swine; but if you attempt to take advantage of him, you are a greedy swine. another google find relates to Darwin . . . In his Autobiography, Darwin (called Charley and Bobby during this time) describes himself as being a rather "naughty" child. This is borne out in his stories of stealing fruit from the orchard trees on the side of his parents' house, making up wild stories, and striving to be the center of attention in the family. Bottom line: If you have guard dogs that might attack a child, I'd recommend having really good liability insurance AND very good, child-proof fences.

A genetic dissection of breed composition and performance enhancement in the Alaskan sled dog Heather J Huson1,2, Heidi G Parker1, Jonathan Runstadler2 and Elaine A Ostrander BMC Genetics 2010, 11:71 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-11-71 online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/71 Abstract Background The Alaskan sled dog offers a rare opportunity to investigate the development of a dog breed based solely on performance, rather than appearance, thus setting the breed apart from most others. Several established breeds, many of which are recognized by the American Kennel Club (AKC), have been introduced into the sled dog population to enhance racing performance. We have used molecular methods to ascertain the constitutive breeds used to develop successful sled dog lines, and in doing so, determined the breed origins of specific performance-related behaviors. One hundred and ninety-nine Alaskan sled dogs were genotyped using 96 microsatellite markers that span the canine genome. These data were compared to that from 141 similarly genotyped purebred dog breeds. Sled dogs were evaluated for breed composition based on a variety of performance phenotypes including speed, endurance and work ethic, and the data stratified based on population structure. Results We observe that the Alaskan sled dog has a unique molecular signature and that the genetic profile is sufficient for identifying dogs bred for sprint versus distance. When evaluating contributions of existing breeds we find that the Alaskan Malamute and Siberian Husky contributions are associated with enhanced endurance; Pointer and Saluki are associated with enhanced speed and the Anatolian Shepherd demonstrates a positive influence on work ethic. Conclusion We have established a genetic breed profile for the Alaskan sled dog, identified profile variance between sprint and distance dogs, and established breeds associated with enhanced performance attributes. These data set the stage for mapping studies aimed at finding genes that are associated with athletic attributes integral to the high performing Alaskan sled dog.

Ditto To each their own, but not everyone wants to share your cat. Not in my back yard! That list of advantages provided a few back was entirely selfish and ducked the issue of the Bendigo man's threat. Let's try that list for dogs However, there are also many benefits to letting your dog roam: Rodent control - Dogs help to keep the rodent population around your home at bay (and your lawn well dug up). Social contact - Outdoor dogs can have social stimulation if they want to interact with other dogs in the area. Regular exercise - Outdoor dogs are well exercised through hunting and generally being out and about, and are less likely to become overweight. Outlet for behavioural needs - less stress for the dog and therefore improved welfare (that is, unless its interaction with other dogs isn't peaceful). Good behaviour - Outdoor dogs are less likely to develop behavioural problems such as inappropriate urination in the house, chewing furniture or stalking humans or other household companions. They are less likely to become bored or frustrated. Hmmm! Don't think so. And I don't think it works much better with cats.

Fingers crossed, he stays good. It's pretty easy to overdose a chihuahua!

I confess, I like to be challenged to my deepest levels, and crappytaxadermy.com is on the extreme end of challenges with respect to the human/animal interaction. Also all over the map. Disturbing for its own sake, stretch your mind, gross you out, preach some ideology . . . the whole kit and kaboodle. . . . some are so abstract that I doubt there is any animal skin in the 'taxidermy' . . . but the aillusion to skin makes it poignant. A few more examples . . . if anyone else wants to be provoked. Long ago I did a little taxadermy, mostly on road kill. I guess as morbid fascinations go, it's pretty harmless. Interesting to know that others react to it. edited to correct spelling and other errors.

duplicate post culled

Not sure, other than screaming bloody murder . . . and perhaps looking for a weapon. I once did a flying tackle on a dog that was attacking another dog. That worked pretty well, as I'm no lightweight and the dog kinda collapsed. But it's dangerous. I was lucky that the dog didn't go for my throat. Calming and throwing food may be useful in heading off an attack, but once the dog has launched in, I think it's pretty useless. Also, I don't like food based reward systems, except in the limited way of using food to go on to food-free training systems, and there's no way I'm going to routinely carry food on my walks.

+1 Always (almost always) better to try things on a human level before calling for government intervention.

Actually, it seems to provoke knee jerk derision from most DOL members. Here's the same story, as presented by Wildfire Today . . . personally, I think skepticism and caution are in order . . . .but the idea deserves serious consideration. Elephants and rhinoceroses for fire prevention? Posted on February 3, 2012 by Bill Gabbert A scientist in Australia has proposed that elephants and rhinoceroses be used in the Northern Territory of the country to reduce the intensity of wildfires. According to David Bowman, an environmental scientist at the University of Tasmania, this introduced exotic species would help control another introduced exotic species, gamba grass. Gamba grass was brought into the country from Africa in the 1930s for cattle ranchers who said it produced more feed for livestock than native grasses. Since then the grass has spread across a large portion of Australia’s Northern Territory and burns very intensely. When gamba grass matures, it becomes tall and woody and is undesirable by cattle or native species like kangaroos. But back in Africa, elephants and rhinoceroses love the grass. Mr. Bowman thinks elephants and rhinos would reduces the grass enough to slow the spread and intensity of wildfires. Australia is already spending millions of dollars to control the spread of other introduced species like camels and water buffaloes. Mr. Bowman said rhinos and elephants could be sterilized so they could not reproduce, and they could be restricted by fences and tracked with radio collars. What could possibly go wrong?

Beautiful to watch. I'm jealous. Where is this? I'd love to live somewhere where you could run a pack behind a bicycle on a dirt track, have a good run, and then go swimming! btw, I'll bet these are sprinting sled dogs. I read something recently that looks at the genetics of sprinting vs distance sledding dogs . . . the distance guys looked much more like huskies . . . the sprinters were taller, lankier, had shorter coats, and the article said they had a lot of GSP in them.

David Bowman is a brilliant, creative, and slightly crazy ecologist/botanist who has been working in the NT for decades, specialising in wildfire ecology. I spent a few weeks up there doing bushfire research. Invasive grass species, including elephant grass, are a huge problem and no one has come up with a good solution that I'm aware. The introduced grasses grow so tall and produce so much biomass that they burn hot and kill almost everything . . . including young trees . . . and do a lot of harm to native plants and wildlife. It would be interesting to see the fuller version of the proposal. May not be as crazy as it seems. And, a few elephants would give that loony NT News something to report on other than crocodiles. I don't think elephants will poison anything . . . their big feet may be easier on the ground than the more concentrated pressure of cattle . . . . they sure won't be hanging out on the back porch and eating catfood . . . and would be pretty easy to kill off or contain if they cause problems. They don't cross large expanses of drylands . . . so introducing them would have a geographically limited effect and would be relatively easy to revers. In sum: don't laugh!

I hope no media guys are watching this. I can see the headline: MAJORITY OF PEDIGREE DOG OWNERS STATE THINK DOGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BITE CHILDREN.

Modern societies take child protection very seriously. You cannot assume all kids have been properly instructed about how to greet a dog. You can assume that if your dog bites a child in a public place you are going to be in deep sh!t. Call people idiots if you like. Get annoyed when kids come up saying 'nice doggie' without due respect. But don't put your dog in positions where people are going to demand that it is pts. I wouldn't say it's a question of rights . . . it's a question of how people and dogs live together. I don't like this poll. The OP, in putting IDIOT in the title, is assuming an answer. That is bad form. How about asking it differently: If a child approaches a dog in a public space, without asking permission to pat it, is it ok for the dog to bite the child? Bet that would get different responses. I like to see dog ownership as a right. But I think it's too much to ask that the right to own a dog extends to the right to take a dog who is likely to bite into public spaces. If you've got one of those dogs who isn't bomb proof and has teeth, keep 'em home or keep 'em muzzled. If there are too many bites, we're all going to loose our rights to dog ownership.