sandgrubber

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?

This is the 'CDC' study often quoted in the BSL debate. Executive summary below Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD; Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM; Randall Lockwood, PhD (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840) . Objective—To summarize breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to assess policy implications. Animals—Dogs for which breed was reported involved in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF). Procedure—Data for human DBRF identified previously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of the United States’ registry databank. Results—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55(24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners’ property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property. Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. Full article can be found here Oops. I thought I was posting this under 'studies about dogs'. I'm tired of hearing people argue about dog bite/dog attack statistics on these forums without giving references. Oops

A well written paper . . . thoughtful conclusions. The data shown tend to make me angry with the anti-BSL people who jump on others saying that 'any breed can bite' and APBTs are no more dangerous than a Labrador, etc. There does seem to be a problem with bull terrier types and Rottis. I . . . and a few other breeds. I agree with Sachs that BSL is not the way to address it. But denial is a bad idea. And the worse the denial, the more likely it is that society will resort to BSL. Yep and here is the data through to 1998 from the same author.

Try it the other way around ... aggression can be bred out. In some breeds that has been done quite successfully. You will get very frustrated trying to make a shutzhound out of a well-bred Labrador. In other breeds some attack tendencies have been preserved because the dogs are used for guarding. You can get throwbacks to 'wild' levels of aggression in any breed. And the 'preserved' aggressive traits in some breeds may turn out to be hard to control, or easy to encourage/set off in some individuals. There are also dogs who are sick in the head and aggressive because of it (I have a toy poodle who comes to my kennel who bites everyone, including her owner, and has done so from an early age). It seems to be common for dogs that are aggressive in the breeding are loyal, protective, and gentle to family members. Read the breed standard for the filho Brasilioro for a demonstration of this.

I find that cutting back amount is better than going low fat. If I put a Lab on a low fat diet I get a dull coat and a hungry dog. If I just feed less, I get a hungry dog but the coat stays ok.

I keep coming across anti-BSL discussions saying this or that data are biased and the CDC data show that breed does not predict propensity to attack. I was just on the CDC site and the only dog attack data I could find was a paper by Sachs et al that is rather damning to the pitti and rotti. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog50.pdf Where is the data that are supposed to be unbiased?

Total crap. You don't know anything about them. Dogs were bred to fight, but bred to be people safe. Fighting other dogs doesn't equate to attacks on people, never has, never will. No medium to large sized dog should be owned by idiots. There has never been a fatal attack by a pitbull in Aust. What does that tell you? Pitbulls are way down the attack list stats, even when they are numerically adjusted. Be frightened of cattle dogs, german shepherds, labradors, they are way ahead of pitbulls. Do you research before posting your feelings disguised as fact, and fact shaped by skewed media propaganda. Top post Jed Are you saying that the Sachs et al data on fatal attacks is total crap? See table below (source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog50.pdf)

oops . . deleted

I wouldn't waste your own time worrying about it. If you're looking to pass off a shoddy product you consider the people who look for quality assurance to be time wasters.

I wouldn't waste your own time worrying about it. people looking to pass off a shoddy product consider the people who look for quality assurance

have a read of the other 56 (and rising) comments on the story. What venom. There are some strong BSL supporters out there. Why? It's not my assertion, it was published as a comment in the Herald Sun by someone who alleges they know the family. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/...x-1225844490946

I totally agree! Tell the drug companies. The 'one year' label was never supported by research . . . other than drug company calculations that they'll make more money if dogs are vaccinated annually. There are suggestions that the 'one year' = 'three year' vaccines (I'm not sure they are identical, but I've heard vets say there's no difference) are actually good for life ... except of course where something goes wrong and a vaccinated dog gets the disease. It's a big step forward that the AVA has heeded the weight of scientific evidence and gone to the 3 year protocol as a basic recommendation for core vaccinations. Personally, I'd like to see more quality control on vaccines. It really pisses me off when puppies are made sick by a bad batch. If that happened with a vaccine used on humans there'd be multi-million dollar lawsuits. A muddle has been created. I think education is required to clear it up.