Steve

I have 8 kids and remember being pregnant with my 7th and watching someone else's toddler and thinking what am I doing I don''t even like kids , I see kids out and about and think Geez I hate kids how did I do that? But fact is I dont like other people's kids that much but then I dont really like other people's dogs that much either Now my youngest has just turned 18 I dont regret a minute of having them - the 15 and counting grandkids Im not eager to babysit or be in their company for too long .Even though they all love me and think Im great fun Im not one of those Nanas that looks for their company or wants to be too much a part of their lives. So Ive always had dogs - cant remember a day of my life with out them and Ive had kids since I was 17 wasnt too much time I had without them either. I had a litter of puppies the day my youngest was born, whelped the litter had contractions when the bitch had hers, made sure she was done and dusted and made it to hospital with 10 mins to spare for having my baby. I would recommend both kids and dogs if they are your own. Ive loved being a Mum and I love being a dog lady. For me they go together not separate.

I went to look at buying a pup from WA about a year ago and the breeder told me that as the rest of the litter was sold without papers he would not sell a breeding dog from that litter as it wasnt worth his while. Had something to do with him having to register the whole litter if he registered one. I didnt look into it as I just put him in the shonky basket but he advertises on dogz and I guess according to his state's rules he is covered. The question is why - they provide an option for limited or main - still feels to me that one of the ways to determine someone who is breeding for the future of the breed and wanting the most info possible from a pedigree to breed better dogs wouldnt do it and I wouldnt buy a puppy from anyone who did this . I understand that lots of pet puppy buyers dont think papers are important but there needs to be education to explain why papers are so important to record information for breeding decisions and to encourage the buyer to see them as something to be proud of. This is asking a lot when clearly the breeders themselves dont see why and how the pedigree system is used to make the best decisions and why we need to be able to track every dog and know what turns up.

please finish this sentence! (Frenchies are I breed I've been following for friends who are interested but I've never been able to wholeheartedly recommend the breed to them, low litter sizes, health issues, I would love the breed to thrive and not be such a novelty, but from what I've seen the high prices per pup are completely necessary for good breeders, but on the flip side are making $ $ flash in the wrong type of breeders eyes) Just adding my two cents worth. Even 'well bred' Frenchies seem to need operations such as nostril widening and soft palate being done. Im part of a Frenchie facebook page and Im pretty sure most on there have had this operation. Its kind of astounding there are huge waiting lists for people prepared to pay $3000+ knowing there will also be future operations needed (none of them particularly cheap). Are breathing issues even something which can be avoided through different breeding decisions? Should a dog be included in a breeding program which needed its nostrils widened or its palate done? How is the breed being bettered if this isn't happening? If you consider a litter of six puppies bringing in $18,000 and breeders Im sure have more than one female, doesn't that give so many more option to afford to really focus on improving the breed or even eradicating these known breed problems? On top of that most end up being treated like delicate flowers and not exercised hard or allowed to extend themselves too much. Im not sure how many get to enjoy a life other dogs might, but in saying that their nature is generally adorable and I wouldn't be without mine lol. Yes breathing issues are something that can be eliminated via selection for that and no a dog that has nostril problems shouldn't be included in a breeding program - but again its all about what the breeder is selecting for and what their goal is and what they are prepared to compromise on to get it. Breeding for money isnt the only thing that can lead breeders into a place they shouldnt go.

Before we all jump in sometimes the confusion starts with a misunderstanding the breeder may mean not main register papers not no papers at all. Its common for breeders to charge much more for breeding dogs . I also understood it to mean NO papers.. " $2800 with papers or is willing to sell the pup for $1600 without papers but with a copy of both parents papers." Ah well then they are breaching their code and if they do this because they think they can get away with imagine what else they may be doing - go elsewhere.

Before we all jump in sometimes the confusion starts with a misunderstanding the breeder may mean not main register papers not no papers at all. Its common for breeders to charge much more for breeding dogs .

No amount is too much to pay for anything if you think what you are getting is worth it - so tell me what exactly is it that you think you will be getting other than the colour for your $1600 .What has the breeder put in over and above any other breeder and why are the dogs they breed superior?

Yep I have to admit that over the years its the people who buy my breed from a nuff nuff or a pet shop and then expect me to advise them and be there for them when it goes belly up that give me a pain.

please finish this sentence! (Frenchies are I breed I've been following for friends who are interested but I've never been able to wholeheartedly recommend the breed to them, low litter sizes, health issues, I would love the breed to thrive and not be such a novelty, but from what I've seen the high prices per pup are completely necessary for good breeders, but on the flip side are making $ $ flash in the wrong type of breeders eyes) Sorry I was doing two things at once You see 200 french bulldog breeders now advertising but most of them will stop pretty quickly when they work out that the sums they did considering breeding them dont match their results and its bloody hard yakka. Most of them will be gone within 2 or three litters.

It doesn't matter what the secondary goal is as long as the health and welfare of the dogs and the breed takes priority and is never compromised on.Trying to breed a champion, or a working dog can see a breeder get into trouble if they compromise to get their goal at the dog's or the bred's expense just as those who place profit over welfare. The more you do something the better you get and you cant keep doing something well unless you are independently wealthy without some return to at least over all cover your expenses. There is a good reason why the ATO dont want dog breeders to say they are intending to make a profit because once they do they are able to claim all of their expenses against their income. That includes electricity, phones, stationary, travel expenses, fencing, housing,as well as the vets, food, bedding, stud services etc . Animal rights and out of touch Journos like to report how much a breeder has made over a period by calculating income - never considering what the out lay had to be for years before and throughout that period. You have to sell a lot of puppies when the codes in some states require you to spend a fortune on housing and dogs kept for breeding do have to eat, be housed and be vetted for up to two years before there is any kind of promise of a return. You have to be breeding a hell of a lot of puppies before you can say next litter Im in the black and expect to stay there. Research says that most people who breed dogs last about 5 years - that's how long it takes em to work out that even though the puppies are expensive and they can get top dollar for them that they cant make any money out of their first couple of girls and it takes too much work and sacrifice to stick with it. You see 200 french bulldog breeders now advertising but most of them Bigger litters have bigger expenses. They are usually with bigger dogs which need bigger more expensive bedding, flea tick and worm treatments,bigger feed bills,more cleaning, greater risk of the dog you keep for breeding having to be eliminated at 12 months of age due to high hip scores etc. Few people understand what I do here to prepare a pup that's going home to be responsible for a flock of sheep or chickens or that will live as a therapy dog for an autistic child etc. Areas that can be used for whelping ,rearing and socialising and training puppies and keeping adults dogs safe etc dont just magically appear from the sky either. Fencing and housing in small areas set aside for the initial bonding process for puppies cost money to build and maintain, They are whelped in my home but they still have to have confinement when whelping or I end up with the whole house looking like a murder scene. Large pens and big whelping boxes become part of the furniture and it takes over my whole life for weeks not counting the hours and resources I put in prior to the big day or between them.

Not sure why its become expected that because someone breeds dogs they should not ever make a profit now and then and take a reward for themselves as payment for a job well done or buy some new dog beds or dog toys. Cant see why its an issue if someone who is good at what they do and has a primary focus on what is good for the breed and their dogs that they should remain poverty stricken - especially when they watch numpties and pet shops getting top dollars Its a supply and demand issue anyway. No point in saying how much it costs to breed em and you need your money back if no one is prepared to pay what you need to cover your expenses .And if I can get more money Im not a mug Im not in it primarily to make money but Im not happy to loose it either if I don't have to. This is the only activity I know where the propoganda has actually perpetuated the idea that those who produce better quality more often and get more money for what they do are somehow deficient. The whole idea that I should ask less money because asking what I can get for them is some sign Im a lesser breeder is nuts. In his report into purebred dog breeding bateson said "Those breeders who deliver genuinely high welfare standards should be rewarded and recognised for the efforts, both in the show ring and in the market place,”

its about the fact that they promoted their dogs just the same way that most registered breeders do as being something they cant be. The fines were given for misleading conduct - not their breeding practices. HD is a whole new subject but no matter what a breeder does to try to avoid it its still possible to see it turn up and it may turn up in clusters as it has in this case which can make it look like it has a greater genetic component , Could have been impacted by numerous things the breeder might be unaware of and never be able to identify. Might even be impacted by the nutrition of the mother , grandmother or the puppies, a chemical used on in or near the bitch when she was pregnant etc. Every registered breeder should take special notice of what I am about to say. 1. When people come to buy a pup from a registered breeder often they believe this will guarantee that their puppy will not ever have a problem. Marketing of what registered breeders do and information that is distributed about why buying from a registered breeders is better and less risky is distributed at every opportunity which reinforces for the puppy buyer that purchasing from a registered breeder is a less risky experience and they walk away with a baby in their arms they fall in love with that they had no idea could have developed health issues because it is a living creature. Even if the breeder never makes an assertion that the dog will never have a problem and does not give a guarantee the fact is that the buyer has come to the registered breeder and in their mind there is an implied warranty. The breeder has to be careful to remove that implied warranty and explain there can be no guarantee past being able to guarantee a pup wont develop a genetic disorder which both parents have been cleared of via DNA testing. If they dont then puppy buyers who are emotional because their baby is suffering and uneducated on the ins and outs of what causes such things want to be comforted and compensated. 2. The only two things as a breeder you can guarantee is that the dog wont develop a recessive disorder excluded by DNA and that at the time of sale the dog is fit and healthy - unless you notify them of a fault which you are aware at time of sale. As a breeder you have to remove any idea the buyer may have in their mind - or the implied warranty - and you should do that in writing As a breeder you have to be careful that you make no verbal or written statements that would in anyway be able to be considered to be misleading. Obviously You cant say you are 15 years HD free if you have been advised that some dogs you bred are affected Part of the deal the court ordered them to do is to notify puppy buyers 48 hours before taking money that they don't hip score - This implies that this is something the puppy buyers would expect them to do as a matter of course even though this is not mandatory for this breed. But what if tomorrow they start to hip score - how would that prevent them from using dogs with high scores, or any puppy buyer being able to be more assured that their puppy wont get HD even if they only use dogs with low scores? They still have to notify the buyer that there is no warranty - implied or other wise that their puppies wont develop hip problems. It is telling that the retained testicle which is evident at time of sale, that the breeder should have a vet certificate on and should have notified the buyer about with consequences for the dog and owner before they took the pup is shrugged off but the HD which the breeder couldnt have known about at time of sale and which is impacted by so many other things that the breeder has no control over is treated and viewed as a terrible sin. Why would the breeder be being held responsible for a dog that died so long after it left their care from exposure to a rare Algae?

Its better - good in comparison to anything else but a long way from what it needs to be if its about being able to profile a pedigree for health , temperament, work, and a whole heap of other things. Ive no desire to go into any more details here on this but for the record The MDBA registry is recording and sharing it all on the front of pedigrees which go out to every dog owner which relate to the specific dogs in the pedigree and gathering stats - both vertical and horizontal to be able to allow much more info to be available on the breeds. It identifies undershot and over shot jaws, maternal issues, allergies, carriers and affected, cancers, and of anything as it is diagnosed - in fact it really does record everything we can get our hands on so breeders can see info on everydog. Much of what we collect is from the pet dog owner so its not just collected from breeders We are also collecting it from all countries as swapping of sperm and sales of dogs these days doesn't stop at the border.

desexing pets wont help because the people who are breeding them can still breed them if they say they want to breed them or if they are registered breeders . If DOL has 200 breeders thats the same 200 breeders who will still be breeding them if pets have to be desexed. Might stop a handful of people who have a l;itter or two BYB but the 200 plus which are registered or puppy farmers will breed more to fill the gap. Leaving it up to the AVA or Dogs SA leaves a lot out too.

I'm happy to discuss this sensibly. I know I come across as an apologist for the current system but I'm not silly enough to believe there aren't issues. However, right now as far as I'm concerned its the least worst system out there. Without pedigrees, without health testing, you have nowhere to start improving. Outside of a few other registers, there IS no pedigree system other than CCs. The ANKC controls the register here but that is not a universal situation with kennel clubs so it pays to be VERY specific rather than generalist in discussing what the issues are and what needs to change. Ditto for breeds. Yes, inbreeding leads to issues. That's a no brainer. But at what point in a COI is it inbreeding? I know of people regularly doing matings (three I can think of right now) where the COI is less than 1%. Any less and you'd have to use another breed. But I will tell you this, without purebred dogs, without pedigrees you ain't got squat to work with when discussing genetic health issues. There is no such thing as a general genetic health test that I'm aware of. And to suggest that BYB dogs or crossbreds are automatically healthier is to ignore a raft of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. HD is not a breed specific issue for a start. But at least with purebreds, people are testing and are recording results. There is no such thing as a "breed average" hip score outside of that system. So yes, we need to do it better, starting with better breeding education. But at least in Australia, breeders are required to have some knowledge before they will be ANKC registered. No argument in most of what you have said and I agree - using a pedigree system to be able to breed healthier dogs is my only reason for continuing on as a registered breeder but lets look at it closer - The presumption is that there is information contained in the ANKC pedigree system which is accessible and retrievable to enable a breeder to make the best decisions. You say without pedigrees you have nowhere to start improving- but just because the ANKC registers purebred dogs and issues a pedigree which tells you the name of a dog in the ancestry and whether or not it is a champion only in an organised event that the ANKC recognise doesn't help you to do what you are wanting the system to do. This is what Sandgrubber is saying she found when she was trying to identify any dogs in a pedigree that could bring positive or negative health and temperament to her breeding program - but the ANKC system offers the ability to be sure of how many champs are in there and nothing else. The information sharing so breeders from now into eternity can access to make educated decisions doesn't exist within the ANKC system. The fact that the only information provided to me as an ANKC breeder on the ancestry of my dogs is what breed they were, what sex and colour they were and whether or not they are champs speaks volumes to the fact that the CCs place an emphasis on conformation with everything else coming in as secondary. That's O.K. that's what their purpose was but if we are honestly going to argue that it is possible to profile a pedigree and select mates based on what is truly best for the dogs and the breeds then its a slow road for improvement if this is one of the basics for selection as it is today. You say without health testing you have nowhere to start improving but not all breeders do health test, some breeders tell lies about their results, some breeders don't share their results and some dont remember. For this to work you have to know not just the health test results but also the other variables that may impact on which dog you choose to mate a dog with.You cant rely on only the breeders providing this information. If you were breeding Labs would you know which dogs in the pedigree were Degenerative Myolopathy carriers even if their breeders tested them for it? Even if their owners spoke about it when it turned up? Hips are scored - thats a whole new topic but - the scores are not recorded on an ANKC pedigree and a champion dog with bad hips that produces puppies with bad hips is not identified. How do I know if there are dogs in the ancestry which had allergies or bad reactions to vaccines, or medications? How do I know where the C sections were or bitches that ate their babies? How do I know where the dogs might be that had issues with breathing or quality of life in other ways? Yes it is someplace to start that is better than nothing but we need to see what the traditional system of pedigree records can and cant do. I believe there are ways of giving breeders the information they need which can be passed on for all breeders into the future to use and it is being used by more and more each day as a dual registry or in some cases as the only registry. Next - How closely a dog is related to the dog it is mating should be part of the consideration but there isnt any point in making sure that we get low rates of inbreeding in a litter if the process doesn't help the health of the dogs or the breed There are valid reasons as to why a breeder might choose to use any dog. We should be asking what the goal is for each litter and what it is we are needing the dog to bring to the gene pool if its getting rid of a gene or trait that will stop the breed from suffering etc,or introducing one that helps. The problem isnt when we closely breed our own dogs in our own yard for a generation or two but it is when the whole bloody breed is controlled and manipulated by a handful of breeders with the objective of making dogs champions which fit the current clone model and having a gang of people who do as they are told owning their dogs. What is best for a breed is often decided upon by people who have no clue past the belief that what is best for the breed is to breed more champions that fit the current model. I could yak on for ages about this but we do need to look at what genetic diversity we have in a breed and consider what we might be able to do to increase the gene pool and its diversity if it means increased health and welfare for the dogs in phenotype and genotype. This means considering opening stud books - with restrictions and encouraging breeders to think for themselves and make independent decisions . the way the conformation show system is now the chances that there will be a change in culture and attitudes enough to see much improvement within the traditional system is remote. Its pretty hard in Australia in the year 2015 not to have some knowledge of how and why its done and making people do an exam before they can have a prefix is probably a good look but in my opinion it has minimal impact and doesn't help if the entire process is based on a questionable objective.

Absolutely agree that breeding the best to the best is dependent on the current cultural belief of breeders as to what is the best and the system which has been responsible for influencing and determining what is considered the best has been based in how the dog looks over all else. I dont think that is the end of the story and I believe there are other contributing factors which all stem from the same place and I cant see much hope that there will be much progress as long as the system is so restrictive and exclusionary. Experience tells me that this isnt the place to try to discuss the problem, the possible solutions or alternatives but I do think its time to be honest and think outside what has been accepted as the only way of doing things if we all havent lost sight of what really is best for the dogs and our breeds.

Not sure that sitting back and waiting to see what comes of this is wise if someone wants to impact on whether it will be passed. Surely now is the time to not sit back and better for people to contact those who will be part of the voting to ensure they get what they are voting on other than the submission as it will be presented.

My link Pros and Cons

Its not just that - when they do introduce knee jerk things into legislation they have no method of measuring whether its having any negative or positive impact - The ACT mandatory desexing made no difference - they see this they know this yet there is never going to be a discussion about whether it can be lifted because it hasnt had the desired result. They aren't pushing for a pilot study or a gathering of real research.they haven't built in a method for assessing the results. They are talking about every dog owner and their dogs being affected who live in that state based on assumption and do gooders.

If you mean registered purebred breeders coping with demand they cant - no where near it but they cant make laws that prevent a person from breeding cross bred dogs or non ANKC registered dogs anyway . They can introduce a system that allows everyone regardless of what they breed to be registered with council and in some states they also allow exemptions to a point for breeders who are registered with some other orgs. but they have to give everyone regardless of what they breed the ability to do so with an even playing field. All this registration or licencing process does is make it hard for small breeders who want to just have a litter now and then does and make it hard for small breeders. As small breeders stop breeding bigger breeders fill the demand or the small breeders have to get bigger to get their money back that they have had to use to comply with crazy laws - in the meantime the really rotten ones carry on as usual.

Agreed - problem is we have nutters in the dog world who actually select for cranky dog temperaments when they breed them or who think when Mum or Dad is nuts that its a one off .

Good thinking - everyone should have a go.

Recently in my statistic class, we learnt that in 2007 there were 4 nicholas cage movies released, compared to one or none other years, and in that year there were 100 more drownings. Therefore, obviously Nicholas cage movies cause drownings. The point of it was to not trust statistics entirely because they can be spun however you want. I would be more likely to assume that these dogs are owned by people who fail to manage and train their dogs correctly, and therefore don't wish to spend money on desexing, leading to these untrained dogs biting and happening to have testicles... Yep you can make statistics swing depending on the question and the correlations you make . Do they even keep data on whether a dog has its testicles if it bites someone, do they keep data on who breeds it and owns it and what if anything there is in common?

Male dogs For most male dogs – especially young male dogs thereis over whelming evidence to believe that sterilisation will not prevent healthproblems and that there is in fact greater risk of health problems arising fromdesexing which far outweigh any health benefits. Positive, sterilisationmale dogs: eliminates the small risk (<1%) of dying from testicular cancer; reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders; reduces the risk of perianal fistulas; and may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive). Negative, sterilisationmale dogs: If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis; increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6; triples the risk of hypothyroidism; increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment; triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems; quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer; doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers; increases the risk of orthopaedic disorders; and • increases therisk of adverse reactions to vaccinations. Female dogs For female dogsthere may be more health benefits than adverse affects but much is dependent onage a time of spay and breed. Positive,spaying female dogs: If done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumours, the most common malignant tumours in female dogs; Nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs; reduces the risk of perianal fistulas; and removes the very small risk (0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumours. Negative,spaying female dogs: If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis; increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of >5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds; triples the risk of hypothyroidism; increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems; causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs; increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4; increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty; doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumours; increases the risk of orthopaedic disorders; and increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations. <br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always">References 1. http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/neutr.html2Pollari FL,NEUTERING MALE AND FEMALE DOGS Mary C Wake man dmv 2. Bonnett BN, Bamsey, SC,Meek, AH, Allen, DG (1996) Postoperative complications of elective surgeries indogs and cats determined by examining electronic and medical records. Journalof the American Veterinary Medical Association 208, 1882-1886 http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/157/26/829 3 Dorn AS,Swist RA. (1977) Complications of canine ovariohysterectomy. Journal of the American Animal HospitalAssociation 13, 720-724 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WWR-45BCPVC-25&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dc581398015bf7b46dccb85001e9b293 4 Pollari FL,Bonnett BN. Evaluation of postoperative complications following electivesurgeries of dogs and cats at private practices using computer records, Can VetJ. 1996 November; 37(11): 672–678 5 Teske E, NaanEC, van Dijk EM, van Garderen E, Schalken JA. Canine prostate carcinoma: epidemiological evidence of an increased riskin castrated dogs. Mol Cell Endocrinol.2002 Nov 29;197(1-2):251-5 6 Sorenmo KU,Goldschmidt M, Shofer F, Ferrocone J. Immunohistochemical characterization ofcanine prostatic carcinoma and correlation with castration status andcastration time. Vet ComparativeOncology. 2003 Mar; 1 (1): 48 7 Weaver, AD.Fifteen cases of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. Vet Rec. 1981; 109, 71-75 8 Cohen D, ReifJS, Brodey RS, et al: Epidemiological analysis of the most prevalent sites andtypes of canine neoplasia observed in a veterinary hospital. Cancer Res34:2859-2868, 1974 9 Theilen GH,Madewell BR. Tumors of the genital system. Part II. In:Theilen GH, Madewell BR,eds. Veterinary cancer medicine. 2nd ed. Lea and Febinger, 1987:583–600 10 Glickman LT,Glickman N, Thorpe R. The Golden Retriever Club of America National Health Survey1998-1999 http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/golden_retriever_final22.pdf 11 Handbook ofSmall Animal Practice, 3rd ed 12 Hayes HM Jr,Pendergrass TW. Canine testicular tumors: epidemiologic features of 410dogs. Int J Cancer 1976 Oct15;18(4):482-7 13 Ru G,Terracini B, Glickman LT. (1998) Host-related risk factors for canineosteosarcoma. Vet J 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9 14 Cooley DM,Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ. Endogenousgonadal hormoneexposure and bone sarcoma risk. CancerEpidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40 15 Moe L.Population-based incidence of mammary tumours in some dog breeds. J of Reproduction and Fertility Supplement57, 439-443 16 Ferguson HR; Vet Clinics of N Amer:Small Animal Practice; Vol 15, No 3, May 1985 17 MacEwen EG, Patnaik AK,Harvey HJ Oestrogen receptors in canine mammary tumors. Cancer Res., 42: 2255-2259,1982 18 Schneider,R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON. FactorsInfluencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and Post-surgical Survival. JNatl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969 19 Feinleib M:Breast cancer and artificial menopause: A cohort study. J Nat Cancer Inst 41:315-329, 1968 20 Dorn CR andSchneider R. Inbreeding and caninemammary cancer. A retrospective study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 57: 545-548, 1976 21 Brodey RS:Canine and feline neoplasia. Adv Vet Sci Comp Med 14:309-354, 1970 22 Hayes A, HarveyH J: Treatment of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc174:1304-1306, 1979 Page 10 of 12 23 Norris AM,Laing EJ, Valli VE, Withrow SJ. J Vet Intern Med 1992 May; 6(3):145-53 24 Prymak C,McKee LJ, Goldschmidt MH, Glickman LT. Epidemiologic, clinical, pathologic, andprognostic characteristics of splenic hemangiosarcoma and splenic hematoma indogs: 217 cases (1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988 Sep; 193(6):706-12 25 Ware WA,Hopper, DL. Cardiac Tumors in Dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999;13:95–103 26 PancieraDL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases(1987-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994 Mar 1;204(5):761-7 27 Panciera DL.Canine hypothyroidism. Part I. Clinical findings and control of thyroidhormone secretion and metabolism. CompendContin Pract Vet 1990: 12: 689-701. 28 28 Glickman LT,Glickman N, Raghaven M, The Akita Club of America National Health Survey2000-2001 http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/akita_final_2.pdf 29 Glickman LT,HogenEsch H, Raghavan M, Edinboro C, Scott-Moncrieff C. Final Report to theHayward Foundation and The Great Dane Health Foundation of a Study TitledVaccinosis in Great Danes. 1 Jan 2004 http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/great_dane_vaccinosis_fullreport_jan04.pdf 30 Edney AT,Smith PM. Study of obesity in dogs visiting veterinary practices in the United Kingdom..Vet Rec. 1986 Apr 5;118(14):391-6 31 McGreevy PD,Thomson PC, Pride C, Fawcett A, Grassi T, Jones B. Prevalence of obesity in dogs examined byAustralian veterinary practices and the risk factors involved. Vet Rec. 2005May 28;156(22):695-702 32 Lund EM, Armstrong PJ,Kirk, CA, Klausner, JS. Prevalence andRisk Factors for Obesity in Adult Dogs from Private US Veterinary Practices.Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 4, No. 2, 2006 33 Marmor M, Willeberg P, Glickman LT, PriesterWA, Cypess RH, Hurvitz AI. Epizootiologic patterns of diabetes mellitus in dogs Am J Vet Res. 1982Mar;43(3):465-70 34 Moore GE, Guptill LF, WardMP, Glickman NW, Faunt KF, Lewis HB, Glickman LT. Adverse events diagnosed within three days ofvaccine administration in dogs. JAVMAVol 227, No 7, Oct 1, 2005 35 ThrusfieldMV, Holt PE, Muirhead RH. Acquiredurinary incontinence in bitches: its incidence and relationship to sterilisationpractices.. J Small Anim Pract. 1998. Dec;39(12):559-66 36Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence toearly spaying in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2001;57:233-6 37 Arnold S,Arnold P, Hubler M, Casal M, and Rüsch P. Urinary Incontinence in spayed bitches: prevalence and breeddisposition. European Journal ofCampanion Animal Practice. 131, 259-263 38 ThrusfieldMV 1985 Association between urinary incontinence and spaying in bitches Vet Rec116 695 39 Richter KP,Ling V. Clinical response and urethral pressure profile changes afterphenypropanolamine in dogs with primary sphincter incompetence. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985: 187: 605-611 40 Holt PE.Urinary incontinence in dogs and cats. Vet Rec 1990: 127: 347-350 41 Seguin MA,Vaden SL, Altier C, Stone E, Levine JF (2003) Persistent Urinary TractInfections and Reinfections in 100 Dogs (1989–1999). Journal of VeterinaryInternal Medicine: Vol. 17, No. 5 pp. 622–631 42 SpainCV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-agegonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387 43Verstegen-Onclin K, Verstegen J. Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Sterilisation: Effects on the Urogenital System. Proceedings of the Third InternationalSymposium on Non-Surgical Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf 44 Hagman R:New aspects of canine pyometra. Doctoral thesis, Swedish Universityof Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 2004. Page 11 of12 45.Chastain CB,Panciera D, Waters C: Associations between age, parity, hormonal therapy andbreed, and pyometra in Finnish dogs. Small Animal Endocrinal 1999; 9: 8 46Killingsworth CR, Walshaw R, Dunstan RW, Rosser, EJ. Bacterial population andhistologic changes in dogs with perianal fistula. Am J Vet Res, Vol 49, No. 10, Oct 1988 47 Johnston SD,Kamolpatana K, Root-Kustritz MV, Johnston GR, Prostatic disorders in the dog.Anim Reprod. Sci Jul 2;60-61:405-415 48 Dannuccia GA,Martin RB., Patterson-Buckendahl P Ovariectomy and trabecular bone remodelingin the dog. Calcif Tissue Int 1986; 40: 194-199 49 Martin RB,Butcher RL, Sherwood L,L Buckendahl P, Boyd RD, Farris D, Sharkey N,DannucciG.Effects of ovariectomy in beagle dogs.Bone 1987; 8:23-31 50 Salmeri KR,Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: Effects onskeletal, physical, and behavioral development, JAVMA, Vol 198, No. 7, April1991 51 WhitehairJG, Vasseur PB, Willits NH. Epidemiologyof cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993 Oct1;203(7):1016-9 52 Glickman LT,Airedale Terrier Club of America,Airedale Terrier Health Survey 2000-2001 http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/Airedale%20final%20report_revised.pdf53 53.van Hagen MA,Ducro BJ, van den Broek J, Knol BW. Incidence, risk factors, and heritabilityestimates of hind limb lameness caused by hip dysplasia in a birth cohort ofboxers. Am J Vet Res. 2005Feb;66(2):307-12 54 B. Vidoni,I. Sommerfeld-Stur und E. Eisenmenger: Diagnostic and genetic aspects of patellar luxation in small andminiature breed dogs in Austria.Wien.Tierarztl.Mschr. (2005) 92, p170 – 181 55 Hart BL.Effect of gonadectomy on subsequent development of age-related cognitiveimpairment in dogs J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jul 1;219(1):51-6

Hang on Ill go looking for the studies but I have a new computer and it will take a minute - should be links too.

Very sorry about losing your cat Steve. The neighbours have a dog that can escape easily ,probably needs 8 foot fences; it is up to the owners to do what is needed to prevent the dog getting out. The Op keeps her own dogs contained and should not have to alter her property to keep the neighbours dog out. I hope Cookie cat can recover . Good point - you're right. But these days good luck to anything that can get in here. The OP actually has to keep her cat contained. I thought it happened on her property