sandgrubber

We've all got our wish lists . .. many of them hinge on the Council doing a better job of enforcing laws written at the State level. My point is that dogs are usually LOW on the Council's list of priorities (although dog pooh sometimes gets a mention). Improved enforcement of existing laws is going to mean a lot of effort on councils' parts, and put their staff into lots of conflict situations. If people want councils to start enforcing dog laws, they are going to have to start making a lot of noise in local newspapers, show up at council meetings, and generally become active at the local level. Winging about council not enforcing laws on a pedigree dog site won't make a scrap of difference.

About 20% of the dogs who come to my boarding kennel are Labbies. I have never had a Lab in kennels who is recovering from cruciate surgery. I've had lots of other breeds in with 'cruciate under repair' notes. No denying that cruciate problems are possible. Labs are very very common, and you can find every disease known to dog found in Labs. But I don't think cruciate is one of the breed's weak spots. Despite the fact that a lot of labs pack on extra kilos. I have had diabetic Labs . . . in my experience, that's a bigger worry, given chronic obesity, than cruciate damage. Recovery time from surgery is also affected by weight.

Hard yards for breeders. Most pups are healthy. Most puppy buyers are great. But sometimes you end up with a pup that develops health problems and an owner that seems to want to inflate the costs. I'd say, try to figure out what the real costs are. Document as well as possible. Cover the real costs of treating a hereditary condition. Go no further. Get things in writing because this is a good way to get unrealistic demands rescinded . . . and because if it ever comes to a court contest, written evidence may be important. Be fair yourself, but take pains to document what you consider fair, and why.

Labs are usually good eaters, and it's much harder to get weigh off than it is to put it on (sadly, I can empathise). Better to start out underfeeding, and add, than to start out overfeeding, and end out having to diet. If you have access to a good scale, I'd suggest monitoring weight, and adjusting the food to end out with a healthy, stable weight.

Thanks everybody. I've heard some bad stories about shipping a bitch in pup. It stands confirmed, without a really strong case for doing a mating on this season, better to wait. There are lots of great dogs in the US. I have no doubt I can find a great stud dog. Australia hasn't established much of a reputation either way, and for Labbies, importing a dog is still viewed as an good way to improve the breed. No point to staying with the 'devil that I know.' Guess I'll have to do the hard yards researching the devils that I don't know.

What's the worry? Why not live with it?

'Germs' tend to increase in numbers rapidly when food is warm. But a healthy dog is able to deal with 'nasties' in its food very effectively. You can feed Salmonella-infected food that would make people very sick to a healthy adult dog and see no ill effects. As for the physiology of digestion . . . the closer to body temperature the better . .. less metabolic requirement. But really, this factor is nothing unless the dog in question is very fat or very skinny.

As I understand it, the heartworm parasite's lifecycle is pretty easy to disrupt. Doesn't need a lot of meds. To do your thing for the dog community, it's good to medicate your dogs, even if heartworm isn't currently a problem in your area. Heartworm is carried by mozzies, so if you live in an area with a lot of mozzies you have a potential heartworm problem. The drug companies want you to use lots. My vet tells me that every other month is often enough. And if it gets cold enough to wipe out the mozzies, you don't have to worry about those months.

I've been told 4 mo by vets I respect. Also been told that the monthly treatments can be given bi-monthly. You'll find lots of chatter saying that the annual vaccination may be dangerous. But it's also expensive. Daily is cheap, but a pain. Personally, I go with monthly, skip winter when we have no mozzies, and don't worry if it ends up every two months rather than every month. My mob think Heart Guard is a treat, so there's no problem administering it. Heart worm is a horrid parasite, but its lifecycle is pretty easy to disrupt. If I understand correctly, for it to go to the heart, your dog has to be infected by both a male and a female worm, they have to mate, and their larvae need to migrate to the organs. Available toxins seem to be effective in keeping this from happening.

With my guys, whatever is in front of them is their favorite food. They are unqualified gutsers.

Not from there . .. so I know nothing. But Markets in general are a wonderful place for socialising a dog. Take your older puppy -- given it's already pretty cool with people and leads, to a market several times, and you'll end out with a bomb-proof dog.

I keep hearing responses to dog management problems that say: "If only the laws that are already on the books were enforced." 99 of 100 times this means, if only the local council did its job correctly. My experience with councils in Australia hasn't been impressive. They seem to pay too little, have high staff turnover, and the people they recruit often aren't the sharpest tool (I taught at Uni for many years, and our marginal students often looked at council employment . . . the really good students NEVER did). And sadly, the old ranger, who many of us got to know and appreciate for his/her skill in navigating the bureaucracy for the good of dogs, is often retiring out of frustration or exhaustion. If the council's attention is heavily focussed on questions with multi-million dollar price tags, like land release, and by-in-large the power players are low-scorers in their knowledge about dogs, I think it's unrealistic to expect councils to get serious about enforcement of dog registration laws etc. If we want real solutions to dog management problems, I think they have to come from within the K9 community. Interested to know if others have common experience or any sense of how, generally, councils can be brought to take responsibility for dog management problems.

Have a look at the label on your BARF patties. I'll bet they're locally produced, and there's a good chance you can buy them direct -- or even have them delivered.

Sorry to be a worn out record in return, but what you've just described is owner behaviour. Owners who breed for the purpose of dogs being unsocial (or acquire dogs for such). Current laws re dog management need to be responsive to picking up people like this. In fact, there has been some work on searching out their profiles. Better to track those people, with prevention in mind. I'm not suggesting it here in OZ....but the French have tried one tack in this direction, by putting restrictions on dog ownership by people with certain types of criminal records. In your first sentence, you appear to be saying that all owners of APBTs breed their dogs to be unsocial & cultivate that image. How is that so, when there are owners of APBTs here on DOL who've documented how their APBTs are family friendly dogs? On my sole case of one female APBT that turned up, lost, on our fenceline....& grown men trembled at the thought of touching her....she turned out to be a highly biddable & good natured dog. Owned by people who didn't fit any stereotype for cultivating a savage image. Worth quoting again....the Spanish study which showed the strength of influence of owner behaviour... And the task force from the US Veterinary Association which also stresses owner behaviour as the key issue (& what ought be tracked)....whatever the dog, whatever the breed. There is no question that owners influence dog behaviour. I doubt you can find any reputable study that says dog behaviour is all nature, no nurture. There is also no question that breeding influences behaviour, and that there are some people who are drawn to 'tough' dogs. Some of those people breed deliberately to bring out aggression. All I'm trying to say is that overt and deliberate breeding for aggression at the breed level is reason for legislation. Were there a breed where the breed standard says the dog should be HA and/or DA, I would say that breed should not be brought into Australia. Where it is with specific bloodlines, I don't know. Maybe there is a way to go after specific bloodlines. It is awful to go after a whole breed because some people are doing everything they can to bring out vicious tendencies. The APBT situation is a mess, and I think a lot of people and bull breed dogs are suffering unjustly due to BSL. But reform at the council level is required to bring about the 'enforcement' miracle people keep saying is needed. I'd say that will happen when pigs can fly. A council here and a council there will be progressive and do a good job . . . but you're dreaming if you think it'll happen on a national scale.

Also, if you're feeling dog clucky and you like doing something for a dog, and you're tired of being wait listed, you might consider genuine rescue, from a shelter.

I'm waiting on a property to sell and then moving back to the US from Perth, WA. I'm bringing four dogs with. One is an older bitch who has been a great brood bitch and I figure is good for one more litter. I cannot predict my travel dates at this point. Question: should I just go ahead and breed her here (have a few good dogs in mind) and risk loosing the pups in transist? Or is the apparently horrible trip not-so-bad for a girl who gets support on both ends and has proven a good, fertile girl (unless I'm forgetting something, she's had 10 live births in each litter so far). Is it better to skip a season and try and find a good dog in a place where I know there are some great options . . . but I don't have contact

As others have stated, Labs aren't usually fussy and are usually gutsers. But there are exceptions. Could be a tummy bug of some sort. A practical vet may prescribe antibiotics to take care of this possibilty rather than go through a series of expensive, and possibly inconclusive, tests. I'd hang in there and watch unless the pup starts acting lethargic, unresponsive, slow, groggy, or showing a fever . . . and if you trust your vet, trust your vet on the diagnosis.

Not to get gross, but what sort of excretion problem are we talking about: porridge consistency, runny around the edges with some solids in the middle, or projectile liquid stuff immediately after eating. One of the vets I work with simply says "puppies get diahrroea (horrid word that I can't spell). When they're still nursing and relatively fragile you have to worry about it. When they're 8 weeks plus, especially if they aren't scrawny, so long as they're not acting sick (fevor, low energy, droopyness) just pick up the mess, keep an eye out for sicness, and get on with it.

I don't think the ANKC is sufficiently mercenary to understand what it takes in its $$ from to look after it's broader consitituency . . . nor do I think it is sufficiently tight in organisation to take on a political bun fight. Pedigree breeders need an institution to track and validate pedigrees and to support competitions that promote excellence in dog performance along working, obedience, or clever play (dancing with dogs) standards. I think you'll be disappointed if you ask the ANCK to step up to the plate in a BSL-related legal dispute. The dog breeding member in my extended family heartily agrees with you and argues thus --hence my comment earlier of the ultimate betrayal-- Surely it is not too much to ask that all dogs be represented, is it, in fact take that further to the argument that had ANKC from its instigation grown to be the custodian for ALL dogs no matter the breed and just managed show competition as ONE of their many functions with parity for all functions and levels of registration,they might have prevented the introduction of ANY BSL in Australia. It seems they have been too parochial and timid to take on the RSPCA headed by Wirth.

Personally, so long as the breed standard . . . or the bloodline standard . . . considers HA or DA to be a good thing . . . even if DA is called 'gameness' . . . I think there's a social justificaiton for BSL. I could see BSL directed toward breeds honed for aggression to other animals as well . . . that is, if greys tend to be bred to bring down cats and SWF's, I think there's reason to require that they are muzzled. But, in the case of the grey, there needs to be a way to take the muzzle off for the individual dog who has low prey drive and who curls up with the puss, rather than disemboweling it.o

Sorry to sound like a broken record (or do people even know what that means these days), but I think BSL is justified and good when the standards for the breed and the image cultivated by its owners is unsocial. I think BSL is unjust for the APBT, and even more unjust if the APBT image is reflected onto the ASBT. On the other hand, I'm glad we are worrying about 20 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad, rather than 50 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad. I wish the APBT community was doing a better job of getting their dog onto toilet paper adds and projecting the RCA Victor label and reducing the frequency of 'pitt bull eats child's testicles' sort of news. AND I'm glad that there are import prohibitions on some of the big, extremely protective, strong Mastiff-type dogs (eg, the Fila Brasiliero). It's not ok for the breeders to cull pups cause they are insufficiently aggressive to strangers at 12 weeks . . . it's not ok for specialty shows to say it's ok for the dog to bite the judge. I agree. The fact that present BSL law is entirely based around breed label means that every case comes down to...'.Is this dog one of those restricted under current law... or not?' So what gets into the courtroom, are ideas about dogs. But nothing about individual dogs behaving in ways that would endanger the community...or not. Or owner neglect or irresponsibility in setting dogs up to be a danger. The tragedy is that once BSL comes into the law, everything then hedges on ideas & even stereotypes about dog breeds. The fact that Tango has proven over time to be a harmless family pet, is totally irrelevant in the courtroom. All law exists to protect people, not to protect someone's ideas. But what has been found to protect people re managing dogs (from science & case studies) , doesn't come down to waving a breed label &/or having stereotypical ideas about dog breeds. So the current BSL laws are not protecting people, they only lead to fighting over ideas. What would protect people, is getting serious about current dog management laws that insist on registration, containment, leash control in public etc.

Sorry to sound like a worn out record, but I think BSL is justified and good when the standards for the breed and the image cultivated by its owners is unsocial. I think BSL is unjust for the APBT, and even more unjust if the APBT image is reflected onto the ASBT. On the other hand, I'm glad we are worrying about 20 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad, rather than 50 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad. It's both the BREEDING and the deed that are of concern. When, as with the Fila, the breed standard says the pup is supposed to snarl at unknown people by 12 weeks and it's ok if a dog bites the judge at a dog show, I'd say 'good thing these guys aren't allowed into Oz'. I wish the APBT community was doing a better job of getting their dog onto toilet paper adds and projecting the RCA Victor label and reducing the frequency of 'pitt bull eats child's testicles' sort of news. If the breed label isn't a good predictor of behavior, I wouldn't be breeding Labradors . . . and I think most pedigree breeders wouldn't be breeding the breed they fancy. I agree. The fact that present BSL law is entirely based around breed label means that every case comes down to...'.Is this dog one of those restricted under current law... or not?' So what gets into the courtroom, are ideas about dogs. But nothing about individual dogs behaving in ways that would endanger the community...or not. Or owner neglect or irresponsibility in setting dogs up to be a danger. The tragedy is that once BSL comes into the law, everything then hedges on ideas & even stereotypes about dog breeds. The fact that Tango has proven over time to be a harmless family pet, is totally irrelevant in the courtroom. All law exists to protect people, not to protect someone's ideas. But what has been found to protect people re managing dogs (from science & case studies) , doesn't come down to waving a breed label &/or having stereotypical ideas about dog breeds. So the current BSL laws are not protecting people, they only lead to fighting over ideas. What would protect people, is getting serious about current dog management laws that insist on registration, containment, leash control in public etc.

It is upsetting when bad news comes from the blue. You need to verify that the 'bad news' isn't, in fact, a result of an incompetent job of x-raying . . . which can and does happen. If it is real, then you have to deal with it responsibly. As lots of people will tell you, some dogs with rotten hip scores lead very healthy lives and show no sign of being dysplasic. But if the scores are bad, forget stud work. Good luck. Let us know what Dr Wyburn says. Pay attention to his notes about the quality of the X-ray.

Wild thought, not reasoned and researched response. 1. It can happen out of the blue and some dogs who should be fine are radiologically HD. 2. Bad positioning can cause apparent HD where there is none. 3. How bad is it? Some dogs with bad scores get through life with no consequences . . . probably best life as a neuter . . . important to keep them lean and with muscle tone.