sandgrubber

We live in a kennel zone and carry a 50 dog license. We pay $15/dog for the license. We are not required to register resident dogs.

The discussion of forum moderation leaves me curious to know if people use the Report button. Probably better not to replay the circumstances under which you used it . . . no need to reopen old wounds.

Reminds me of a tiny little filler article in a local paper I saw a long time ago. Simply reported the costs of re-upholstering the police car after some kids let a skunk loose inside of it. If you've ever smelled skunk close up you'll appreciate this as droll Yankee humor. Sometimes a hundred words can convey more than a video.

Interesting you claim APBT, SBT, BTx and ASBT (whatever they are but it proves my point) are one and the same, so do I (except for BTx). In other jurisdictions so is the Boxer and any shorthaired muscular looking dog, as is the AmBulldog. I agree apples and pears is a poor comparison, chalk and cheese much better. Interesting how you misinterpret my words and think anyone has proven any point. I went up a step in the Linnean system and aggregated species into genus. I can imagine places where similar use of aggregation might aggregate Homo sapiens, H. erectus, and the the Austrailopithocenes (H something-or-other) . . or go up another notch and class us together with the chimps and gorillas to say something about some primate group. That is not to say there is no difference between us and our ancestral species or taxonomic cousings . . . or that there's no difference between an apple, a pear, and a nashi pear. Just to say we're part of a larger group stemming from a common origin -- as are apples and pears. Chalk and cheese do not share common ancestry, so far as I know. As to dogs . . . the boxer originates the Mastiff group and does not fall in the same branch of the family tree as the bull terriers. Dog family trees get messy, cause in theory, all of them can interbreed. More basically, to quote Bill Gates: "Show me the numbers." If the available data are poor, tell me where I can find better. Saying the CDC never concluded there were breed specific problems is not satisfactory. Maybe the CDC was under pressure of some sort that prevented them from taking a position. Every data set I come across points to a problem.

Actually, the Doggo is a breed largely created by one person and he had fighting in mind. I can't speak to 'all Doggos', but I think some of them still have quite a bit of fight left in them. As for the fila, it's a breed I'm glad is banned. So long as the breed standard calls for extreme hostility toward strangers, which should be shown at an early age, and specifies that the dog should not be faulted for biting the judge at a dog show, I think the breed has no place in Australia. It's guarding function also included tracking down runaway slaves in the old days. Kidnapping of children for money is big business in Latin America, and there's a role for fierce guard dogs. Not here. (To verify, try Google and go for official breed sites and major breeder websites).

Thinking about this thread, some day I think I'll have a 'game' litter . . . and name the pups things like Monopoly, Tiddly Winks, Black Jack, and Two Card Stud.

Many years ago when I lived in New Hampshire (USA) they busted a local town cop, a deeply unpopular bloke with a miserable life story, for shooting pets in New Hampshire, cutting off their ears, and collecting on the bounty on feral dogs in Vermont (the next state over). There are some sick and sad people out there; there always are. The bloke, btw. wasn't arrested. He was demoted. But because he was the one and only town cop in his town, the demotion didn't mean much.

Sorry to be petty, but 'amounts of dogs'? Please. Numbers of dogs. Dogs are counted as individuals, not measured by the kilo. If Labbies and Goldies seem to be targeted, it's likely that they're doing resale, especially if pups are being taken. I can't imagine using breeds that won't be a good fight being targeted for 'bait' in the fighting ring.

If I find the data messy and can't separate apples from pears, I go to the category 'pom fruit' or Roseaceae -- something that encompasses both apples and pears. Likewise, if there are real problems separating SBT, ASBT, APBT and BTX's, the normal way to deal with ambiguity is to move to something like 'bull breeds'. If this is done, the results will still look bad. Try that with the NSW dog attack data . . . the bull breeds are in big trouble. Yah, yah, yah . .. the APBT barely makes a showing in the years since BSL appeared in NSW; that's probably because a ranger who reported an APBT attack would immediately be pilloried by a 'boss' for improperly managing a restricted beed, so it's easier to say 'bull terrier or bull terrier cross'. In my observations, in Australia, in Europe and the US, the bull terrier group has a wide range of temperaments. I love the 'good' Staffies and have met some very loveable APBT's and ASBTs. In the broad sweep of things, I think bull terrier folk need to knuckle down and push people into breeding out aggression. Instead I see them attacking people who hold up the best available data and implying they are Nazis and saying that the best available data are rubbish. If you don't like Sachs et al, please let us know where better data are to be found, or even, what methodology you'd recommend, given the great confusion that 95+% of the population has distinguishing the various bull breeds, to come up with more accurate data, and the immense difficulty of coming out with accurate breed identification at a state or national level.

I brush my dogs teath daily by giving them bones to chew on. The vets regularly comment on how good my dogs teeth look. I think dog tooth brushing is a big rip off. If they eat even semi-naturally their teeth stay good.

I allow and encourage 'drop in' inspections, but try to steer them toward less busy periods of the day when the kennel will be open and attended. . . ie, not the middle of a feeding cycle or bath time.

I would check around for information on the boy's sire and dam and any siblings to find out whether that's a 'good' 8:8 or a 'bad' 8:8. I was confronted with a similar choice years back and opted to do an AI with chilled semen instead of use the local boy with less-than-excellent hip scores. I think the bottom line is 8:8 to 0:0 could produce lots of outcomes, and on the whole you'd expect scores to come down from 8:8 . .. but they could go worse. I was told that the Rotti people allow or disallow matings based on the total score of the sire and dam. The story was that they were finding that focus on hip scores was resulting in generally smaller, lighter bodied dogs. The combined score approach was used to allow people to bring really sturdy dogs -- who may tend to have worse scores -- back into the breeding pool. Maybe a Rotti person can shed more light here, as this was an over-the-fence conversation and I may be repeating something that's incorrect. My memory was that people view the combined score approach satisfactory. Btw, some people seem to end out with high scores. I think maybe they come from the pup spending too much time on concrete or not getting the right sort of exercise . . . who knows. If there's something like that going on 8:8 may be a good score.

I would check around for information on the boy's sire and dam and any siblings to find out whether that's a 'good' 8:8 or a 'bad' 8:8. I was confronted with a similar choice years back and opted to do an AI with chilled semen instead of use the local boy with less-than-excellent hip scores. I think the bottom line is 8:8 to 0:0 could produce lots of outcomes, and on the whole you'd expect scores to come down from 8:8 . .. but they could go worse. I was told that the Rotti people allow or disallow matings based on the total score of the sire and dam. The story was that they were finding that focus on hip scores was resulting in generally smaller, lighter bodied dogs. The combined score approach was used to allow people to bring really sturdy dogs -- who may tend to have worse scores -- back into the breeding pool. Maybe a Rotti person can shed more light here, as this was an over-the-fence conversation and I may be repeating something that's incorrect. My memory was that people view the combined score approach satisfactory. Btw, some people seem to end out with high scores. I think maybe they come from the pup spending too much time on concrete or not getting the right sort of exercise . . . who knows. If there's something like that going on 8:8 may be a good score.

Kennel cough is like flu. Lots of strains. Some of them awful. Some just a little uncomfortable and annoying. If the strain is mild, I recon it's like a free vaccination . . . something to train the immune system . . . and I make no attempt to isolate my own dogs. If it's a deep really sick sort of sick cough, I'd ask the vets advice. If it's going around the vet may have direct information about how long it will last, and how long it takes to show up.

I didn't look at this thread cause I know nothing about Antibiotic Q. Cephelexin . . . ya . . . everybody is right. It's the same stuff as Rilexene and some vets prescribe a more generic Ceph. I've taken dog meds on occasion to guard against infection from dog bites, and I've given my own pills to the dogs on occasion (with veterinary advice). No diff. although I don't much care for liver-flavored tablets. Doses are variable, but a medium dose for a Labrador is close to a human dose.

If my vet wouldn't sign off I'd direct them to the AVA website. If that didn't convince them, I'd change vets. . . . unless a good reason is given for going against the AVA guidelines and the preponderance of scientific evidence The reason it will be hard to get clear answers is that the people who make $$ off annual vaccinations will be slow to give up. Btw, there are still reasons to do an annual checkup. It may help you in getting the vet to sign off on 3 yr to make it clear that you still intend to do check ups. That would be good but my vet will not sign off on a i year vacc for 3 years and if I don't have a yearly or triennel vacc I cannot go to dog training or take my adult dogs along when we have Puppy pre school. My vet will not sign off on a 1 year vacc for 3 years. I do not give Proheart anyway, so no drama there.

Denominators are easy to supply . . . and the conclusions generally get stronger when data are normalised cause the alleged problem breeds are less common than retrievers in Canada or GSD's in Europe. Yes, the data are ugly. But I doubt they are off by a factor of 10: Especially if you normalise them by the abundance of the breeds in question. As statistical evidence goes the data in the Sachs paper is next to useless, firstly there is no denominator and secondly there are too many 'unknown' cases. Without a denominator its not possible to come to any meaningful conclusion on the relative risk from different breeds. This becomes more evident when you look at data from other countries where different breeds are popular. In Canada you find large numbers bites from retriever breeds and in Europe you get more from GSDs. Other papers have attempted to correct for this both here and the US. The results are fairly inconsistent but generally risk seems to be more related to the size of the dog, ie bigger dogs bite harder not the breed. There are also too many other more important factors to become preoccupied with breed alone. S btw, if you want some Australian data that are normalised by breed prevailence try this http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/docu...June%202005.pdf Rottis come off fine but pittis are still indicated.

I pay US taxes, and I'd call the CDC driven by involuntary donations . . . but that's a different issue. I don't know Gilchrist from a bar of soap and have not had good experiences in emailing a Center with 1000+ employees and expecting a straight answer. I'll give it a try. But won't hold my breath. I don't see indication that the CDC has backed away from Sachs . . . who is the first to admit the biases of his study and draws highly tempered conclusions. I once worked with futurist predictions based on computer models. Data are always dicey when it comes to important issues. I would love to see data that the anti-BSL people consider 'good'. But until clean data are available, I take the best data I can find and regard it as potentially/probably skewed against certain breeds by media bias. Still doesn't look pretty for the bull breeds and rotti. Unfortunately, this agrees with my extensive personal experiences with dogs (I run a boarding kennel) and I'm inclined to think there is something to the data, even if it is biased. It p's me off to see thread entries like Decided To Check Nsw Dog Attacks Proving BSL is based on rubbish! . . . and see NO proof whatsoever that the data are rubbish. Biases, sure. Most data are biased. But the leading data are collectd by professionals with attempts to compensate for bias. It p's me off to hear people calling other people's observations crap and accuse them of being ill informed and biased. Bottom line seems to be there are no good unbiased data and we are all biased by our own personal beliefs and experiences. The anti-BSL community, in my observations, are looking strongly like they are in denial. Mind you, not the Rotti community. The pedigree/show Rotti people I know recognise there is a problem and manage their breedings, dog contaimen, dog training, and puppy placements with respect of the problem. But a lot of bull breed people seem to think the way to solve the PR problem is to attack the messenger. Not smart.

Will anything be reported. No way can I fly from WA . . . but very interested in anything breeder related dealing with heart problems or cancer. I'm quite confused in sorting out hereditary vs environmental on these counts. Please give us a report on what is said.

Confusing! They say Sachs et al do not identify specific breeds. Sachs et al carefully avoid recommending BSL, but they unquestionably use breed . . . or breed-type identifiers and the data presented show extremely strong trends. They also include lots of well-justified caveats about the difficulties of correct breed identification. It's a hard area to get good data for, but I don't think that justifies ignoring the data that are available and calling people biased, ignorant, etc. when they express the opinion that certain breeds may be a problem. Yes . .. husky-type group includes different breeds with some differences in tendencies; kelpie-type (which Sachs et al don't consider cause they're rare in the USA) will group pedigree kelpies and working dogs of various breeding; and separating the 'pit' from other bull breeds is something that only a few people in a hundred (if that) people can do reliably. The data are imperfect, but not bad enough to be dismissed as 'crap'. When I bring a new dog into boarding kennels, on first cut, my expectations fall along breed lines. Some breeds have a lot of yappers. Labbies are gutsers. Bull breeds and X-breeds require careful handling and it's often better not to mix them with other dogs. All the dog fights I've had in kennels have involved bull breeds, mostly barneys involving two dogs from the same household who are being boarded together. I don't advocate BSL, but I tend to get verbally aggressive when I see people hiding their heads in the sand. S

I never said or came close to saying it is just the breed. Nor would I. I am not dumb and I have observed a lot of people and their dogs. I know environment affects behaviour. Please don't insult me.

I'm reminded of a fellow Group 3 (gun dog) breeder who imported a pup from the UK. great looking dog, Crufts-certified sire and dam. expensive exercise. As an adult, the dog mauled an un-related puppy. The breeder had the dog pts because she wanted to avoid any possible further association of her lines with aggressive behaviour. If others were as conscientious, hereditary tendencies to aggression would not be an issue. Problem is, lots of breeders won't cull (by desexing or pts) when aggression shows up . .. and a few deliberately promote aggression.

Ask yourself if its just the breed or the types of people who buy them and how they are treated.. Karen Delise's book Fatal Dog Attacks concluded that the reasons a dog are acquired, such as image enhancement or 'protection' contribute to the liklihood of it being involved in such attacks. I cannot recommend that book too highly. Consider also that nearly all research on dog aggression concludes that breed identification is questionable in the data. Any breed CAN bite. However propensity to bite (bite threshold) and the amount of damage a bite can cause vary significantly between breeds. I've only ever been bitten by one dog - a Pekingese. I doubt anyone would compare a bite from that dog with one from a large powerful breed and conclude that the danger was the same. Another excellent paper on the subject of dog aggression to people and which includes some discussion of breed, can be found here Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers rate a mention. Bear in mind that breed popularity plays its part in how frequently such dogs rate in statistics. Breed popularity and the extent to which the dog is likely to be left unsupervised with kids -- some of whom will torture a dog, and many of whom will encourage rough play. My experience in placing Lab pups and getting feedback from puppy-buyers show there is a problem with people thinking that Labbies and Goldies are benign nannas that can be trusted with kids. I've had two who reported child-biting. Both allowed and encouraged rough play and left kids unsupervised in working out their relationship with the puppy --> dog. Run-scream-puppy chase seems fun to the kids, but it easily teaches a dog to bite, not out of meanness, but as an element of being inadvertently trained to treat children as they would a sibling or other young dog. I have rewritten my 'puppy care' sheets to warn against this, but lots of people ignore or forget instructions, so I don't think I've solved the potential problem. Please read the Sachs et al article. Their conclusions carefully and strongly qualify the 'anti-breed' reflex that may come out of the data. They speak out against BSL. But the statistical evidence, even if corrected for various biases, is VERY strong. I have done a lot of work with statistical evidence, and rarely find anything as damning as the data in Sachs et al. is to pittis and rottis. Even if corrected for likely biases, this data would be scary. I find it irritating when anti-BSL campaigners come out and say that the statistics are 'crap'. I have yet to see any set of dog fatality statistics that doesn't show a few breeds to be especially problematic, even where the people compiling the data are neutral, and interpret the data away from the obvious breed-specific conclusions. Denial of a problem usually allows the problem to grow.

Great article. Deserves mention in the 'studies about dogs' thread of the General discussion'. Might add, that Labs and GR's are often trusted too much. Kids are often wild or mean in relating to dogs. Even the most placid of dogs may bite kids in self-defense. I wish dog-bites-kid observations were coupled with observations of kid-tortures-dog. The 'bitten kid' scenario that bothers me most is the one where kids aren't supervised. They either encourage rough play or torment the dog. The dog, after months of toleration or encouragement, finally strikes back or escalates rough play and the kid gets hurt. I was bitten in the face by an Irish Setter when I was four. I'm sure I deserved it.

The 'studies about dogs' thread discusses a study of the prevailence of intestinal parasites in dogs and cats. Interesting: giardia is the most common dog parasite. Does anyone know what Giardia does in dogs? or how it is treated?