sandgrubber

Pyretheroids caused one of my dogs to have seizures....almost killed her. She licked off a spot on product applied to the back of another dog. <div><br></div>

Chances she's preggers are very high. Bitches only permit mating when they're in their fertile time of the heat cycle. There are two sorts of injections that can be given to abort. One can only be given soon after the mating. If I remember correctly, it's an oestrogen compound, like many morning-after formulations, and a lot cheaper than the Alizin injections. So far as i know, both are very low risk, though there may be some bloody discharge. Obviously, the longer she carries pups, the greater the effect of the pregnancy on her body, and the more the embryos will be like little dogs, as opposed to small masses of cells. See your vet ASAP.

The author doesn't understand physics. Coat only protects your dog from heat IF the air temperature is above the dog's body temperature (38-39C). Otherwise it retains body heat. Putting hot coffee in an insulated cup won't speed it's cooling The outer coat is a bit like wearing a parka over a jumper ... It protects the inner coat from the effects of wind and rain. Semi-waterproof shell...reduces convective cooling. This is why double coat breeds are found in cold climates or places where night temperatures are low, while dogs from consistently hot climates tend to have thinner coats. Removing outer coat should make a dog better able to enjoy cooling breezes. Dogs thermoregulate in hot weather primarily by 1) panting = evaporative cooling; 2) finding a cool shady place to lie; 3) getting wet=evaporative cooling. Add, digging a hole in a moist place in your garden to lie in, preferably a valued flower bed.

I think the article was an exaggeration. If it were 'highly contageous' it's a miracle that there haven't been a lot of further reports. There is a canine influenza virus that has appeared a few times in the US that seems to have come from an equine virus. First appeared in 2004 in racing greyhounds. It has been studied and does not appear to be very contagious at all. Here's a link to a highly technical paper. http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/vmi/aip/874521.pdf

Would it be correct to sum up by saying behavioral problems that have to do with timidity and avoidance of people MAY correct naturally with change of environment (eg, getting away from bullying siblings) but may also be deeply programmed, and bad enough to warrant pts. However aggressive babies are bad news and should be culled?

There's been a lot of talk about brachy breeds and health issues since Pedigree Dogs Exposed came out. A lot of it hot air. The Swedish KC seems to be doing some great stuff instructing judges....based on calm veterinary based understanding. You have to put up with subtitles, but I found this a really good video. Warning, it's half an hour long so if you don't have broadband, don't bother.

Boston's are usually great with other animals. If you can find a good Boston, I'd say go Boston. If you don't own your place and are likely to be changing residence a few times in the next 10 to 15 years, you're much better off with a smaller dog. BUT do be careful. Boston's have a lot of health problems. Do your research and ask a lot of questions.

If you can't find anything, give me an address and phone number and I'll see if I can find a company that will ship to you. zzzhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ring+zinger is the URL I used. I don't know if it will divert elsewhere if you try in Australia, but it came up with four or five merchants....likely that one of them does ship to Oz. Amazon US says they do generally ship to Oz at standard international shipping rates.

You can get them on Amazon in the US.

Lets say you have a largish litter of pups, say more than seven, and one puppy consistently shows signs of relating poorly to people. Eg, doesn't come running for attention with the others, won't make eye contact, and struggles when picked up. By eight weeks you are worried that the pup is not going to grow up being a dog you'd want to own: nor could you feel good about passing it on to someone else. What do you do? Cull? Sell at a discounted price with full disclosure of why? (I was worried about one of my present litter going this way, but he's turned friendly....maybe just tummy aches or something...but it made me wonder what I would do if I ended up with a bad pup....and what others would do).

Actually you need to make sure your dog is in compliance with the management requirements of a particular area first and foremost and be in a position where anyone would reasonably believe an incident shouldn't arise in other words, a leashed dog walked on the street is not responsible for the result of attack from a dog at large escaping someone's property regardless of the dog's size as the dog at large has breached the management requirements to begin with, that is had the owner of the escaping dog complied with the management requirements the incident would have been avoided.......the dog on leash is not the menacing dog regardless of the outcome. This has been tested at law a few times where large dogs on leash have injured small dogs off leash in a public place who have mounted attacks on the large dog or it's handler. One case where a small dog was PTS from result of injury inflicted by the large dog was appealed twice and on each occasion the large dog owner escaped prosecution. But in many cases, the larger dog's owner hasn't had the funds to mount such an appeal - and thusly their dog has inevitably been euthanaised fro reacting in kind to an attack by a smaller dog. Being a large dog owner (2 of which are bullbreed crosses) I am distictly aware that if my dogs WERE to retaliate when attacked, they would be the target of some serious action - regardless of any facts showing that my dogs were not the initial aggressor. Therefore, it is MY job to make sure that they AREN'T prone to reacting in kind when set upon by another dog - but look to ME to get them out of that sort of predicament. It's all part of ownership of a larger dog really... having some responsibility for the fact that if they were to bite something, it would have a much greater impact than if a smaller dog bit something, yes? Personally, I don't think ANY dog, regardless of size, should be "allowed" to be nasty in public... but the "rules" seem to be applied more along the lines of how much damage the individual dog can do, as opposed to the fact that they ALL can cause some form of damage with their teeth. I'd rather not be bitten by ANY dog, thank you very much. T. If the attacking dog is off leash, that is it's in breach of leash regulations in a public place and the leashed dog defends itself and injures the attacking dog, provocation is a statutory defence and had the attacking dog been on leash as it should and under effective control, the incident wouldn't have happened. What's been tested in court is the owner of the attacking dog mounting a case for loss against the leashed dog because it nailed the attacking dog. Scr#w the letter of the law. If you have a reactive dog, try to prevent it from killing or maiming the stupid little sh#ts that may attack from time to time. Letting your dog deliver punishment is inviting trouble it would be simpler and easier to avoid.

I'm surprised this thread is still spinning away. BAD IDEA! Government does a rotten job of dog control. No way I want to involve government deciding who can breed what. Targeting cross breeds will never fly. The public knows most cross breeds are harmless and a democratic government would laugh a generalized ban on X breeds out of court as a stupid, elitist move by the snobs in the pedigree dog community. The only variant I can see is a good, well-enforced dog registration system that is able to track problem dogs back to their breeders -- and measures taken for breeders who produce large numbers of problem dogs. But even that's a big ask, given how awful most governments are at enforcing the most basic registration systems.

I doubt you will be proven wrong when a smaller dog attacks a larger dog and gets whats coming is it the large dog's fault? or the small dog's owners who think its funny that it snaps at the big dog?,....from experience and luckily I had my dog on lead It is the owner's fault. In the case you describe, BOTH owners. Btw, 'Gets whats coming' suggests a bloodthirsty attitude. not really my attitude, I never let my dog off lead in the park if there are new dogs present and if someone is entering I and most others put their dogs on lead till the dogs are introduced,if there are any signs of aggression from either dog they aren't let off,I don't want my dogs becoming aggressive,but in the case of someone walking straight in and releasing their dog which runs up and attacks another on lead then call it inevitable if you prefer,if someone has a large dog which will defend itself if provoked how can it be their fault when another attacks it???? I had my two Labbies at the neighbor's, off lead. A mini Daschund, who was visiting one house down, came flying out at my dogs, snarling, yapping and biting. My dogs looked at me as if to say: 'what do we do, this little idiot is attacking us?' Someone picked up the little yapper and the scene passed. The problem with a large dog 'defending' itself against a small dog is the small dog often ends up badly hurt, or sometimes dead. It is extremely irresponsible of people to allow little guys with small dog syndrome to run free in places where they will encounter large dogs. But large dog owners who take their dogs in public places all know this happens much more often than we'd like. A stable dog with a high bite threshold will realize it is in no danger and not react. If you have a reactive dog, you need to be prepared to react in a flash and get your dog off, should a little guy come out snapping. Simply allowing your dog to deliver the punishment you think the little guy deserves is highly irresponsible. Even if, in your heart of hearts, you would like to see the little bugger dead. If you take a reactive dog out in public, you need to be prepared to curb its reactions.

I agree with the theory behind Team Dog. But dog bite statistics have worsened in Calgary over the last five years or so...perhaps it's just reported attacks...but there's no evidence of sustained decline. Google 'Calgary dog attack' and you'll see that the problem persists. For data see http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Documents/Animal-Services/Animal-statistics/Reports%20of%20Dog%20Aggression%20Over%20Time.pdf

I doubt you will be proven wrong when a smaller dog attacks a larger dog and gets whats coming is it the large dog's fault? or the small dog's owners who think its funny that it snaps at the big dog?,....from experience and luckily I had my dog on lead It is the owner's fault. In the case you describe, BOTH owners. Btw, 'Gets whats coming' suggests a bloodthirsty attitude.

Maybe one of those example for deterrence cases. You can't get blood out of a turnip. Sounds like the woman isn't right in the head and probably doesn't have assets to cover the fine. A life ban on owning animals . . . .that is monitored . .. might be more appropriate.

The bigger factor is no time. What with single parent families and households where both parents work, not to mention everybody being very busy with all sorts of activities and kids obsessed with video games, it's getting so that only retired folk and a few dog nuts have the time required to do right by a dog. People could learn if they put their attention to it, but attention is so frazzled and divided that education is near impossible.

One obvious point of rebuttal that I don't think has been stated yet. Crossbreeds are a huge and highly diverse group. Oodles, SWF''s, and DD's by far outnumber the bull x mastiff cross types that often show themselves dangerous. In my kennel days, i met a few ill-bred, nasty tempered shih-tzu x maltese, but I've yet to see one that deserves the 'dangerous' label. I can't remember ever encountering a nasty oodle.

+1

We had less attacks 50 years ago because the dog breeds around then were very different. No SBTs, Pitbulls, Amstaffs, Rotties, Mastiffs of any kind, or crosses of these, were owned as pets and many of those breeds had not been imported. There were GSDs but the public were scared of them due to the notion of them crossing with Dingos and owners tended to keep them well confined. The only terriers around were Foxies and Scotties and the bulk of other breeds were Cockers and Labs in the city and Cattle Dogs and Kelpies in the country. There were lots of small/medium heinz 57 variety mongrels but no large powerful dogs available to moron owners. Unfortunately the reason for these attacks is the type of dogs being bred and sold to the public who have no idea what owning them entails. They are all powerful agile dogs that have no trouble escaping the average suburban yard and have the tendency to attack with no provocation. I do not buy the notion of not blaming the breed, it is too late after an attack to blame the deed. We need to stop the deeds from happening in the first place. Any dog can bite but there is a huge difference between a warning nip or bite in play from an overexcited dog, to a full scale attack by a powerful dog that grabs and shakes their victim, leaving them dead or scarred and traumatised for life. I was told by an old guy that the WA two dog rule came about (~1970) because Perth metro was growing rapidly and lots of people coming in from the bush brought their pig dogs and roo dogs with them. Result, lots of wandering dogs and lots of attacks. If this is true, and it may not be, it sort of suggests that there were more than cattle dogs and kelpies in the country. It also suggests that legislation, though unpopular, has helped in the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/taping-of-farm-cruelty-is-becoming-the-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Some states here in the US are explicitly outlawing covert filming of animal establishments Quoting from the URL above But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms, or apply for a job at one without disclosing ties to animal rights groups. They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms. Critics call them “Ag-Gag” bills. Some of the legislation appears inspired by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business advocacy group with hundreds of state representatives from farm states as members. The group creates model bills, drafted by lobbyists and lawmakers, that in the past have included such things as “stand your ground” gun laws and tighter voter identification rules.

Two doctors from Brisbane hospitals did an over-view of treatment of bites (From the Australian Provider). The annual incidence of dog bites requiring emergency department treatment is 12.9 per 10 000 persons, with children aged 5-9 (particularly boys) having an incidence of 60.7 per 10 000 persons aged 5-9 years. Face, neck and head bites are more frequent in children.1 If only the annual incidence of human -on- human injuries, needing medical treatment, was so low. Hospital emergency departments are flooded with them.. Looks like if you're in a dark alley, statistically, you're better off meeting a dog than a person. But not quite so better off, if you're a child....or an elderly person. I wouldn't say those numbers are low. With around 1.3 million people aged 5 to 9 in Australia, that would mean ~7800 hospitalization a per year. Suggesting that only a small fraction make the news.

I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I once saw that said "every effort will be made to prevent the next disaster as soon as possible after it has occurred". Seems like some of the most serious attacks happen when the dog gets out. Or when the dog's owner is away and the 'carer' doesn't appreciate the dog's potential for ill deeds. The dog who jumped the fence in Como last week and did a good job of chewing up first a kid and then his dad, probably wouldn't have been deemed 'mencing' because he was behind a colorbond fence; and if he was declared mencing, the colorbond would probably have sufficed to satisfy the authorities he was adequately contained.

There are reasons to keep dew claws. See recent thread in the General discussion. http://www.dolforums...move-dew-claws/ Although dew claws may get torn, front dew claws are an integral part of the leg. Removing them may make your dog less able to manipulate things with its front paws and may destabilize gait in ways that produce arthritis. Dew claw removal is getting less popular in some agility circles. See http://www.caninespo...explanation.pdf Oops! Didn't read carefully. You said REAR dew claws. Almost no one thinks these are functional.

In this case, the helper is the pups' granny. She doesn't have much milk, but she's a big help keeping the whelping box clean, and I think the pups are quieter, presumably happier, having her company. <div><br></div><div>The broodiness seems to run in the line....I can trace it back four generations, and out to a few siblings.</div>