sandgrubber

3 is great IF they like each other. I have mother/daughter/granddaughter. They love eachother. Granny dog doesn't play so much any more. She's 10. But mother and daughter play a lot, and they all groom one another.

Small contradiction between the alleged pit bull that got hit by a car and killed and two pit bulls returned to their owner. The math involved is 2 - 1 = 2. Or was one of the dogs returned dead?

A decade back there were a few deaf Labs showing up in WA -- including one pup I bred. This appeared to be late onset, though. No one noticed a problem until the pups were more than a year old. They do need to contact the breeder. Because Labs are so common, just about every disease a dog can get has been reported in a Labrador, but deafness is uncommon. Any decent Lab breeder would be very concerned. And you folks in Darwin need to recruit a decent vet!

Problem with articles like this is that everyone assumes they mean someone else. For example, I buy lots of meds online, and they are a lot cheaper . . . in fact, my vet has stopped carrying some meds and suggests that customers get them online from a reputable company. I'm sure people who practice the other four listed sins have their own excuses.

It's amazing to me that Australia (I mean the government, not all Australians) is SO, SO down on pit bulls and SBT's are either #1 or #2 in number of puppy registrations, not to mention common as mixes and bred off-pedigree register. I'm in pit bull land now . . . they're all over Florida, #1 in shelters, #1 in our equivalent of Gumtree, and when you walk around the neighborhood, #1 for the dog left out in the front yard. Pitties are a lot like staffies. Tthere are some nasty ones. More DA than HA, but you find both occasionally. Most of em are ok, and some are right sweet dogs. Hard to beat them for wiggly bums and snuggly affection. . . . when they are good.

The diggers will dig in the grass even if you offer them sand. Especially if the grass is moist and the sand dry. If you keep the sand moist you'll still get tiger snakes. It's worth burying weld-mesh in the grass so the dogs can't dig up the grass. I had water in the exercise yard when I had a boarding kennel outside Perth. Some of the dogs loved it, and we never had problems with snakes. I think the ruckus from a boarding kennel tends to keep them away. Put the water close to an area that gets a lot of noise and vibrations from the kennel and my guess is you'll be ok. We kept throwing out cheap, non-dangerous toys . . . tennis balls, kongs, knotted ropes, anything else we could find. The dogs destroyed them . . . but who cares if it's cheap. If you go for different surfaces, realize that dogs are going to go for whatever is cool in summer and may look for warmth in winter. Older, arthritic dogs like soft, and may create dog-shaped holes for themselves, but may be just as happy with an old sofa or a dog bed put out in the yard . . . in the shade in summer, sun in winter..

The best solution is one that provides protection and avoids conflict without risking offense to someone who is doing nothing wrong. Usually it's possible to avoid dogs you don't trust at the vets by waiting outside. Great solution when you can do it. But sometimes it's too hot, and sometimes your dog is sick enough that it shouldn't be outside. Or you have some messy situation like a litter of puppies that needs exams and microchips. If I hit that situation with a small dog, I guess I'd do like cat owners do and bring the dog's crate. (Cat owners hit this situation virtually every time they sit in a waiting room and the crate always seems to resolve the problem). If that is not possible, maybe best to go back to the car (with A/C on if needed) and phone the vet to explain the situation. Often they can ease the situation by letting you wait in an empty consultation room . . . or giving you a phone call when it's ok to come in.

When I lived in WA the repro vet I worked with told me he had a few clients who did back to back litters routinely (which he considered fine from the perspective of veterinary/reproductive health) and would sell the occasional litter without registrations to get around the rule in WA that says you can't have more than 2 litters in 18 mo from any one bitch. Could be another such breeder.

My moorings are in WA. Isn't it illegal to sell a pup at 6 weeks in NSW? (If my memory serves, they need to be 8 wks and microchipped . . . maybe vet certificate as well). If you choose to report the breeder in question, you will be doing a favor. Their behavior is near-criminal, and the world will be a slightly better place if they are held accountable.

Please explain what you mean by BYB. Some perfectly good breeders breed in the back yard. Was there a problem with the puppy your friend bought? It is quite common, and perfectly legal, for breeders to claim they are registered when they are registered with the local council. If they are showing people forged papers, etc., then it becomes a matter of fraud. This is a different legal situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I think someone who deliberately fakes ANKC papers is subject to criminal law charges.

+1 I use a 20 litre bucket for three Labradors. They still dribble, though.

Mine do a full body shake only when they've been swimming, and even then they do a half arsed job.

I was not making excuses, nor condoning. I was simply observing that people's reactions tend to be strong, vehement, and irrational when issues are sexual. I can't imagine such strong reaction to a dog who is kept in a small kennel with no stimulation or attention . . . or special condemnation because this was done by a licensed professional. I am sure there are many doctors, lawyers, even judges, who abuse their dogs in such fashion. I can imagine that such dogs are seriously damaged. I have never encountered a dog that was subjected to bestiality (although some people seem to regard digital stimulation in AI as bestiality. I've witnessed that, and concluded it did more good than harm) and my statement that I wish I could hear a dog's perspective can be taken literally. I am not convinced that all bestiality involves rape, and I find it conceivable that some forms of human sexual deviation involving animals are ok from the animal's perspective. I would be happy to be see some facts about the harm that is done. I'm also totally naive about commercial--or the much laughed at, folkloric sheep farmer type--bestiality. It isn't a high priority for me to correct that ignorance. But I could imagine that the shepherd form existed (and probably exists) in a relatively benign form where some horny male penetrated a ewe who was in season and receptive. I find this gross. But I wouldn't find it especially cruel. And if someone got off on training his or her dog to lick his crotch (as dogs regularly do to one another and would probably be happy to do with humans if it weren't so rapidly discouraged) I'd find it disturbing, but pretty harmless. Quoting the source of choice for lazy researchers, Wikipedia points out that "The Kinsey reports rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms," The image of bestiality shown in Wikipedia, btw., shows that bestiality is not new, and may involves something as mild (from a dog perspective) as licking of genitals. The discussion is anything but calm and rational . . . as a habitual skeptic, I would prefer to see documentation of the harm done rather than the throwing around of lots of reactive derogatory words. Reminds me too much of unenlightened reactions to homosexuality, or, for that matter, reactions a century back to any assertion that women should enjoy sex.

I was not making excuses, nor condoning. I was simply observing that people's reactions tend to be strong, vehement, and irrational when issues are sexual. I can't imagine such strong reaction to a dog who is kept in a small kennel with no stimulation or attention . . . or special condemnation because this was done by a licensed professional. I am sure there are many doctors, lawyers, even judges, who abuse their dogs in such fashion. I can imagine that such dogs are seriously damaged. I have never encountered a dog that was subjected to bestiality (although some people seem to regard digital stimulation in AI as bestiality. I've witnessed that, and concluded it did more good than harm) and my statement that I wish I could hear a dog's perspective can be taken literally. I am not convinced that all bestiality involves rape, and I find it conceivable that some forms of human sexual deviation involving animals are ok from the animal's perspective. I would be happy to be see some facts about the harm that is done. I'm also totally naive about commercial--or the much laughed at, folkloric sheep farmer type--bestiality. It isn't a high priority for me to correct that ignorance. But I could imagine that the shepherd form existed (and probably exists) in a relatively benign form where some horny male penetrated a ewe who was in season and receptive. I find this gross. But I wouldn't find it especially cruel. And if someone got off on training his or her dog to lick his crotch (as dogs regularly do to one another and would probably be happy to do with humans if it weren't so rapidly discouraged) I'd find it disturbing, but pretty harmless. Quoting the source of choice for lazy researchers, Wikipedia points out that "The Kinsey reports rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms," The image of bestiality shown in Wikipedia, btw., shows that bestiality is not new, and may involves something as mild (from a dog perspective) as licking of genitals. The discussion is anything but calm and rational . . . as a habitual skeptic, I would prefer to see documentation of the harm done rather than the throwing around of lots of reactive derogatory words. Reminds me too much of unenlightened reactions to homosexuality, or, for that matter, reactions a century back to any assertion that women should enjoy sex.

I wish a few dogs could comment on this. I suspect that a lot of dogs would say human sexual curiousity is minor compared to many of the things they commonly suffer -- like a lifetime of solitary confinement in a back yard with little or no stimulation. Comments equivalent to: The Nursing and Midwifery Board is arguing Modystack's conduct was "illegal and repugnant" and "inconsistent with being of good character and being a fit and proper person to hold a registration in the nursing profession". were widely made when people were tried for homosexuality and forced into terrible punishments/treatments. I worked with a vet who used finger stimulation on vaginal AI treatments, attempting to mimic the sensation of the dog's penis. She got great results, and the bitch was enthusiastic. You could call this beastiality, especially if she got a buzz out of doing it (for me this was don't ask, don't tell). But it worked and from the dog's perspective it wasn't the least bit cruel. Human and canine attitudes to sex are SO different. I find it laughable that puritanical judgements are uncritically applied. Mind you, I'm not condoning pimping dogs. Just saying, it would be good to see it from the dog's perspective before throwing the book at the offender. And it would be good to pay more attention to commonplace routine cruelties of confinement without social interaction or stimulation.

For me the take-home messages are: 1) CM started up as a poor kid from Mexico raised around a lot of dogs. He has amazing ability to read dogs and use his own body language to communicate with them. 2) television and Hollywood have built his native abilities up to a bit of a cult 3) CM will screw up from time to time -- this is one instance of bad judgement. (I suspect he likes dogs more than people and really likes a dog pack, thus will take risks). Behaviorism has made much of the science of dog training. There is also an art of dog training that requires the native skills CM possesses in abundance. The ideal trainer (rare, and maybe nonexistent) balances science and art. Unfortunately, the ideal trainer will find it easier to transfer the science than the art. In watching CM, it's probably better to turn off the sound and just watch his moves.

I hate the term backyard breeder. Many small registered breeders keep their dogs in the backyard . . . and some of them advertise their pups on Gumtree. Some of them don't show and may be called BYB's by show folks. Border Collies are not my breed and I don't know what diseases prevail, and what health tests can or should be done. I do know there's a big fuss in the breed between different registries and lots of politics and backbiting relating to working vs. show vs. trial-ing . . .and that some esteemed lines are inbred and not particularly healthy. Back in the days I ran a kennel (in WA), some of the BC's we saw were high strung to the point where they would be difficult pets. I'd encourage your friend to research the breed carefully, define what she's looking for, and ask the hard questions of any breeder he or she approaches. The following might be an interesting read (depending on what she's looking for: http://www.border-wars.com/2014/07/why-border-collies-transcript-and-gallery.html

I used and liked it when I lived near Costco and had friends who would pick it up for me (I'm not a member). I think it is TOTW repackaged.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/07/23/cesar-millan-dog-whisperer-dog-attack-great-dane-studio-city/#ixzz38S3Vzjvg Cesar Millan couldn't stop one of his gigantic clients -- a Great Dane -- from attacking a neighbor during a training session yesterday ... TMZ has learned. Sources tell us the 'Dog Whisperer' star was walking a group of dogs, including the Great Dane, near his home in Studio City, CA -- and none of the dogs were leashed. We're told one of Millan's neighbors was out walking his own dog ... and when the neighbor reached out to let the Great Dane sniff his palm ... the dog suddenly bit the man's hand and forearm. We're told Cesar followed the man to the hospital where he was treated and released. Unclear, at this point, how badly he was injured. A rep for Millan confirmed the attack, and says Cesar was walking a "troubled dog" as part of its training, when it got "spooked by a neighbor." The rep added, Cesar is still caring for the dog. We don't know yet how big this dog was -- but adult Great Danes range from 100 to 120 pounds. A source close to the victim tells us "he's healing," and is following up with a physician today.

Years ago I did tracker dog training in the Perth area. I asked around about training dogs to find a missing dog. For reasons I don't understand, these questions were always brushed off. People seem to believe (but will offer no evidence) that tracking other dogs detracts from a dog's ability to track humans. The trail is already too old for most dogs. Hope the missing dog turns up.

x2 ordinary worming tablets (eg pyrantel) do not treat tapeworm. . . . you need something with praziquantel, which is relatively expensive. This isn't a big problem. Tapeworm isn't common in most areas. (I'm now living in an area where it IS common, and I treat it if and when it shows up).

I was pretty depressed by politicians in the 15 years I spent in Oz. On coming home to the US, I find it's at least as bad here. Here's a dog-related story about our drongo of a state Governor. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gov-admits-ditched-dog-election-article-1.1240626 Florida Gov. Rick Scott finally admits he ditched rescue dog Reagan after winning election in 2010 After capturing the GOP primary, Gov. Rick Scott made much of his new Labrador retriever, even holding an online contest to select a name. But Reagan (the winning name) vanished from sight after the election. Constituents are barking at Florida Gov. Rick Scott after he FINALLY admitted, after two years, that he discarded his rescue dog just months after adopting it. With much fanfare, Gov. Scott rescued the Labrador retriever after winning the Republican nomination for governor in 2010. He crowed about the move on Facebook, and even held an online contest allowing people to select a name. . . . . und so weider Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gov-admits-ditched-dog-election-article-1.1240626#ixzz37lvmZJmr

It's also helpful to put things in historical perspective. Treatment of animals (ok, not factory farm animals, particularly swine) has gradually improved over the decades and centuries. Things we consider abuse were standard practice in the past. More and more dogs live in the home, rather than being left in the yard. Dogfighting still exists, but only as an outlaw activity, not as mainstream entertainment. Abuse of working dogs still happens, but not the way it did in the days when dogs were used to turn spits. Spey/neuter programs result in fewer unwanted pups being born . . . and fewer pups being killed. More and more places have banned chaining dogs out.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/animal-rights-groups-that-paid-circus-15.7-million-file-suit-against-insurers-who-cancelled-them-in-2010/article/2550518 Animal rights groups that paid circus $15.7 million file suit against insurers who cancelled them in 2010 BY: Richard Pollock July 7, 2014 | 6:00 am 50COMMENTS 13 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's circus handler Joey Frisco speaks to an Asian elephant during an appearance in Boston's North End. (AP/Elise Amendola) WATCHDOG FOLLOW THE MONEY CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS ANIMALS HUMANE SOCIETY When leaders of the animal rights movement agreed May 15 to pay $15.7 million to America's most famous circus, it seemed to be the end of the 14-year-old case. After all, at the case's conclusion, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet G. Sullivan bluntly described the suit brought by the animal rights groups as “groundless and unreasonable from its inception.” Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus may have won back its good name, but a new issue has since arisen over who will pay the $15.7 million in attorney fees. The insurers advised the animal rights groups four years ago they would not provide coverage for the attorney fees. Today, the groups are suing their insurers. The fees were originally generated in Animal Welfare Institute v. Feld Entertainment lawsuit, which was filed in 2000. Feld owns the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, known to millions of Americans as "The Greatest Show on Earth." The circus, which criss-crosses the United States by train and truck, has been performing since the 19th Century. The circus was accused of abusing elephants by four animal rights groups and several individuals, including Tom Rider, who once worked for Ringling Bros. The suit generated hundreds of briefs, motions, depositions and hearings, requiring the services of 41 attorneys from all sides. When the settlement was announced, officials at the Humane Society of the U.S. and the Fund for Animals, which were responsible for paying the $15.7 million, defiantly claimed their insurance companies, not their donors, would pay the money to Feld. “We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to the HSUS and the Fund for Animals will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from the HSUS will go to Feld,” HSUS said in a statement released on the day of the settlement. What the animal rights groups failed to disclose to the public was that they'd been told four years before that their insurance companies would not provide coverage. The balking insurance companies included the National Union Fire Insurance Co., the Travelers and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. Revelations of ethical misconduct that surfaced as the case progressed to its conclusion left huge question marks about the credibility of the animal rights groups. John Simpson, a law partner at the law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski and the lead attorney for Feld Entertainment, said the insurance issue continues a "pattern" of misinformation by the animal rights groups. "The entire lawsuit was based on either misleading or outright false statements of fact," Simpson told the Washington Examiner. The case began with allegations that circus workers mistreated the elephants. Rider, a former Ringling “barn man” who handled the elephants, charged that they were abused using bull hooks and chains. Rider initially appeared to be an insider whistleblower making highly credible charges. But those charges soon crumbled largely because of questions about Rider's honesty. Videos surfaced of Rider himself using bull hooks on elephants. He denounced another elephant handler as abusive toward the elephants, but then went to work for him. After leaving Ringling, he joined a European circus that openly used bull hooks and chains. Rider claimed he loved all of his “girls" and had become so emotionally attached to them that he could identify them on sight. During his depositions in 2006 and 2007, however, Rider "could not name the elephants with whom he allegedly had a personal and emotional attachment,” Sullivan wrote in his final ruling. And, when shown video clips of the elephants, “he could not identify them,” the judge said. The case blew up when it was revealed that attorney Katherine Meyer had secretly funneled $190,000 in payments from her own firm and from some of the animal rights groups to Rider. Meyer was the lead attorney for the groups. Neither Meyer nor the animal rights groups had informed Sullivan or Feld's attorneys about the payments. “The funds paid to Rider appeared to be paid in such a way to avoid ready detection,” said Sullivan, who sanctioned Meyer for "bad faith misconduct" with "deliberate intent to harm." Meyer has filed hundreds of animal rights and environmental cases on behalf of activists for those causes. But Sullivan said Meyer “sought to conceal the nature, extent and purpose of the payments” to Rider, including “affirmatively false interrogatory response [denying the payments] signed by Rider and prepared by Ms. Meyer, the same attorney who was paying him.” Rider's testimony was so weak Sullivan said Feld's attorneys "pulverized" the former circus employee while he was on the stand. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Animals separately settled with Feld in December 2012, paying $9.3 million in a lump sum. As the case crumbled, other animal rights groups also dropped out. When the ASPCA and the May 15 settlements are tallied, the animal rights movement has now paid Ringling Bros. a total of $25.2 million. Feld's attorneys claim it represents the largest verdict or settlement made by the ASPCA or the HSUS. The case also is the first time attorney fees were awarded to a private defendant under the 41-year history of the Endangered Species Act, according to Feld's attorneys. The Humane Society and the Fund for Animals were first informed of the denial of insurance coverage in May 2010 when Chartis, the administrator handling the National Union claims, advised the groups, “there is no coverage for this claim, based on the insured’s failure to provide notice during the policy period.” Both the Fund for Animals and the Humane Society failed to tell reporters on May 15 that they had an ongoing dispute with their insurance companies over compensation. The Fund for Animals admitted in court filings that the organization continued to communicate with National Union about the denial, saying they “exchanged further correspondence during 2010; however, National Union steadfastly maintained its denial of coverage.” Travelers also notified both groups they would refuse to provide coverage in a 2010 letter. The Fund for Animals sued all three of the insurance companies last September, claiming “breach of contract” in a lawsuit filed in the circuit court in Baltimore, Md. That case has been transferred to the circuit court in Montgomery County, Md. And only one week after the May 15 settlement, the Humane Society sued National Union in a case now in federal court. Simpson, the Feld attorney, charged that in the latest episode of the case, the animal rights groups are misleading the public once again as they had throughout the trial. “You have its head saying to the donating public that none of their donations are going to be used to fund this settlement, when I don’t see as a practical matter that could possibly be true," Simpson said. “At the time they made that payment, which indisputably happened in cash to our client by wire transfer, there was no insurance payment. So it had to come from the coffers of the Humane Society,” he said. Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society's president and CEO, shrugged off the insurance companies' refusal to cover the settlement, saying in an interview, “denial of coverage is a standard posture within the industry.” Pacelle, who was previously the organization's chief lobbyist and spokesman, said they have a “commitment” from one carrier “to cover the bulk of what our responsibility is.” He said he hopes there can be settlements with the other two insurance carriers. Mediation talks are being held between the Fund for Animals and the Travelers and Charter Oak insurance companies, according to court documents. “What’s not covered by insurance is covered by the Fund of Animals,” Pacelle said. Pacelle's claim highlights another issue. The CEO insisted that the Fund for Animals is totally separate from the Humane Society, saying it has “its own board of directors and its own donors.” But the Humane Society's website describes the merger of HSUS and Fund for Animals as occurring in 2004: “In 2004, Wayne Pacelle and Michael Markarian (president of The Fund for Animals and now chief program and policy officer of the HSUS) helped engineer the corporate combination of the HSUS and The Fund for Animals,” the current website states. And the Humane Society's 2012 IRS Tax Form 990 describes the two organizations as legally "related" to each other. “Since insurance was going to cover the share we were going to commit to, we wanted to move on,” Pacelle said. Pacelle also insisted the lost lawsuit was based on a "sound case." He also offered a conspiracy theory about the circus: “This is a company that has infiltrated animal welfare groups, hired a former deputy director of the CIA to infiltrate animal welfare groups." Charity Navigator, a national consumer rating organization of public charities, published a “Donor Advisory” notice about the Humane Society and the Fund for Animals earlier this year in describing the Feld case settlement. Sandra Miniutti, a Charity Navigator vice president and spokesman, said donor advisories are issued “because donors may want to re-evaluate their donations.” She said the advisories indicated “extreme concern.” Only 160 public charities have been marked with a "Donor Advisory" out of the 1 million public charities reviewed by the organization, she said. Rider passed away in October 2013. UPDATE: Charity Navigator has issued updates to its donor advisories for Humane Society of the U.S. and Fund for Animals as a result of this story. CORRECTION: The animal rights groups discussed in this story agreed to pay a voluntary settlement and were not ordered by a court to pay, as an earlier version of the headline erroneously stated. The Washington Examiner regrets the error.

Thats Texas for you. I'm surprised they're not using shelter dogs for target practice.