sandgrubber

I agree. For rescues, where no baseline is available, thorough screening is appropriate. It would require a lot of study to say WHAT screening for what age/breed, etc. For young dogs in some breeds, I'd think hip Xrays would be more useful than blood work. I guess it makes sense to do oldies, too, although I'm 70 (borderline cholesterol, otherwise OK) and they don't recommend doing my blood work but every couple of years.Furthermore, as I get older they drop tests from the recommended panel... no more colonoscopies or boob xrays . Bottom line : better guidelines are needed. I think pressure to do (and bill for) unnecessary/unjustified tests results in resentment of vets. Vets get caught in the bind. Veterinary suicide rates are high... this very unclear question does not help.

Has anyone who does annual blood work (apart from the folks who need to do it to monitor some drug or condition) found it was useful for finding a problem early?

https://www.pethealthnetwork.com/dog-health/dog-diseases-conditions-a-z/retained-testicles-puppies Undescended testicle aren't good, and ate likely to be hereditary.

Not sure about prey drive being widely used as a training tool... I suspect many of the problem dogs had no training at all. But I think you hit the mark about failure to select against unpredictable, high drive, and unsocial temperament. The belittling of back yard breeders hasn't helped... I mean the old fashioned kind of BYB, selecting for the 'family dog' rather than breed, price, or show conformation: Where a family decides to breed a much loved pet because they would like to have a pup from her and at the same time teach the kids a bit about the facts of life...and have some pups to place with the neighbors. Not the money driven BYBs who sell litter after litter of the breed and color that's in vogue.

BBC News - Dogs' eyes evolve to appeal to humans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48665618

Evidence? I have read the opposite.

I asked precisely this question on skeptvet.com blogsite discussion of screening tests. It's worth reading the whole blog post, including the questions. http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2019/05/what-are-screening-tests-and-should-you-use-them/

I just looked at the pictures. The first few lines made it clear that this isn't research based (though the 2009 book it refers to probably is). I sure don't think the dogs in the photos look guilty. Anticipatory, maybe.

On the secondary subject here...more dog attacks: I have always scratched my head about why Oz bans pit bulls, yet staffies are extremely common (#2 in litter registration with ANKC) and AmStafs (which are genetically indistinguishable from APBTs) are allowed. Both are subject to BSL in the US and parts of Europe. There are bad apples in every breed, and people looking for a bad-ass dog will find those that fit their image of what is bad-ass...and breed from them. Easy to see that happening with staffies and AmStafs... or crosses thereof. With so many dogs acquired from shelters and internet sales, indiscriminately bred dogs pups and dogs and pups bred to be mean will often end up in the hands of people who can't cope with them. That cute wagging pup may not be so cute when mature. I don't see a good solution, but it's hard to see how the sorts of dog control measures becoming common in Oz are going to help. Cracking down on small breeders is definitely going the wrong way.

GSDs are complicated. Show/conformation judging criteria have promoted a sloped, sometimes arched back look that a lot of people (me included) think is unhealthy. The breed has a history of a lot of bad hips, and some people looking for guard dogs prefer aggressive types. If I were looking for a GSD, I would be looking for dogs that are health tested, but not show dogs. Ask breeders about what they are aiming for in temperament. When you find a breeder you like, describe the temperament you are looking for and let them select the pup.

Are you sure the problem is diet? You may want to talk to a vet. Pups can get tummy bugs.

I generally told puppy buyers that there were many diets that work (generally worded, Labs have been known to thrive on many different diets) . I think I suggested starting out with what I was feeding (mostly raw at the time) but said that scientific evidence about raw vs cooked was far from clear (the grain free nonsense wasn't yet big when I was breeding) and it was probably best to avoid canned food and the cheapest of supermarket foods. At some point I began passing on advice from my vet that raw chicken poses a salmonella risk for pups under 4 months and adding warnings about overfeeding. I have a science background but have also taken marketing courses. As I have often said on this forum, IMHO there's a lot of marketing and not much science differentiating dog food choices. I can't justify recommending any one diet. I am offended by your "isn't your problem" remark. P. S. To the best of my knowledge, none of my puppies ever had a food allergy or had dietary problems other than getting overweight.

Honestly, I don't understand why everyone recommends going with what the breeder recommends. Some breeders are suckered in by advertising and fads just as much as the general public. If they're an ambassador for the brand I think it means they get it at a discount for advertising it to puppy buyers and putting it on stuff at dog shows...not a good reason for you to buy that brand

I don't worry much about DDs. Here in NZ, it's obvious that the Huntaway was a designer dog... and the design worked. Rat terrier in the US .. Another successful design. Go back 150 years and you can add dozens if not hundreds of breeds to the list. I do, however, worry about commercial dog raising, ie puppy farms, whether pure or cross bred. Selection for $ does no good.

Opinion : unless I had good reason to suspect a food allergy - - or it was inexpensive - - I wouldn't bother. Dog food marketing has gone crazy with gimmicks. Itchiness from food allergies isn't all that common.

I'd put my money on the proposition that it's complicated, but basically some dogs are born to be neurotic, some can be driven to neurosis by owners or environment, and some are so stable you couldn't tip them over if you tried. The proportion of dogs in each category varies among breeds, as does the form of neurosis.

NO GUNSHY GUNDOG SHOULD BE BRED. FULL STOP. And it should be an automatic disqualification. Not fit for purpose. A gunshy dog is not a gun dog.

I'm not sure findings from Shetland sheep dogs and border collies can be generalized to all dogs. In my experience in the boarding kennel, BCs are particularly high strung (we didn't get any Shetland sheep dogs so can't say, there). I've owned Labs in periods of high stress. Their reaction to my blow outs was consistently calm and soothing. Perhaps they were affected... it would be interesting to have cortisol measurements, say, from dogs trained to work with people suffering from PTSD or severe spectrum disorders.

Heartbreaking photos of greyhounds caught in a Spanish hunting tradition https://www.washingtonpost.com/photography/2019/06/07/heartbreaking-photos-greyhounds-caught-an-age-old-spanish-hunting-tradition/

Not PC these days, but I find unwashed plastic containers that once held cream (best), milk, yogurt etc will keep a pup occupied for hours and won't damage teeth or, in the case that bits get swallowed, puncture innards. Fats seem to permiate plastic... So you could probably make something interesting by heating bacon drippings, etc in a plastic jug.

Years back a friend took her boy in for hip scoring. She had coffee rock mulch in garden beds. The Xrays showed many pebbles in his abdomen. Not good. Be sure she's not swallowing them.

She's still with me Like a phantom limb. At least I know her pain is over. True Labrador, she was munching the vet's treats when her heart stopped. I know the flowers on her grave are for me. She had no interest in flowers.

Same study? https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/madison/news/2019/05/06/trial-to-test-cancer-vaccine-on-dogs-begins

The most recent post on the skeptvet.com blog considers screening practices in veterinary medicine. Good to see vets looking for a balance between the pros and cons of testing. Bottom line : The challenge for veterinary medicine is to recognize the potential harms of screening and to actively collect evidence to identify the risks and benefits of specific tests in specific populations. The current approach of assuming the theoretical benefits of screening must apply and that harms are negligible is not consistent with the evidence from human medicine and not a cost-effective, evidence-based approach for improving the welfare of our patients. http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2019/05/what-are-screening-tests-and-should-you-use-them/

RIP Jarrah.