sandgrubber

p.s. Here's an example of the sort of kennel I want to make sure doesn't get hit by well meaning people who are against 'commercial' dog enterprises. Between breeding, training, boarding, and stud fees, these guys probably make a profit. . . . and work around the clock I'd say good on 'em. They're producing great dogs. They deserve it http://www.topdogretrievers.com/Labrador-Retriever-puppy-ca.html

I agree with mita. It's 10 times worse to neglect 100 dogs as to neglect 10 dogs. Large and neglectful establishments do a lot of harm. I don't see anyone sticking up for them. But I'm more than happy to stick up for someone who has devoted their life to breeding and raising quality dogs and finds (usually after decades of breeding / showing / training on a hobby basis) they can make a living out of producing dogs who fit into some social role. It can be an honorable and rewarding profession . . . unlikely to be lucrative . . . but rewarding.

Not to sound callous, but BFD. It's hardly news that a family dog bites one of the children in the family. It's usually a toddler. The bite is usually to the face. Often a few stitches are required. The adults should have supervised but didn't. For each child who gets bitten, there are a hundred who spend unsupervised time with the family dog and don't get bitten. I've had a small scar for fifty some years from a face bite I got as a toddler. My mother drank too much. My father worked all the time. It's going to take more than 'education' to prevent such accidents from happening . . . just as it will take more than 'education' to prevent siblings from beating each other up and occasionally breaking bones (I got bitten by a dog, yah, but I also broke my brother's arm . . . Mum was drunk . . . hence not attentive . . . and we could go on with the story about how she became alcoholic . . . yatta yatta yatta). Sounds to me like the journos are in a mood to whip up the anti-dog mood created by a horrid fatal attack.

All I can say is that I hope your daughter learns from the death of this pup. It had a bad start in life, she didn't do right by it and its gone. The only good that can come of this is that your daughter identifies where she went wrong and doesn't repeat the process. And what's with the other house having an unvaccinated pup?? Yes, I think she has definitely learnt a hard lesson poodlefan. And I'm sure she will never make the same mistake again. The other house only got their pup about five days ago, and simply hasn't got around to vaccinating it yet. The person who sold it to them, sold it unvaccinated It is upsetting that other breeders are selling pups unvaccinated (something I would never do), and it is upsetting that people are being slack and not getting pups vaccinated straight away. I guess people think it won't happen to them and think they'll get it done when they have some more time, or when they have some more money. But as this shows, it CAN happen and if you don't get a pup vaccinated ASAP then it is sometimes too late. It's very sad. Believe me I wish people were more careful, but what can you do? If I know somebody has an unvaccinated pet, I strongly encourage them to sort it out, but you can't hold a gun to their head. so sad! In defense, with a first puppy, especially if it was acquired by a young person from an irresponsible breeder, it's hard to know what is serious and what not. In the first litter I bred, I ended up paying a $100 vet bill for someone who took their pup to the vet cause it vomited. The diagnosis: carsickness. As a first-time breeder, I hadn't leaned not to feed the pups for a few hours before they went for a car ride. In a way I count myself lucky. If they hadn't taken the pup to the vet and it had been something serious, it could have ended tragically. I'm sure everyone has learned some lessons -- except the person who bred the pup. Breeders take note, puppy buyers need to be reminded that sick puppies can go from sick to dead quite quickly. Do not delay in getting a sick infant puppy to the vet. Not everyone knows this automatically.

If you're just walking the pup for the first time, meaning just finished jabs, you'll probably have enough on your mind and be taking short enough walks that greeting protocols shouldn't be a big issue. Eg, many pups fight the leash and you may need patience or suggestions to even get the pup walking properly. You'll get opinions every which way about what's right with respects to greeting other dogs. It depends on what sort of pup you have, what sort of dog you want, and what sort of dogs you're likely to run into. Great you're going to puppy pre-school. Bring the question up there and you should get some tips about how to set up positive encounters and how to keep encounters positive.

The study covered: " Dogs. . . routinely housed for their entire reproductive lives in cages or runs, and provided with minimal to no positive human interaction or other forms of environmental enrichment". I would not consider such facilities "well run" . . . I would consider them cruel. I also consider it cruel to keep a single dog confined in a back yard with minimal to no positive human interaction or environmental enrichment. Neither size, nor commercial viability is the deciding factor. It's whether the dog is allowed social interaction, stimulation, adequate food and shelter, etc. Many dogs delight in social interaction with other dogs, and a large kennel that gives dogs opportunity to spend a lot of time out of doors in social groups is often a great place from a dog's perspective. Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries. Large kennels are nothing new and have played a major role in the establishment of some breeds. . . Sandringham kennels was established by King Edward VII in 1879 to house 100 dogs . . . pretty big I'd say . . . but not a puppy farm . . . a large fraction of the dogs housed there had / have extensive field training and far more opportunity to do dog things than most of our dogs will ever have. Many 'commercial' Lab breeders in the US make as much money off 'starting' pups as they do breeding them . . . and quite a few hunters prefer to pay three or more thousand dollars extra to get a started pup in part because they like the effects of a dog who gets lots of gentle early training and socialisation and recognise that it's hard for a family where everyone works 9 to 5 is not the best environment for a young pup. The largest breeder I worked with when I was in Australia took all her dogs (except young pups, bitches in season, etc.) for a long tromp across fields every day, and gave them a few hours in small groups in a large grassed exposure. It was a joy to watch and the dogs were beautifully adjusted. There is a real danger of society making rules based on size, rather than paying attention to how dogs are cared for. It won't get rid of neglect, and it will cause problems for some people who have devoted their lives to bettering a breed. Back to back breeding is a separate issue . . . I don't have access to veterinary journals at this point in my life . . . but when I did, I could not find any evidence that it was physiologically harmful. I'd imagine someone else can find the references on this.. . .the subject is well worked on DOL and no one seems to change their positions. I have never bred more than two litters in 18 months and never had more than 5 litters from one bitch. So I can't speak from personal experience. But the reproductive specialist vets I know tell me there's not a problem. I am quite happy to poo-pooh the notion of 'poor girl' 'forced' to have puppies. My girls always got very jealous of whoever had pups. Most of them would get milk and work their way into the whelping box to be with the pups when one of the other girls had pups. (I'm down to 2 girls now, one spayed, the other not yet bred . . . so I write in past tense).

The attack may have been mentioned in the other thread . . . but the other thread is basically a pole. I hate seeing within the family dog attacks make headlines, especially if they aren't accompanied by warnings that family dogs need socialisation and children must be supervised around dogs. Occasional bites been a part of life since dogs were taken into the human family, and have happened to people in high places as well as everyday folks. Napoleon was bitten and scarred for life by Josephine's pug, Fortune, on their wedding night. Sigmund Freud's Chow bit his official biographer. James Thurber wrote a lovely story called "The Dog Who Bit People" about a family Airdale who bit everyone. He recounts that his mother gave a box of chocolates at Xmas to everyone the dog bit, and she gave away a lot of chocolates. So what? If you don't socialize dogs properly, or raise them to be protective, or don't adequately watch them around children, bites are likely. A bite is different from an attack. Bites aren't good, but people get over them.

I'm sure there are other people upset by the same dogs and if the rangers don't respond, you'd be doing a favour to go up the hierarchy with complaints. If the rangers are not responding appropriately, you can always 1) complain to your councilman or woman 2) complain to your mayor 3) complain to the CEO of your shire if there are issues with the elected officials (I once had to do this in Cockburn WA when the mayor and most of the council were indicted on corruption charges). I'd try the mayor first. I once spent a lot of time talking to my local council person about a problem of non-enforcement. She finally said, I'll do what I can, but you really should talk to the mayor. He's in a much better position to do something. This turned out to be good advice.

There are lots of questions to be answered, but I disagree that it doesn't mean much. These data are much more meaningful than the normal garbage descriptions of lifespan that come with breed descriptions . . . by in large we have no idea where those numbers came from. If someone says XXX breed has a lifespan of 12 years, does it account for accidental deaths of puppy mortality? Is it collected stories from people whose dogs had long healthy lifespans? Does it exclude 2 of 10 dogs who had to be pts due to some disorder? Longevity figures mean more to me than any other health data, particularly if they are accompanied by cause of death stats. Scandanavians in general, and Finns, especially, are notable for high standards and conscientious dog ownership, and I'd guess this data is as clean as it gets. As for 'benchmarks' . . . not sure what you are proposing. Benchmarks are usually high quality data used to make comparisons of trends over time, space, or some other dimension. The UK 2004 study, if I remember, had low (~15%) response rates and there are quite a few problems with study design (eg, no responses from GSD's). If anything, I'd say the Finnish data may begin to serve as a benchmark. It's sad that data of equal quality don't seem to be showing up elsewhere. Unfortunately the English interface to the Finnish database is down (good of them to provide an English interface, though), making it hard for most of us to work with the data. The respondents in the PDE discussion say that everyone in the KC has internet access to the database and are encouraged to report on their dog(s) over time. From reading what the Finnish respondents report, a few things pop out. (1) response rates are high. To get >2000 German Shephard responses in a country where there are 145,000 members in the kennel club is impressive. (2) the low longevity numbers reflect high reporting of deaths for young dogs. I tend to discount the anecdotal 'I had a XXX(breed) who lived to be 15, and another who lived to 12' . . . because the people who had to put their puppy to sleep at three don't participate in the conversation. We tend to discount the dogs who die young.

For perspective . . . in California, any reported dog bite is followed up on nearly immediately and the dog is put into quarantine for observation for a week . . . unless the report is made more than 10 days after the incident. The motive for the law is rabies control, but rabies is very rare, so most of the dogs impounded are just biters. My county takes the law seriously. I had a malicious person report a 6 mo old Labrador pup who put a tooth into him when he was playing with her. Fortunately, he didn't report it for two weeks so they didn't impound, but they would have if he had filed within 10 days. (Maybe they wouldn't have, cause the fellow owns two adult pit bulls, and it would be hard to prove that my pup bit him and not one of his dogs.) If your dog is impounded you get fees galore. You pay for the ranger visit. You pay daily fees for the impoundment. And if you haven't registered your dog, you get to pay high penalties for non-registration. Although I didn't appreciate the attempt to use this law against me maliciously, I think it's a good system . . . it sure provides an incentive for people with mean dogs to keep them confined, and in the old days when there was more rabies around, it probably did a good job of getting rabid animals off the streets.

I guess the PDE Blog is a little taboo here, but there's recently been an excellent discussion going on the subject of longevity with many links to studies. It includes presentation of data from Finnish kennel club which haven't been published in English, and seem to be the highest quality data available since the UK study of 2004. See http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/10/lifespan-long-and-short-of-it.html a couple extracts (btw, the Finns seem to report early/puppy deaths and accident deaths too, so they end out with lower average lifespan that you might expect). Ulla Ruistola said... Finnish Kennel Club collects the cause of deaths and dates also. Owners report by themselves. Koiranetti (unfortunately only in Finnish) shows that: English Bulldogs dies at the age 5 years 3 months (113 dogs) Russian Black Terrier: 4 y 6 m (62) Neapolitan Mastiff : 4 y 11 m (17) Dogue de Bordeaux: 6 y (54) Kooikerhondje: 7 y 4 m (29) Pyrenean Sheepdog: 10 y 10 m (39) Miniature Bull Terrier: 3 y 8 m (6) Shar-pei: 5 y 1 m (37) Great Dane: 6 y 4 m (306) (yellows only) Bloodhound: 7 y (50) Mastiff: 6 y 1 m (38) Shiba Inu: 5 y 4 m (13) St Bernard: 5 y 9 m (55) (short haired) Irish Wolfhound: 5 y 9 m (218) Leonburger: 7 y 1 kk (318) Finnish Lapphund: 10 y (505) Bullmastiff: 6 y 9 m (216) Bernese Mountain Dog: 6 y 11 m (491) Nova Scotia Tolling Retriever: 7 y 11 m (216) Cesky Terrier: 8 y 9 m (14) Maija Vilppo said... Like I posted earlier there are 2207 German Shepherds with cause of death in Finnish KC database. If you leave out the - 130 dogs listed as accidental deaths (averarge age of death 4yrs 3months) - 9 dogs reported missing - 1 dog killed by a predator (bear, wolf ect) - 67 dogs put down for behaviour related causes (average age of death 4yrs) - 398 dogs with no cause of death given (average age of death for those 7yrs 4 months) - 424 dogs who are reported to have died of old age (mentioned in my earlier post, average age of death 11yrs 6months.) You get 1178 German Shepherds dying of health related causes, that's more than half (53% ) of the total. The most common ones are: - Cancers and tumours (257 dogs, 8yrs 9 months) - Bone or joint diseases including athritis in hips & elbows (255 dogs, 4yrs 9months) - Back diseases including spondylosis and joint deformities (100 dogs, 7yrs) - Liver and intestinal diseases including bloat, megaesofagus and liver hypofunction (69 dogs, 6yrs 3months) - Skin and ear diseases including allergies and atopies (56 dogs, 4yrs 11months ) Also likely some of those with no cause of death listed have also died of health related reasons. Granted that is only one breed in one country but the sample size is large enough.

Santa Cruz County (California) charges $40 for spay or neuter. You must show tax returns to document that you are low income to get the subsidy. Funding comes through local government. If I remember right, barn cats (semi-feral) can be done for $20.

Longevity studies are hard to find for dogs. The most complete and credible seems to be reported in the following link: http://www.thekennel...org.uk/item/549 It is too detailed for summary . . . provides links to give you mortality and morbidity data for all breeds for which adequate data were reported. KC/BSAVA Purebred Dog Health Survey 2004 The Kennel Club/British Small Animal Veterinary Association Scientific Committee joined forces with scientists in the Epidemiology Unit at the Animal Health Trust to carry out a nationwide survey of UK purebred dogs and, with the help of owners, to identify important health conditions in UK dog breeds during 2004. The Kennel Club Charitable Trust committed substantial funds to support this project, which could only succeed with the help of owners. Questionnaires were sent to the numerically largest club of each breed, and secretaries were asked to send them out to their members. Only the largest club of each breed was selected to try and avoid duplication, and also to limit the vast number, and therefore cost, of the 70,000 forms needed. The questionnaire was divided in different sections, concentrating on different types of information. There were questions on the health of the owner's dogs, breeding, causes of death and birth defects in any puppies. Breed clubs have received detailed feedback on the results of this survey where breed response rate was at least 15%, which should greatly assist with the recognition and control of important conditions in specific breeds. Data gathered from this survey will provide baseline information against which the success of future control schemes can be measured.

So well said Alyosha. Well said, but not correct as a matter of law. Having rights does not pass responsibilities back. A 2 yr old child has lots of rights, but no responsibilities. Some argue that the unborn have rights. A dying person or someone with serious brain injury has rights, but is incapable of taking responsibilities, and therefore not be held responsible by the law. Human owners have responsibility because they vest in animals rights to some minimal standard of care. Animals have rights because people recognise a responsibility to meet certain standards of care.

I am not attacking cocker spaniels, so there is no need to defend. However, it is incorrect to say that temperament is 99% training. If breeders are not willing to admit that bad temperament flaws can run in lines and stop breeding from dogs with bad temperament, breeds will deteriorate. I'm thinking of a reasonably popular stud dog, I won't mention the breed, but not a cocker, whose second, off-the-books call name was A##-hole, and who was known to throw stubborn and troublesome pups. In my book, that dog should have been neutered faster than a dog with 3/3 elbows.

Old age was 'old age' as reported by owners, so it could mean lots of things.

Do inquire about temperament (for any breed). http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/22/cocker-spaniel-aggressive.html World's Meanest Dog: The English Cocker Spaniel? May 22, 2009 -- A floppy-eared, innocent-looking breed may be one of the world's most aggressive dogs, according to a new study that found English cocker spaniels tend to be more hostile than other breeds. The discovery adds to the mounting evidence that aggressiveness is an inherited characteristic, suggesting that genes and breeding practices can both help determine how a dog will behave. "In our country and according to our database, the English cocker spaniel is the breed that shows more aggression problems," lead author Marta Amat told Discovery News. Amat, a researcher in the School of Veterinary Medicine at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and her colleagues analyzed 1,040 cases of canine aggression brought to a nearby veterinary teaching hospital from 1998 to 2006. Of those cases, the majority of cases were attributed to English cocker spaniels, Rottweilers, Boxers, Yorkshire terriers and German shepherds. Probing the data further, Amat and her team discovered that English cocker spaniels were more likely than other dogs to act aggressively toward their owners as well as unfamiliar people. In contrast, dogs with reported behavior problems from other breeds tended to act aggressively toward other dogs. Among the English cocker spaniels, golden varieties and males were found to be the most hostile. The findings, published in the latest Journal of Veterinary Behavior, confirm an earlier study conducted by a separate Spanish team from the University of Cordoba, which also found males and golden English cocker spaniels were more aggressive than females or those with black and mixed-color coats. In terms of coat color, Amat explained that the coat pigment melanin shares a common biochemical pathway with dopamine and other brain chemicals involved in the control of aggressive behavior. Next »21« Previous

I've recently shifted from BARF to Castor and Pollux All Natural . . . which I doubt you can get in Australia. It includes visibly identifiable dried bananas, peas, carrots . . . and contains about 4% menhaden (a cheap, oily fish sometimes used as stock feed) and has a fishy smell . . . rice is the only grain. Has done wonders for my girls coats. Hard to tell how much they appreciate it. They'd go whacko over a bowl of diced Wonder Bread with bacon drippings poured over it.

I think there are some uncharitable, judgmental people on DOL.

Ugh! I wish everyone in this discussion could live in a place where there are more pit bulls than Staffies. Yes, there are monster pit bulls, bred and managed to be monsters. There are pit bull X's, bred to be bigger and fiercer than the monster pit bulls. The idiots who make them that way deserve some sort of extreme management . . . desexing would be a punishment to fit the crime. But the average pit bull is a wag monster much like the average Staffie. Yah, it's not uncommon for either breed to be a bit DA, usually cause they haven't been socialised from an early age. I sympathise with staffy owners. I wouldn't want that sort of hate and fear spilling over onto my dog, either. But it's a mistake to give in to the notion that the fear and hate is justified. I also think the editorial misreads the AVA. The AVA says the legislation IS NOT A SOLUTION FULL STOP. . . and does not concede that it is even a temporary solution.

A cousin of mine had a dog lead that stated: MY MOMMY IS SINGLE. I kinda prefer that approach. Holding a cold synthetic hand is creepy.

see http://www.canine-ge...m/lifespan.html for full details This guy conducted a web based survey of standard poodle owners. His findings showed some interesting things: * cancer and bloat account for about three quarters of all deaths * average lifespan is a bit over 11 years * more inbred dogs are much more likely to suffer bloat * only 9.1% of dogs die of old age I find this interesting. Not sure if I believe the data though. The author (now deceased) was active in the Canine Diversity Project, which clearly affected the questions asked, but I'm not clear if it affected study results. I sure would like to see the equivalent for other breeds. Comments, anyone?

Couldn't find the letter. The link put me to a debate about energy sources.

I don't know a lot about cockers, but am aware there have been serious temperament problems in some lines. At least this answer will give you a bump, and you might get a reply from someone with more info.

I've seen this study mentioned many times. Thought it useful to post links for the original study. I think the underlined text below will give a link to the .pdf. It's an amazing study, both because the results are conclusive and because they observed their dogs for a full 15 years! https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_220_9_1315.pdf Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs Richard D. Kealy, PhD; Dennis F. Lawler, DVM; Joan M. Ballam, MS; Sandra L. Mantz; Darryl N. Biery, DVM, DACVR; Elizabeth H. Greeley, PhD; George Lust, PhD; Mariangela Segre, DSc; Gail K. Smith, DVM, PhD, DACVS; Howard D. Stowe, DVM, PhD Objective—To evaluate the effects of 25% diet restriction on life span of dogs and on markers of aging. Design—Paired feeding study. Animals—48 Labrador Retrievers. Procedures—Dogs were paired, and 1 dog in each pair was fed 25% less food than its pair-mate from 8 weeks of age until death. Serum biochemical analy- ses were performed, body condition was scored, and body composition was measured annually until 12 years of age. Age at onset of chronic disease and median (age when 50% of the dogs were deceased) and maximum (age when 90% of the dogs were deceased) life spans were evaluated. Results—Compared with control dogs, food-restrict- ed dogs weighed less and had lower body fat content and lower serum triglycerides, triiodothyronine, insulin, and glucose concentrations. Median life span was significantly longer for dogs in which food was restricted. The onset of clinical signs of chronic dis- ease generally was delayed for food-restricted dogs. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results sug- gest that 25% restriction in food intake increased median life span and delayed the onset of signs of chronic disease in these dogs. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:1315–1320)