sandgrubber

The BB is such a healthy breed to begin with. Some breeding based on color is just what they need. Maybe they can bring the life expectancy down from 5 to 3 years! p.s. I think I read somewhere that the color loci were more subject to random mutation than many other regions of the genetic code. Blueness may be a bit like albinism . . . except that it's highly marketable.

they only considered a disease significant if there were 15 cases or more... And these were USA dogs in a uni vet clinic. So their breeding would be a little different to what's available in Australia and there was already a reduced sample based on where these dogs were seen. Would like to see a study where all vets could contribute data... If this was a human study it would not be significant enough to make a decision. But I guess it's a start. I would guess they needed 15+ cases for a disease to be statistically significant. A lot more data would be good. A random as opposed to opportunistic sample would be much preferred. But hell's bells. Most of the dog medical opinions we hear are based on anecdotal evidence: one vet's experience, one person's recollections of their dogs and the dogs owned by their friends and family. Memory data are distorted by selective memories and readily lead to conclusions based on spurious events. These guys, at least, were able to use statistical tests. In human medicine, they register cause of death, and with a large fraction of the population either insured or in care of a government run program, there are lots of institutions with a financial interest in tracking morbidity. IMO it's an enormous failing of the pedigree system that the KC's don't track, at least, date and cause of death; date of neutering would be helpful, too. It's extremely frustrating that little data are available on morbidity. Eg, I'd love to know not just hip and elbow scores, but whether or not the dog made it to old age without stiffness.

Skeptvet's main reservation about the study was not sample size, but the potential bias of using dogs presenting at a University veterinary hospital. Still, the bias should be the same for Goldies and Labs . . . so the difference between them is probably real, even if the figures are not representative of the two breeds as a whole. As for experimental studies . . . cost prohibitive. Who would sponsor keeping 60 dogs for 10 yr under controlled conditions? And from the results of this study, it looks like you might have to do 60 dogs for each breed! (As a rule of thumb, you need something like 30 for control and 30 for experimental group to see statistically meaningful results. Larger samples needed if effects are subtle, smaller if effects are dramatic.)

One of the vet-related blogs I follow posted notes on a recent comparative study looking at longer term health effects of spey/neuter in Labradors and in Goldies. Surprise! The breeds were significantly different! Here's a summary: First off, what does the study appear to show? Well, perhaps the most important finding is that there are significant differences in the pattern of possible effects of neutering between males and females, and also between the breeds. This latter point is extremely important. People tend to jump on the findings from a study in a single breed and want to generalize those findings to all dogs and make broad recommendations based on that single study. However, if the possible effects of neutering differ significantly between two breeds as closely related and similar as Golden retrievers and Labrador retrievers, likely these effects will be even more dissimilar in breeds less closely related. A study of Rottweilers or Viszlas, for example, may tell us little or nothing about what to expect in Beagles or Poodles. This is worth keeping in mind before we rush into making sweeping recommendations for all dogs. The findings in this study suggest some increase in the risk of some diseases with neutering, but the patterns were not very consistent. Neutering before 6 months of age appeared to be associated with higher risk of cruciate ligament disease and elbow dysplasia in male Labradors but not with the risk of hip dysplasia. In females, however, the pattern was the opposite, with neutering at less than 6 months being associated with greater risk of hip dysplasia but not the other two orthopedic diseases. But in Golden retrievers, neutering before 6 months of age was associated with greater risk of cruciate ligament disease in both sexes, but with greater risk of hip dysplasia only in males, not females. Source http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2014/07/potential-risks-of-neutering-and-age-at-neutering-for-godlen-retrievers-and-labrador-retrievers/ reviewing Hart BL, Hart LA, Thigpen AP, Willits NH. Long-Term Health Effects of Neutering Dogs: Comparison of Labrador Retrievers with Golden Retrievers. PLoS ONE 2014;9(7): e102241. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102241 Sigh! Once again, science tells us: "It's complicated."

Actually, the average age of death for Frenchie, according to the Finnish Kennel Club statistics, is 5 yr 5 mo. Just over one in ten lives to old age (32/295). For those that make it to old age, average lifespan is 10 yr 10 mo. All in all a VERY unhealthy breed. If you encounter a breeder who says there are no health problems in their lines, you can be pretty sure you are talking to a fraud. Health testing should be called 'disease testing'. It does not guarantee health, only decreases the likelihood for good genetic tests decreases to zero) the probability of disease. See http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmTerveystilastot.aspx?R=101&Lang=en

This depends on the dog. There are dogs who readily progress from a growl to an attack. Such dogs may need early restraint. None of my present dogs are in that category. I often end out telling my dogs to shut up cause they make so much noise play growling that I can't hear the radio/phone/TV.

The article says it was a 14 yr old boy. I doubt he had any idea what he was doing. If there's blame, I'd lay it on the parents for lack of supervision. I'd say a few years public service working with dog rescue might be punishment enough. As someone who has done a few years of research on fire ignition and spread, I find the whole story baffling. There is almost no fuel in those kennels. I don't see how a fire could have spread. Nor can I imagine a 14 year old being systematic and calculating about putting ignition points around to make sure of good spread. With a facility that large, there should have been someone on premises at all times. How did things get so out of hand?

I don't know for sure that they are not in Australia, but I sure didn't see any when I lived there . . . that's the American hounds, various breeds . . . Treeing Walker Coon Hound, redbone, blue tic. I like this group. Often stubborn, but sociable, hearty, agile, and easy going. Would do well in the heat.

I doubt that the breeder can downgrade a pup that has been sold to someone else without that person's consent. To do so would open up a legal can of worms. If I pay for a first class ticket, the airline can't downgrade me to economy!

The 2012 contest link is also interesting. My fav. was Honorable Mention Dana Ellis, practice manager Neartown Animal Clinic Houston, Texas A 46-pound English bulldog swallowed a 9-inch screwdriver. Dog did very well after cranial laparotomy and gastrotomy. However, after he woke up, he promptly ate his intravenous injection port.

If you were in the US or Canada, you'd want this site. http://www.petinsurancereview.com/dog.asp perhaps they could be coerced to do Oz as well.

PUddleDuck posted this link in off topic. Really deserves to be In the News 2014 X-Ray Contest Winners Animals will eat just about anything. The proof is in the radiographs. BY VETERINARY PRACTICE NEWS EDITORS Published: 2014.08.27 11:55 AM Updated: September 5, 2014, 10:15 a.m. PDT Animal hospitals in Texas, Florida and Oregon won Veterinary Practice News’ ninth annual radiograph contest, “They Ate WHAT?” Pet insurer Trupanion of Seattle, Wash., sponsored the contest and will provide cash awards to support the uncompensated care these hospitals provide pets. The first-place winner, Paws & Claws Animal Hospital of Plano, Texas, received $1,500, Gulf Breeze Animal Hospital in Gulf Breeze, Fla., won the $1,000 second prize, and DoveLewis Animal Hospital in Portland, Ore., will receive the $500 third prize. The Veterinary Practice News editorial team and several advisory board members judged the entries. There follows a collection of amazing radiographs of animals, mostly dogs, who have eaten and not passed various things http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/2014-X-Ray-Contest-Winners/

I turn my head. There are dogs all over my neighborhood. A large fraction of them are neglected. The guy across the street recently reported that his pit bull died . . .she had been having seizures. He figured something between flea infestation and the seizures killed her. Didn't take her to the vet. I doubt I'll get anywhere talking with someone with that kind of attitude. I'm the only person in the neighborhood who walks their dogs.

A tubal ligation during C-section is nothing. Hysterectomy, much more risky.

I'm sure people judge. That's their problem. I couldn't care less.

Thanks, Steve. Good to have those references . . . I passed them on.

I know I've seen posts by Steve and others saying that repro biology tells us it's better for a bitch to start her breeding at a relatively early age and that the uterus stays healthier if there are no multi-year lapses between litters. I was trying to tell this to someone who is breeding a 7 year old virgin and can't find the references. Have tried "search" using various phrases, but it isn't getting me anywhere. Can someone pls point me in the right direction. Thanks.

yep I know a nurse who was in her middle 70's who was on the ward until recently I went in for a haircut recently. The beautician was seventy-something. The other girls say she's been working in the place for 30 years and has a lot of regular clients . . . also that she almost never misses work and takes no extra breaks.

I'm not following you. Yep, there are old politicians and the Pope is old and there are lots of elderly people around. What's that got to do with elderly folk taking on dogs in there late 70's or 80's? Edited to add: I also know an 84yo lady still driving quite capably. To balance the scale, for all the elderly people we know who are fit and healthy there are others who are battling pain and ill health. However that has nothing to do with them owning dogs. I didn't think we were fighting. I thought we were sharing our opinions albeit they are from different view points. I'm about done with posting in this thread now. It gets a bit boring when, in their defence, someone continually states their opinion and my opinion won't change so best I quit now. Your point of view doesn't agree with actuarial facts. IF an individual is healthy into their seventies, they are very likely to live into their nineties. Sure, there are a lot of fragile old people who spend their days watching TV or streaming video, there are diabetics, heavy smokers, and people with conditions that mean they'll be lucky to reach 75. That doesn't mean that the other people, who are eating well, taking care of themselves, and getting a lot of exercise and free from major health complaints should abstain from getting a dog. The lifespan of an older person is predictable, given their condition and medical history. If your doctor tells you it looks like you're on course to live a few more decades, I see no reason not to get a dog. Ok, maybe choose your breed and/or the age of the dog you get to match probable decline in strength and energy. My 79 year old neighbors just got a mini-daschund pup: She's a well-controlled diabetic and walks a couple miles five days a week and is a healthy diet nazi. He is always out in the yard tinkering with old cars and taking care of their lovely 2 acre property . . . but he just recovered from a surgery in which a kidney had to be removed. They . There's a good chance the dog will outlast one of or both of them . . . but their kids are nearby and see a lot of their folks. They all love the pup and will probably fight about who gets the dog when their parents pass. I see NO problem with this situation. Having a dog probably adds a few years to their life expectancies, and that little pup will be loved and cared for like few dogs around. I don't hear anyone saying the frail elderly should be getting puppies.

Nothing new about that. When I was growing up, dogs with irresponsible owners usually got run over rather than impounded and destroyed. Where I live now, dogs with irresponsible owners tend to die of heart worm.

There's a lot of difference between individuals. Much of that difference is predictable. I can't remember where I saw the numbers, but I'm pretty certain that those who make it to, say, 70 and are in good health, have a better chance of living another 25 years than those who make it to 50 and have a few chronic conditions/risk factors (heart, obesity, smoking, family dying young, etc.). There are many detailed life expectancy calculators available that take account of your risk factors. I think these are a useful guideline, not only for figuring out whether or not to take on a puppy, but also for figuring out how long your life savings is going to have to last. I played around with one of these tests https://www.livingto100.com/ and was surprised to realize I can expect to live to be 95 (I'm 65 now). But if I had high blood pressure and smoked, or had a sister who died of breast cancer at 45, or had diabetes, the numbers would be a lot different.

If you're anything like me, when you're 65 you'll decide the last pup should be at 75 :)

Wrong question. The concern is 'in what condition', not 'what age'. A well preserved 65 has a lot more life left than a wasted 50. Lots of people are still active into their 80s. I'm 65 and in excellent health. For my next dog, I will probably switch to a smaller breed, and I'll eventually transition from three to two. When it seems likely that the end is within a dog's lifespan, I won't replace my dog unless I have a friend or family lined up to care for a dog after my demise. Oldies can also deal with the finite lifetime problem by adopting older dogs . . . there's never a shortage of good old dogs in need of a home.

Ditto Sheena. I have fed them. I would much prefer frames. But if the supplier has only drumsticks, I'll take them. This hasn't happened very often. Never had a problem with drumsticks, but they seem riskier than frames. I'd avoid feeding them to a small dog or puppy. I don't much like wings either.

Maybe I didn't read carefully, but I didn't notice anyone suggesting that you shave or clip the hair short around the hot spot. My experience with hot spots is that almost everything works . . . vinegar, peroxide, betadine, rubbing alcohol, Camamile tea, antibiotic goo or powder . . . so long as you work to keep the spot dried out and unfriendly to the infection. If you leave the hair long around the hot spot, the infection spreads to the surrounding coat. The damn things can grow very fast. If you don't clip, your thumbprint sized spot can triple or quadruple in size overnight. Some of them are less aggressive. I think there are multiple microorganisms that can cause the problem . . . both bacteria and fungi . . . so different things work differently in different cases. But moisture is necessary for the infections to get going, and trimming hair gets rid of trapped moisture.