sandgrubber

That's going to confuse the issue on e-collars! Put a tracker on your dog and get busted by the RSPCA!

+1. It's great to hear the follow up stories. Great that it was just one of those things and he's looking good and healthy.

Correction is not, or should not be, a euphamism for punishment. Correction has a place in training. Punishment does not. An unskilled trainer may simply punish when he intends to correct . . . in which case he is simply being cruel and not actually teaching the dog anything :D . try google and read through some other definitions for punish . . . many of the definitions you find use words like retribution, inflict, cause to suffer. One definition I turned up said: "treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way." Another: "to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or foul". The Wikipedia definition above does not specify a motive for punishment. The motive for correction is implicit in the word . . . to correct. Dictionary definitions of correct generally say something like "put right" . . . or "free from error" and seldom say anything about inflicting pain or unpleasant outcomes. Cruel and unusual punishment is a much heard phrase (due to the US Constitution) . . . I've never heard anyone speak of "cruel and unusual correction". You make corrections to a machine when it is off track. Punishing a machine would be pointless. I would say a spanking is a punishment . . . but not a correction . . . it tends to be done when a parent is angry and isn't particularly good at preventing a repeat of the behavior, though it may cause fear. etc., etc., etc.

IMO if it ain't shocking it ain't a shock. I have used e-collars. I find them more trouble than they are worth. But at the low settings that are used for most training (not aversion training), they are about as shocking as a light pin prick. My dogs were far more bothered by the vibration mode (which is a vibration, rather like you mobile phone's vibrate mode) than by the electric signal. As for 'correction' vs 'punishment' . . . a correction is done to correct, systematically, and unlike a punishment, must not be anger-based or aimed to hurt.

Yea I have to agree, my boy was having some anal gland issues for a while, vet advised to increase bone consumption for a short period and it worked perfectly. ...and again I learned something new :) wrt 'digestible' bones: all natural bones are somehow digestible respectively can provide nutrients / minerals, the problem with the cooked / BBQed ones is that they tend to splinter forming sharp objects that can cause internal injuries. My dogs got fat eating chicken frames. :) Our source delivered frames skin-on with big globs of fat. It's kinda hard to divide frames into smallish bits. 1 1/2 per day is too much. 1 was too little. I find weight control much easier with biscuits.

While the VIC dog laws are absurd, the "Calgary Model" is not universally applauded in Calgary. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/relationship-between-breed-specific-laws-and-dog-bites-unclear-studies I'd encourage anyone attending to ask the hard questions.

let's crunch some numbers: ... one of my food packages for the dog states: 350 kcal/100 g metabolizable energy; feeding my dog (17 kg) 250 gr equals approx. 900 kcal (it's actually 875 kcal, but let's keep it easy) or 3.7 MJ - only a part of this energy is transferred into heat as the dog runs respectively does physical work over the day. Now let's assume I roll out my entire garden hose in the garden and we have a sunny day with 25 deg C air temperature (yes, there will be temp variation - let's keep it simple) - the garden hose holds 17 kg water (to allow comparison with my dog's weight - it would need to be a pretty long garden hose so...however, dogs body - like humans - are mostly made out of water so it will allow for some comparison). After 2-3 hours laying in the sun the water in the garden hose gets pretty hot and hit peak temperature of approx. 50 deg C where it stays for a while till the sun goes down. At this peak point where it reaches 50 deg C the energy intake into the hose via radiation equals the energy outtake via conduction (laying on the grass) and convection (via the air). Now, just to get the hose to the 50 deg C (we know this is easily possible) it needs at least the following heat energy: delta temp. x mass x heat capacity of water...if I got the math right that equals approx. 2.5 MJ (assuming a tap water temp = 15 deg C, heat capacity of water = 4.18 kJ/kgK)...in approx. 2-3 hours. The real heat intake via radiation will be even higher as I neglected the losses via conduction to the ground / grass and convection to the air (and the amount the hose radiates back - but that is really negligible). Now we have 2.5 MJ in 2-3 hours (0.8 MJ per hour) vs 3.7 MJ metabolizable energy (where only a part is transferred in heat energy) in 24 hours (0.15 MJ per hour)...pretty impressive figures indicating the heat intake via radiation can be indeed significant higher than the metabolizing energy. Of course the dog would try to find some shade (if they allowed to do so), but also here the indirect radiation will allow for some substantial additional heat intake every creature has to cope with. You could argue now that the looooong garden hose will provide much more surface compared to the compact body of a dog thus the radiation into the dog's body is significant less...well, then look at the old water solar heater drums on the roofs, the radiation does the job here too. Here is a question for you: lets assume we could breed a dog with a coat that provides a 'perfect' insulation and with 'perfect' I mean an insulation where heat transfer in both direction is close to zero. Equipped with such a coat the dogs natural temperature regulating system (panting = evaporation cooling through the mouth / nose) just has to cope with the metabolizing energy depending on the activity level - it wouldn't matter whether it is too hot or too cold outside because there is no heat transfer through the 'perfect' coat at all....so why would you take this coat off for summer? There's a MAJOR difference in geometry between a dog and a garden hose. Compare surface to volume ratios... simplify by assuming both are cylindrical. The dog has a radius of what, say 100 mm. The hose more like 20 mm. If you follow through the geometry, the hose would absorb 5x as much energy per unit length as the dog. If the dog is 1 m long and the hose is 10 meters, there's a fiftyfold difference in surface/volume. a major factor in absorbtion of radiation/kg mass. Also note that the hose cannot cool itself using evaporative cooling. Moreover, anyone who leaves a dog in direct sun on a hot day is guilty of animal cruelty. "Perfect insulation" is about as realistic as perpetual motion. If we could create perfect insulation in smallish objects, we could have freezers that required almost no energy, and the cost of approaching absolute zero would be vastly smaller. To obtain even a freezer that doesn't cost the earth to cool requires 50+ mm of rigid, closed cell foam like substance . . . probably much more effective insulation than the thickest of dog coats. (Has anyone seen anything written on the R value of dogs' coats? Would be interesting to have this information to model this question). A perfectly insulated dog would cook; more rapidly if it was active and ate a lot. Dogs evolved to thermoregulate in environments that are, on average, at least 10 degrees below the dog's core temperature (Average global temperature is around 14 C . . . warmer in say, savannah regions where many dogs seem to originate . . . but still nowhere near a daily average of 39C. I don't think anyplace on earth even has an average daily maximum temperature above 35 C. Remember, Iditerod dogs begin to suffer overheating when temperatures go above freezing. here's a relevant link . . . looks like daily averages above 30 C are few and far between. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/warmest-places-on-earth-average-annual-temperature If you have 3.7 MJ a day (btw. work energy degrades to heat . . . remember entropy) energy input and zero energy output you're going to end up pretty damn hot. p.s. the study of mammology regards panting as more effective than sweating in two dimensions. First, panting is easier to regulate. Second, it doesn't cause loss of electrolytes (salt in sweat). On the negative side, panting requires energy and generates heat. As usual, biology is complicated ;) . See, eg., https://books.google.com/books?id=Ugq5BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=evaporative+cooling+mammals&source=bl&ots=waPfv9hE_B&sig=ichtssKbQKKqcclmz1ZC2fCic6E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCGoVChMIv9mhlerdyAIVRuUmCh1OaQAd#v=onepage&q=evaporative%20cooling%20mammals&f=false

I was reading about this just recently for a uni assignment. I was reading specifically about the thick coats of camels but it can be applied to other animals, like dogs, who have thick coats in very hot environments. Basically, thick coats actually reflect heat energy from the sun, rather than absorb it, so it's like having a special coat on that bounces heat away from you and keeps you cool underneath. This links to your humidity theory well because these desert animals with thick coats don't have to deal with humidity. So I would agree with you that it seems that thick coats struggle with the Australian humidity, rather than the heat. Please give references. The fraction of incoming solar radiation that is reflected is called "albedo" in physics. It aligns pretty closely, but not exactly, with color. I have never seen comparison of sun effects on a white vs. a black dog . . . would be helpful to know. Also recognize that there are other reasons for a thick coat. In the case of camels, abrasion by wind blown sand could be pretty nasty. Another set of question marks is raised by the definition of "double coat". Thin overcoat over thin undercoat is quite different from thick undercoat with water-shedding overcoat. The physics of boundary layers . . . and insulation generally . . . can be complicated as they get into turbulent flux, an area that drives even rocket scientists crazy. It's quite possible that evolution has come up with some coat patterns that are superbly suited to desert conditions . . . but may not look like it.

I agree completely, though I live a long way from SA and dislike Facebook. Would be worth adding a few notes about who should write (or phone?) and who they should write to. btw. as used in aversion training, e-collars are often shock collars. But I agree, in other training the word "shock" is inappropriate, and the aversive delivered by a properly used collar is less strong than a yank on a choke chain or a sonic correction.

that's the point, take away the coat and the skin respectively the blood will absorb the sun radiation heating up the whole body (pretty the same like a reverse AC heating up a room in winter (with the cooling agent = blood) - unfortunately, for the dog in this case the heat transfer happens in summer. Problem for the dog's skin is that it can't dispatch the surplus heat via radiation (as you pointed out), nor via evaporation (like humans), so the only way is panting (via mouth) and a little bit via convection over the skin which is minimal due to the still very low temperature difference and the low heat coefficient of air as the major drivers for convection. We all deal with thermodynamics on a daily basis though few people understand it. Cooling via panting is actually pretty effective, at least if it isn't humid (evaporative coolers don't work well when it's muggy). The dog's nose contains some nice equipment for evaporative cooling . . . these are good at bringing down the core temperature. Lots of blood transport involved. The brachy breeds are handicapped in this and handle heat very badly, hence they tend to overheat, and airlines tend to ban them. I still don't get your model. Are you saying that heat gain from solar radiation is higher than heat gain through metabolism?. In most cases this isn't true, and hot dogs can and do seek shade to avoid radiative warming from direct sunlight. They're not dumb! The full model must recognize that warm blood metabolism generates a fair amount of heat, and requires a relatively constant core temperature to stay alive. Dogs that evolved in cold climates have wonderful insulation. Unfortunately, this backfires when they are put into hot, especially hot-humid (so the evaporative cooling system gets crippled) environments. Usually Temp(dog) is higher than Temp(air) and the dog has no trouble shedding body energy. When Temp(air) gets higher, it gets harder to keep energy in balance. Having a thick coat makes it harder to keep balance. Blood is a cooling agent when it moves from the dog's nose--cooled by evaporative cooling--to the core, brain, etc.. Elsewhere, muscles etc. generate heat from metabolism, and the circulatory system evens out temperature between parts of the body. There's also some amazing blood warming stuff that goes on in the feet and allows dogs to walk on frozen ground for hour after hour. Try playing around with your mobile phone or a lightbulb -- both of which are warmed by internal energetics (electricity not metabolic, but heat is heat. . . it behaves the same regardless of how it was generated). Not a bad analog for a dog that is heated by metabolic processes. Experiment with putting fabric over the body . . . stick a thermometer in. You will see that they tend to heat up when given an insulating layer: in the case of the phone, by a few degrees; a lot more in the case of the light bulb.

Bad analogy. Heat energy flows from warmer to cooler areas. You want insulation to keep your house around 20-25C when ambient is 30C +, to prevent heat from flowing in. Your dog is NOT a refrigerator. A dog's temperature is well above ambient except on days where it's above 39 C. Removing insulation allows body heat to get out! There are devils in the details. A dual coat is like wearing a weatherproof parka over a thick jumper. It is not clear whether raking the undercoat . . . which amounts to trading a thick jumper to a thin one . . . is more effective than shaving off the outer coat. it is actually a very good analogy. You are right that the heat energy flows from warmer to cooler areas - but you miss the impact of transferring energy via radiation and a body that is absorbing the energy...you have to look at the whole energy balance. The dog's body can absorb a lot of heat / solar energy, but to get rid of the same amount (so you have a balance of energy going in and out) the temperature needs to be significant higher than the outside temperature. If this is the case, then your theory works. Unfortunately, in this case the dog would be already dead as his body temperature has to be much higher than the normal body temperature of 38-39 deg. ??? Energy lost by radiation is proportional to temperature to the 4th power. Very hot objects (the sun, fires, red hot metal, etc.) loose a lot of energy via radiation. Dogs, at 39 C do not loos much energy this way. You can find all the equations for this stuff on Wikipedia . . . look up "Thermal Radiation".

The physics is absolutely clear. Unless the air temperature is higher than your dog's body temperature, clipping will cool the dog. Where outside is cooler than inside, insulation keeps heat in. The double coat is like a good jumper or a blanket. Clipping removes the insulation and allows body heat to escape. If you want to win shows . . . clipping may be bad. A think coat provides some protection against scratches and mozzies, and may allow a wet dog to enjoy evaporative cooling for longer (like a wet sweater). But if it's not a century day, dogs are warmer than air temperature. Clipping and undercoat stripping make it easier to shed body heat. ...that's only a part of the physics - you forgot the heat / sun radiation; take the car as a simple example: you have an outside temperature of 25 deg C - no AC running. According to your theory the temperature inside the car should never exceed 25 deg C. We all know that this is not true, the car will absorb the solar energy and it won't take long and the temperature inside the car is much higher than outside. Without the coat the dogs body will absorb much more heat energy, however, beside a small fraction he can get rid off via convection and radiation, the biggest part has to be discharged by his 'radiator' (=tongue). So the poorer the insulation, the more work his specific cooling system has to do. Another example: according to your theory the bitumen should never have a higher temperature than the air - again, we all know that this isn't correct. The 'physics' you cite works for us humans - but only because we can get rid of the heat via our skin respectively by sweating. Ask your vet if you don't believe this. I taught energy balance physics at a college level and at one point was pretty familiar with the animal literature on the subject. 'My theory' is based on Newtonian physics. They hold for cars, people, potatoes, rocks . . . you name it. Here's a short lecture: 1. There are three modes of energy exchange: radiant, conductive, and convective. Insulation cuts off convective and slows conductive exchange; the convective term is generally more important than the radiative when air circulates freely around the body, when the body is in motion, or when the wind blows. 2. Insulation blocks both conduction and convection. It might indirectly affects radiative transfer if the insulating substance absorbs radiation (ie, albedo). 2. The dog in a hot environment is a body radiating at around 39 C in an environment that is typically cooler than the dog. 3. The dog's coat color, and perhaps to a small extent texture, will affect the absorption of energy, particularly solar radiation. 4. The coat depth and thickness and physical structure block the conduction and convection of heat from the dog's body. The thicker the coat, the more heat exchange is blocked. 5. A dog that wants to stay cool will often dig a hole in a cool, shady, moist location to enjoy conductive heat exchange from the ground and escape heat gain from radiation. You are correct, sweating and panting also affect a dog or human's energy budget. Evaporative cooling. The car heats up because the windows allow solar energy to come in. Once absorbed and turned to heat, this energy can no longer go through the glass, as glass is not transparent to energy radiating off bodies whose temperatures are below, say, the below the boiling point of water. Road tar gets hot because it is very effective in absorbing energy (low albedo). If you park you car in a garage on a hot day, it will be the same temperature as the garage. Put shades on the windows and it won't heat up so much. Dogs coats are NOT transparent, so the car example is irrelevant.

Can't read the posters and the URL gives me a 404. I pulled one article on post clipping alopecia. It said the dog's hair dissapates heat in summer. That is FALSE! Hair creates dead air space, thickens the boundary layer, and interferes with convective energy transfer (ie it insulates).

Bad analogy. Heat energy flows from warmer to cooler areas. You want insulation to keep your house around 20-25C when ambient is 30C +, to prevent heat from flowing in. Your dog is NOT a refrigerator. A dog's temperature is well above ambient except on days where it's above 39 C. Removing insulation allows body heat to get out! There are devils in the details. A dual coat is like wearing a weatherproof parka over a thick jumper. It is not clear whether raking the undercoat . . . which amounts to trading a thick jumper to a thin one . . . is more effective than shaving off the outer coat.

The physics is absolutely clear. Unless the air temperature is higher than your dog's body temperature, clipping will cool the dog. Where outside is cooler than inside, insulation keeps heat in. The double coat is like a good jumper or a blanket. Clipping removes the insulation and allows body heat to escape. If you want to win shows . . . clipping may be bad. A think coat provides some protection against scratches and mozzies, and may allow a wet dog to enjoy evaporative cooling for longer (like a wet sweater). But if it's not a century day, dogs are warmer than air temperature. Clipping and undercoat stripping make it easier to shed body heat.

^ This! If breeding dogs was so lucrative, the market would be flooded with pups! It's a lot of work, a lot of risk, and a lot of investment. Sure, when things work out you may get a return of $20k for an investment of $3000. But you have no guarantee of this outcome. You may end up with a singleton and need to do a Ceasar. Puppies are fun and loveable. But a large litter turns your life upside down. Very few employers would respond well to "can I take 8 weeks off, my dog is about to have puppies". Also, there are longer term costs. You may have to run on two or three pups before you get one you want to breed from. You may end up supporting your bitch for six or eight years after she is retired. You may be restricted in where you can live (eg., kennel zone in WA). Think of it as a bit like other labors of love that can potentially make a little money . . . restoring antique cars or boats, potting, orchid breeding . . . etc.

Sure, precautions are required. True of most meds. Fortunately, there are genetic tests available. Still think it's worth celebrating the far-ranging veterinary benefits of meds developed to treat river blindness and elephantiasis. Admitted, I might be less enthusiastic if I kept herding breeds :)

Flame suit time again. People are asking about alternatives. Training: great if you can find the right trainer. A total waste of time and money if you find the wrong trainer . . . eg., a self-proclaimed 'dog whisperer'. I've hit trainers who recommend jerking on a choke chain or slip lead. The best trainer I worked with showed me how to use a prong collar and convinced me it wasn't a torture device. I don't want to train my dogs not to pull. I have a lovely tricycle and the dogs like to pull it. I just don't want them to dislocate my shoulder when some interesting critter crosses the track, or one of the neighborhood dogs hits the fence with ruff raised, barking messages that say fight. (I walk three 25-30 kg dogs together so they pull with some force). I find a prong collar does the trick wonderfully. (They are not only legal, but sold in most pet stores and feed stores where I live). The really big bonus is that the dog learns not to pull against the lead after a few weeks or months of use . . . but continues to pull against a harness if you want them to pull.

There is at least one example of a KC using the pedigree well. Finland. Have a look at this website (I think it will open to a specific dog's online records, but it's worth playing around with other features of the site . . . eg., you can get breed averages, lifespans, etc. Unfortunately, a fair fraction of the mortality data is recorded as 'unknown' . . . but at least there's a beginning for getting stats on cancer, nervous system disease, etc. You can also pull up pedigrees, often 8 generations, for any registered dog, and view the stats for any dog in the pedigree. Also check siblings, etc. http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmKoira.aspx?RekNo=FI12490%2F10&R=167

And yet, a relatively rare breed with few health problems is the oldest pedigree dog in the world with its bloodlines closely guarded for millenia. Go figure. Rare breeds are a challenge. Some have been recreated from a handful of dogs. But generalisation about narrowing gene pools is just that. Last UK survey of purebred dog genetics show that COI's are dropping. And yet kennel clubs have approved outcrossing programs and outside of kennel club breeders WHO is health testing? The number one factor in declining breed registrations is a no brainer. Breeders are breeding less. There has been a steady demand for pedigreed dogs which they cannot meet and I think that is the factor that allows BYBs to flourish. Again, outside of the pedigree dog world, who is health testing? Very VERY few breeders. The problem with these generalised statements of doom is that they don't bear up to close scruitiny but they get trotted out to suit the agendas of people from whom pedigree dog extinction is a goal. That's the only reason I commented. I know you aren't anti-purebred. Responding point by point is in my 'too hard basket' ....breaking up quotes within quotes is a PITA. But 'breeding the best to the best' can and does create serious problems. See, eg., http://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0027-4 (article titled: Trends in genetic diversity for all Kennel Club registered pedigree dog breeds). This has been most thoroughly researched for standard poodles http://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0026-5), beginning from, and based upon, work done by poodle fanciers (http://www.standardpoodleproject.com/ ), particularly the late Dr. John Armstrong. For standard poodles, the link from inbreeding and autoimmune diseases is solidly established, and can be traced to a major bottleneck created by preponderance of the Wycliffe bloodlines among poodle breeders. Standard poodles, btw, are a fairly healthy breed. I expect, were other breeds subject to equally rigorous study of bloodlines and genetically-linked health problems, we'd find many other such problems. While I don't agree with this particular blogster on everything . . . I think he raise valid points on the dubious origin and dubious health of some 'breeds' http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/03/italian-job.html I would expect lower vet bills and longer lifetime from a BYB puppy or a who-knows-what rescue than dogs from some relatively modern breeds, deliberately created from a very few individual founding sires and dams to satisfy some sort of romantic image of a dog breed, and then kept 'pure' by breeding among the descendants of the small founding population. But I'd guess, only a handful of breeds fit this category. Could spend hours on this . . . but really, the most important point is ]If you're going to 'breed the best to the best', or buy pups from someone who claims to do so, make damn sure that the definition of 'best' is not heavily weighted by show ring titles and does strongly include measures of health (particularly longevity) and temperament. The 'steady demand for pedigree dogs' is a complex picture. It is more apparent in some breeds than in others, and where it drives up price, it may bring in a lot of new breeders, imports, and improvements in quality (look at what has happened with chocolate Labradors in Australia, especially looking at establish breeders). It may also bring in less credible breeders and puppy farmers taking advantage of high puppy prices (Frenchies?, some choco Lab breeders). As someone who tried to breed for health and found health records poorly tied to pedigrees and very difficult to trace, I think the kennel clubs, with emphasis on conformation and lack of record keeping on morbidity and mortality, have a lot to answer for. The big picture is a complex mosaic. I'm often uncomfortable with PDE / Jemima Harrison's muckraking journalism . . . but there are real problems in the pedigree dog world and denying them isn't going to make the problems go away. edited to fix formatting errors and add further thoughts.

Putting on my flame suit . . . Narrowing gene pools are a problem with pedigree dogs. Some breeds much more so than others. Tables like the above bother me. Many experienced supposedly good breeders, and many breed clubs, are big actors in over use of popular sires, linebreeding to an extent that results in high COI's, and selection for extreme characteristics -- often with the loss of working ability. There are plenty of breeders who don't show and have no interest in their breed clubs, but are very concerned with health issues. The kennel clubs have brought the dislike of pedigree dogs down upon themselves by pushing purity at the expense of health in breeds with small populations, serious genetic problems, and limited opportunities to breed away from ill health. I am not advocating 'oodles. But I do think the declining registration problem in kennel clubs around the world is due to perceived, and sometimes real, emphasis on appearance (or 'type') at the expense of health and function. I don't argue with such people . . . I partially agree. But also point to examples (both breeds and breeders) where pedigree dogs are very healthy and have excellent temperament . . . or temperament suited for function. The pedigree can be important tool for improving health and temperament

I have forgotten the details, but when I brought my two to the US, it was a bit more complicated than this. You're supposed to do a rabies shot some time before you fly (I think it was a month). Not many vets do this. In some places you can do the rabies vaccination upon arrival and then do home quarantine. I think there was some sort of treatment to get rid of fleas and ticks within some specified time before travel as well.

When my girl had her first litter of puppies, my mother said: "If I'd have known that puppies were so much easier than kids, you guys would never have been born." I like older kids, but please, not full time. I'm pretty turned off by babies. I'm with others. Dogs are dogs . . . not a substitute for kids.

What's the secret? Is this just good luck? Did you / do you select for free whelping? What breed? If you selected for free whelping, how did you do it?

Vets I trust have told me something like: "Go ahead and use glucosamine + whatever. It's not expensive and there is no evidence it does harm and some (small) possibility it will help." Here's an attempt to review the veterinary and human medicine literature on glucosamine. Of course, make your own decisions, but I find it worth checking the evidence-based care literature http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2014/03/legs-glucosamine-study-sows-little-evidence-of-real-benefit/