For All The Unethical (But Responsible) Dog Owners ...

[Steve]

- where is the problem here?

The problem is the OP posting history.

Do you mean in other threads? I've never noticed any problem but could have missed something Ive only ever seen him challenging common beliefs,and quite enjoyed his input. If there is a problem where he is in breach of forum rules surely thats up to Troy to sort out.

I don't believe that because someone has a posting history that others dont appreciate that it should be reason to skitch him in every post either and trying to shut him up.

[Purdie]

A work mate of mine brought his dog in to work a few weeks back and she was not the happy dog she normally is wanting pats and attention'' because ''her owner said she was on heat.

Now my thought was why doesn't he get her de sexed.But said nothing to him.

I wonder if there is any research on the behavior of female dogs during a heat;i don't have time to search right now.

General temperament and dog aggression, anxiety, is largely down to Genetics , training and environment.

[Steve]

A work mate of mine brought his dog in to work a few weeks back and she was not the happy dog she normally is wanting pats and attention'' because ''her owner said she was on heat.

Now my thought was why doesn't he get her de sexed.But said nothing to him.

I wonder if there is any research on the behavior of female dogs during a heat;i don't have time to search right now.

General temperament and dog aggression, anxiety, is largely down to Genetics , training and environment.

Female dogs on heat are often very much different to what they are when not on heat .they dont call em bitches for nothing. A nice quiet easy going girl starts to focus on nothing more than getting a male dog etc.

Around here I know about a week before any of my girls come on heat because they start being more assertive with each other over meals and attention.

[JulesP]

A work mate of mine brought his dog in to work a few weeks back and she was not the happy dog she normally is wanting pats and attention'' because ''her owner said she was on heat.

Now my thought was why doesn't he get her de sexed.But said nothing to him.

I wonder if there is any research on the behavior of female dogs during a heat;i don't have time to search right now.

General temperament and dog aggression, anxiety, is largely down to Genetics , training and environment.

Female dogs on heat are often very much different to what they are when not on heat .they dont call em bitches for nothing. A nice quiet easy going girl starts to focus on nothing more than getting a male dog etc.

Around here I know about a week before any of my girls come on heat because they start being more assertive with each other over meals and attention.

Mine just get very sooky.

[Steve]

A work mate of mine brought his dog in to work a few weeks back and she was not the happy dog she normally is wanting pats and attention'' because ''her owner said she was on heat.

Now my thought was why doesn't he get her de sexed.But said nothing to him.

I wonder if there is any research on the behavior of female dogs during a heat;i don't have time to search right now.

General temperament and dog aggression, anxiety, is largely down to Genetics , training and environment.

Female dogs on heat are often very much different to what they are when not on heat .they dont call em bitches for nothing. A nice quiet easy going girl starts to focus on nothing more than getting a male dog etc.

Around here I know about a week before any of my girls come on heat because they start being more assertive with each other over meals and attention.

Mine just get very sooky.

That too but with each other it can get a bit full on when they are on heat in comparison to when they are not. See it more obviously in the Maremma than the beagles but it still there.

[Steve]

So what about if instead of incentives to desex your dog these are replaced with other incentives?

Incentive if your puppy is microchipped by the breeder before you take it home.

This would impress the importance of purchasing from a breeder who microchips prior to sale as per current laws and move toward more animals past 8 weeks being able to be identified and accurate stats collected.

Incentives for vaccinating and basic training.

When the council sends out the paperwork to the new owner included could be things they need to consider - proven facts and management requirements they will face with an entire dog not biased toward what some think should be the outcome regarding desexing.

[Willem]

this is one of those websites promoting de-sexing that encouraged me to start this thread (and unfortunately there are many, many more of these ill informing sites): http://www.dogslife.com.au/dog-news/dog-health/desex-pet

quote from the DogsLife site:

More than 90 per cent of Australia’s registered dogs are desexed, which shows that most owners who are responsible enough to register their four-legged friends are also responsible enough to have them desexed

.

ok, got it...I'm in the 'not so responsible' group (BTW where did she get the 90% figure from?)

quote from DogsLife site:

According to Dr Sillince, the most compelling reason to desex a dog is the one that tends to frighten owners the most: cancer.

A desexed male will never develop testicular cancer, while desexed bitches will be free of uterine and ovarian cancers and be much less likely to develop mammary tumours. Desexing also significantly reduces the incidence of prostate problems in males. “Not only that, but it also eliminates a truly horrible infection of the uterus called pyometra, which can kill bitches,” Dr Sillince says. “If you had the chance to eliminate all these diseases for your dog, wouldn’t you want to do so?”

Several scientific studies

clearly show that desexed dogs live longer on average than entire canines [those that haven’t been desexed

where are these studies?...I only found these scientific studies that just prove the opposite:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937

http://www.gpmcf.org/PDFs/Action.pdf, ....here a quote from the latter:

In 2009, after carefully studying the association between the number of years of lifetime ovary exposure and highly successful aging in Rottweilers, we discovered that keeping ovaries longer is associated with living longer [6]. This link between ovaries and longevity was independent of lifetime

The last link is also discussed here (might be easier to read): http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2009/12/30/surgical-sterilization-could-reduce-your-pets-lifespan-by-over-30-percent.aspx#!

quote from the 'Dogslife' site:

Dogs that are desexed early also avoid learning adult sexual behaviours such as fighting for territory, excessive urine marking and resource-protection aggression. “That means your doggy friend focuses on you and your family instead of the local doggy girlfriend,” says Dr Sillince.

well, here 3 studies just showing the opposite:

http://www.saveourdogs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Aggression-and-spay-neuter-in-dogs.pdf

http://associationofanimalbehaviorprofessionals.com/effects_of_neutering.html

http://www.atftc.com/health/SNBehaviorBoneDataSnapShot.pdf....the latter one even disclosed correlations between de-sexing and ADD.

quote from the 'Dogslife' site:

The decision to desex has benefits for the wider community too. “The most obvious reason to desex is that it stops puppies. A bitch can produce up to 30 puppies per year, but a male dog can produce literally hundreds,” explains Dr Sillince. “It’s important to do your civic duty by getting your dogs desexed.”

...if my dog produces 30 puppies per year by accident I must be a complete idiot and shouldn't be allowed to have dogs at all (or in this case really only a de-sexed dog) ...or I might be just the wrong addressee for this statement?

Dear DogsLife,

IF DE-SEXING IS REALLY (???) THE ONLY OPTION TO CONTROL THE NUMBERS - SO BE IT!...BUT DON'T GIVE ME THE CRAP ABOUT ALL THE OTHER 'POSITIVE SIDEEFFECTS' ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH A SEVERE SURGICAL OPERATION!

Note that his article on the DogsLife site was written in April 2014 so their is no excuse for not conducting an unbiased research and consider opposing studies.

[Steve]

Might be pertinent to note that Dr Silliance is the head honcho for a pet shop group. What she says is true if you don't have testicles you don't get testicular cancer, if you don't have a uterus you don't get uterine cancer or pyometra. This is a provable fact

But what is the incidence of intact dogs getting these things and how many other cancers in other bits of their bodies are they more likely to get ?

the 90% figure probably comes from registration stats - that's also the figure they throw around in the states.

I would argue that the rest of that article could be easily challenged under demand to show that what is said in able to be proven.

Its part of the brain washing process thats impacted by things other than what is best for dogs.

[Willem]

So what about if instead of incentives to desex your dog these are replaced with other incentives?

Incentive if your puppy is microchipped by the breeder before you take it home.

This would impress the importance of purchasing from a breeder who microchips prior to sale as per current laws and move toward more animals past 8 weeks being able to be identified and accurate stats collected.

Incentives for vaccinating and basic training.

When the council sends out the paperwork to the new owner included could be things they need to consider - proven facts and management requirements they will face with an entire dog not biased toward what some think should be the outcome regarding desexing.

I'm not so sure about incentives - registrations should be easier and enforced. Imagine our cars wouldn't be registered.

I'm still contemplating about the numbers. Currently breeders are providing approx. 420,000 puppies (10 years average life span assumed), approx. 70,000 are from recognized and registered breeders, and considering their T&Cs I don't believe that these puppies will have a major impact on pounds.

That leaves approx. 350,000 new puppies from not registered breeders that are sold / bought in a less controlled environment. The breeders aiming for profit among this group don't have a big interest to de-sex, being controlled and registered - and I can't see that the current system address their loop holes. Approx. 50,000 dogs end up in pounds - what it tells me is that even a very small group of irresponsible breeders among the ones that cater for the 350,000 puppies can have a devastating impact if they 'throw too many puppies' on the market.

If this relative small group can't be tracked down and controlled, I believe the only other option is education and some kind of 'dog license' for owners (similar to a driver license or gun license)...the aim would be to increase their commitment, make them think twice before embarking on a dog ownership ...and here I believe incentives for educational accompanying measures would be well spent. You want to be a dog owner?...pass a theoretical test, spend 8 hours of voluntary work in a pound, demonstrate some practical skills in a dog trainings club...and you are ready to get you P-plate dog owner license ...verify that you do obedience training with your dog for at least 1 year and you get your full dog owner license...

[Steve]

So what about if instead of incentives to desex your dog these are replaced with other incentives?

Incentive if your puppy is microchipped by the breeder before you take it home.

This would impress the importance of purchasing from a breeder who microchips prior to sale as per current laws and move toward more animals past 8 weeks being able to be identified and accurate stats collected.

Incentives for vaccinating and basic training.

When the council sends out the paperwork to the new owner included could be things they need to consider - proven facts and management requirements they will face with an entire dog not biased toward what some think should be the outcome regarding desexing.

I'm not so sure about incentives - registrations should be easier and enforced. Imagine our cars wouldn't be registered.

I'm still contemplating about the numbers. Currently breeders are providing approx. 420,000 puppies (10 years average life span assumed), approx. 70,000 are from recognized and registered breeders, and considering their T&Cs I don't believe that these puppies will have a major impact on pounds.

That leaves approx. 350,000 new puppies from not registered breeders that are sold / bought in a less controlled environment. The breeders aiming for profit among this group don't have a big interest to de-sex, being controlled and registered - and I can't see that the current system address their loop holes. Approx. 50,000 dogs end up in pounds - what it tells me is that even a very small group of irresponsible breeders among the ones that cater for the 350,000 puppies can have a devastating impact if they 'throw too many puppies' on the market.

If this relative small group can't be tracked down and controlled, I believe the only other option is education and some kind of 'dog license' for owners (similar to a driver license or gun license)...the aim would be to increase their commitment, make them think twice before embarking on a dog ownership ...and here I believe incentives for educational accompanying measures would be well spent. You want to be a dog owner?...pass a theoretical test, spend 8 hours of voluntary work in a pound, demonstrate some practical skills in a dog trainings club...and you are ready to get you P-plate dog owner license ...verify that you do obedience training with your dog for at least 1 year and you get your full dog owner license...

I agree with education but will fight you on licenses .

The demand for puppies far out weighs the demand so how can you say that there are too many coming onto the market place . People - pet owners want new puppies.

[Willem]

So what about if instead of incentives to desex your dog these are replaced with other incentives?

Incentive if your puppy is microchipped by the breeder before you take it home.

This would impress the importance of purchasing from a breeder who microchips prior to sale as per current laws and move toward more animals past 8 weeks being able to be identified and accurate stats collected.

Incentives for vaccinating and basic training.

When the council sends out the paperwork to the new owner included could be things they need to consider - proven facts and management requirements they will face with an entire dog not biased toward what some think should be the outcome regarding desexing.

I'm not so sure about incentives - registrations should be easier and enforced. Imagine our cars wouldn't be registered.

I'm still contemplating about the numbers. Currently breeders are providing approx. 420,000 puppies (10 years average life span assumed), approx. 70,000 are from recognized and registered breeders, and considering their T&Cs I don't believe that these puppies will have a major impact on pounds.

That leaves approx. 350,000 new puppies from not registered breeders that are sold / bought in a less controlled environment. The breeders aiming for profit among this group don't have a big interest to de-sex, being controlled and registered - and I can't see that the current system address their loop holes. Approx. 50,000 dogs end up in pounds - what it tells me is that even a very small group of irresponsible breeders among the ones that cater for the 350,000 puppies can have a devastating impact if they 'throw too many puppies' on the market.

If this relative small group can't be tracked down and controlled, I believe the only other option is education and some kind of 'dog license' for owners (similar to a driver license or gun license)...the aim would be to increase their commitment, make them think twice before embarking on a dog ownership ...and here I believe incentives for educational accompanying measures would be well spent. You want to be a dog owner?...pass a theoretical test, spend 8 hours of voluntary work in a pound, demonstrate some practical skills in a dog trainings club...and you are ready to get you P-plate dog owner license ...verify that you do obedience training with your dog for at least 1 year and you get your full dog owner license...

I agree with education but will fight you on licenses .

The demand for puppies far out weighs the demand so how can you say that there are too many coming onto the market place . People - pet owners want new puppies.

But how do you want owners get motivated to educate themselves?...they likely won't spend the time in a pound or for a test if they don't have to...you register the dog, you register the owner, your register that the owner is qualified.

Your last sentence made me laugh...reminds me of my last 5 years: Daddy, daddy,...why can't we have a dog...everyone has a dog...yes, I will do all the required work......There is the risk, and unfortunately the easier something is available, the less it is valued.

[Willem]

Might be pertinent to note that Dr Silliance is the head honcho for a pet shop group. What she says is true if you don't have testicles you don't get testicular cancer, if you don't have a uterus you don't get uterine cancer or pyometra. This is a provable fact

But what is the incidence of intact dogs getting these things and how many other cancers in other bits of their bodies are they more likely to get ?

the 90% figure probably comes from registration stats - that's also the figure they throw around in the states.

I would argue that the rest of that article could be easily challenged under demand to show that what is said in able to be proven.

Its part of the brain washing process thats impacted by things other than what is best for dogs.

true, but what is the gain for females if you trade uterine cancer for an increase of HSA from 1.6% to 7.6% and up to 5.7% for MCT, which is nearly non-existent in intact females?...and for males the negative trade offs seem to be avoidable only if they are de-sexed when older, which raises the question: if you can manage your entire male for the first 2 years, why wouldn't you be able to manage it for the years to come?

[Steve]

Well clearly those who make the rules believe that providing a lesser fee to reward the behaviour they want is the way to go .The importance of their priorities is on desexing and this is the only measure of whether someone is deemed to be potentially more responsible.

Those who are motivated to do so and get the lesser fees also have to pay higher fees due to vet costs .

Any number of strategies and incentives, penalties can be put in place depending on what the focus is going to be on and what the goal is. For now the goal is get everyone to desex their dogs but if it were get everyone to take their puppies to puppy preschool similar processes would produce the same results.

[Steve]

Might be pertinent to note that Dr Silliance is the head honcho for a pet shop group. What she says is true if you don't have testicles you don't get testicular cancer, if you don't have a uterus you don't get uterine cancer or pyometra. This is a provable fact

But what is the incidence of intact dogs getting these things and how many other cancers in other bits of their bodies are they more likely to get ?

the 90% figure probably comes from registration stats - that's also the figure they throw around in the states.

I would argue that the rest of that article could be easily challenged under demand to show that what is said in able to be proven.

Its part of the brain washing process thats impacted by things other than what is best for dogs.

true, but what is the gain for females if you trade uterine cancer for an increase of HSA from 1.6% to 7.6% and up to 5.7% for MCT, which is nearly non-existent in intact females?...and for males the negative trade offs seem to be avoidable only if they are de-sexed when older, which raises the question: if you can manage your entire male for the first 2 years, why wouldn't you be able to manage it for the years to come?

Arguing what is the gain isnt going to take us anywhere because at the end of the day its about being educated on all of the issues and having the freedom to choose to do what you and your vet consider to be the best for you and your dog.

I understand that its difficult to educate everyone who will be asked to face the question but its the entire system which actively suppresses the provable facts and doesn't enable the dog owner to make the best decisions for them. Some will consider the risks and still see that its worth the risk for them to live more happily with their dog - others wont.

You have to be careful how you present your defence of your decision which isnt doing what you are complaining of to others. Making them defend their choices rather than trying to educate them on why you made your choice.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Steve

[Steph M]

Can I be honest? I don't know why anyone gives a flying frick if anyone else thinks they're 'unethical' for not desexing?

You do what works for you, for reasons you're happy with and taking on risks that you're comfortable wearing.

Its not like your dog has to wear a flashing collar or you have to explain yourself to anyone if you don't want to. I don't understand the point of this thread, you do you and don't push anyone else one way or another.

The rules are there because a substantial number of people can't have nice things, desexing or sterilising should be the default for Joe Public who likes to take his dog to the park on weekends, train it enough to come when called and sit for treats and has no intention or need to breed it.

I don't think we should be advertising the benefits of entire dogs to everyone who comes in with a pup, incl people who will take advantage of that viewpoint or that or might be unable to manage them.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Steph M

[Willem]

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/09/06/one-two-possible-reasons-dogs-live-longer-in-europe.aspx

...listen to the broadcast ...interesting...

Eta...couldn't resist, had to buy the book (Pukka's Promise: The Quest for Longer-Lived Dogs Paperback – February 4, 2014), it has a lot of excellent critics on Amazon (I bought it from evil bay so at it was a few $$ cheaper)

Eta: here some Editorial Reviews

“Kerasote traveled the world in search of answers to these questions, and he truly offers the reader a range of expert guidance that will be beneficial for anyone who wants to ensure that their dogs will be healthy and well.” —Seattle Post-Intelligencer

“Kerasote takes nothing as gospel and nothing for granted . . . By distilling years of in-depth research on a wide array of canine health topics into a provocative, thought-provoking book, Kerasote has done us all a huge favor.” —The Bark

“Every page bursts with an exceptional fusion of groundbreaking science, eye-opening facts and compassion for our canine companions. I keep going back to it as a trusted source of information and inspiration. This book is such a gift of life to all dogs.” —Judith Samson-French, DVM, founder of Dogs with No Names

"This might be the most important book about dogs written in a decade. Kerasote tells us early on that Pukka means ‘first class’ in Hindi, and first-class is a perfect description of Pukka's Promise. It’s a brilliant integration of speculation, cutting-edge science and story, and will keep you up at night wanting to read more. Every dog lover needs to read this book."—Patricia B. McConnell, author of The Other End of the Leash

"Here’s a dog lover who actually teaches his dog using modern training entirely: communication, observation, and now and then a clicker—not just to build a bond and a working relationship but also to create a running conversation between man and animal. This book also investigates kibble (Is it really good for dogs?) and vaccinations (Why so many? Why so often?) and other commercial pressures on our best friends’ wellbeing. What a good read."—Karen Pryor, author of Reaching the Animal Mind

"Pukka’s Promise is without question the most intelligent, most comprehensive book ever written about extending the lifetimes of dogs. Not only that, but it’s riveting. After years of flawless research plus a life of valuable experience, Kerasote has produced a masterpiece that everyone should read. From pet owners to professionals such as breeders, shelter-workers, and veterinarians, those who think they already know about dogs are in for a real surprise."—Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, author of The Hidden Lives of Dogs

"Ted Kerasote gently and intelligently questions our fixed notions about living with dogs. Anyone who reads Pukka’s Promise can't help but become a better dog person. I'd like it to be compulsory reading for all practicing vets and veterinary students."—Bruce Fogle, DVM, author of The Dog’s Mind

"Ted Kerasote, a born storyteller, writes about dogs with singular brilliance. Pukka's Promise is great fun but is also packed with important, surprising information; with wisdom, compassion, and love."—Dean Koontz, author of A Big Little Life: A Memoir of a Joyful Dog

"Ted Kerasote mixes science with love to take on the question every dog lover asks: Can I keep my dog alive longer? Pukka's Promise stirs our hopes for the future and gives us hard information for now."—Jon Katz, author of A Good Dog

"At once encyclopedic and intimate—a tour de force in canine appreciation." —Kirkus (starred review)

"A moving account of one man's journey to understand man's best friend inside and out... Kerasote's latest is heartbreaking, funny, and informative."—Publishers Weekly

plus 345 ratings on Amazon giving 4.5 stars out of 5...

Edited May 13, 2016 by Willem

[Steve]

Can I be honest? I don't know why anyone gives a flying frick if anyone else thinks they're 'unethical' for not desexing?

You do what works for you, for reasons you're happy with and taking on risks that you're comfortable wearing.

Its not like your dog has to wear a flashing collar or you have to explain yourself to anyone if you don't want to. I don't understand the point of this thread, you do you and don't push anyone else one way or another.

The rules are there because a substantial number of people can't have nice things, desexing or sterilising should be the default for Joe Public who likes to take his dog to the park on weekends, train it enough to come when called and sit for treats and has no intention or need to breed it.

I don't think we should be advertising the benefits of entire dogs to everyone who comes in with a pup, incl people who will take advantage of that viewpoint or that or might be unable to manage them.

Well humans usually react in numerous ways to a given stimuli. Some will care others wont - some here do.

I don't think discussing the provable facts about the pros and cons of having your dog desexed is advertising the benefits of entire dogs but I don't agree that everyone who buys a new puppy should be considered and nutter and isnt able to see the facts and make a decisions that is best for them.

how do you justify treating the majority of people who have pets as potentially irresponsible rather than treating the majority as if they will be responsible. MOST people who own dogs ARE responsible. In case Im an idiot tell me lies and allow me to make choices which will impact on my animals without by with holding knowledge ? I dont think thats easily justified

[_PL_]

Too bad some of the posts in this thread are inflammatory and confrontational toward the OP and seem to be designed to punish the OP in some way for wanting to discuss something he sees as worthy of a chat. It also prevents other from saying what they truly think in fear of being belted.

For me personally Ive never given much thought to the whole increased fees for entire animals ,never really thought about whether they are punishments or incentives and several other things which have sparked my thought processes because of this thread.

I think its a worthy conversation and I would like to see people being able to say what they think so we can challenge our own views and take a look at others.

So far its led me to thinking differently about possible solutions for the numbers being dumped which Ive not considered before and Im enjoying it because I think challenging the same old same old so we don't get the same old same old results is healthy and what is best for the dogs

Im more than happy to be proven wrong if it means less dogs suffer and change my view and put in place programs which may help so if you dont want to contribute and debate what you feel is one thing or another why muck it up for everyone else?

Crap. You want inflammatory take a look at post 1. If you're worried about people being put off by the other dolers, you're looking at the wrong end of the dog.

[Dogdragon]

Can I be honest? I don't know why anyone gives a flying frick if anyone else thinks they're 'unethical' for not desexing?

You do what works for you, for reasons you're happy with and taking on risks that you're comfortable wearing.

Its not like your dog has to wear a flashing collar or you have to explain yourself to anyone if you don't want to. I don't understand the point of this thread, you do you and don't push anyone else one way or another.

The rules are there because a substantial number of people can't have nice things, desexing or sterilising should be the default for Joe Public who likes to take his dog to the park on weekends, train it enough to come when called and sit for treats and has no intention or need to breed it.

I don't think we should be advertising the benefits of entire dogs to everyone who comes in with a pup, incl people who will take advantage of that viewpoint or that or might be unable to manage them.

For the most part I do actually agree with this statement. We do have to legislate for the lowest possible denominator but I do also think that the majority of pet owners are responsible and it is the minority that cause those of us who prefer not to desex (for our own personal reasons,after all its our choice ATM) to have to pay higher than those who choice to.

I do agree with Willem that there has to be a better system where responsible dog owners are not penalized by higher fees.

I have owned dog for more than 20 years and only desex when I need to and only had to once. Obviously some have come to me desexed but as a rule I prefer not to.

I love the idea of having to obtain a license to have children and own pets…..With tests applied….. :D

[Willem]

Too bad some of the posts in this thread are inflammatory and confrontational toward the OP and seem to be designed to punish the OP in some way for wanting to discuss something he sees as worthy of a chat. It also prevents other from saying what they truly think in fear of being belted.

For me personally Ive never given much thought to the whole increased fees for entire animals ,never really thought about whether they are punishments or incentives and several other things which have sparked my thought processes because of this thread.

I think its a worthy conversation and I would like to see people being able to say what they think so we can challenge our own views and take a look at others.

So far its led me to thinking differently about possible solutions for the numbers being dumped which Ive not considered before and Im enjoying it because I think challenging the same old same old so we don't get the same old same old results is healthy and what is best for the dogs

Im more than happy to be proven wrong if it means less dogs suffer and change my view and put in place programs which may help so if you dont want to contribute and debate what you feel is one thing or another why muck it up for everyone else?

Crap. You want inflammatory take a look at post 1. If you're worried about people being put off by the other dolers, you're looking at the wrong end of the dog.

well, looking at something from a different angle is all part of a holistic in nature approach, isn't it :) ?