Steve

I disagree with this. There are studies that show diet and exercise can affect the severity/expression of HD. None of those studies say they have eliminate the inheritence of HD, or that HD is not always inherited. Diet and exercise can make it more severe. But no amount of bad diet and exercise can make the dog get HD if it does not have the genetics to get HD. A freind of mine is very involved in HD research and she is very clear about this. In fact researchers are saying to breeders, that severe control of diet and exercise to reduce the expression of HD is actually only masking affected dogs. If breeding selection is made on dogs raised this way, you might be breeding affected dogs and make the problem worst. Yes tell you puppies buyers to control weight, calories and keep the calcium levels low to give the dog the best chance of having the best hips possible. This is excellent advise, but it has nothing to do with breeding dogs that are free of inherited HD. If a dog gets HD and is fat and had too much exercise, all we can conclude is the dog has inherited HD, possibly made more severe by it's rearing, but none the less it has inherited HD. A breeder can not write off this dog as not really affected with HD becasue it is fat or otherwise raised incorrectly. Edited to add. Overweight has already been determined to increase the symptoms of tracheal collaspe, also heart disease make it worse. I didnt say anything about the inheritance or the genes or breeding them.Im simply looking at a possible situation which may prevent dogs with these genes having to suffer any more than they have to if they do get these genes. However,there's a whole lot of science yet to go before we work out all the answers and Im keeping an open mind.

Here are a couple of studies, some of these are just the abstracts, I later saw the whole study, so in interesed search it by title. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...820367/abstract http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6732009 Steve I would not think it would be diet. If something long those lines, it might be inability to absorb certain nutrients, even more likely the inablity to build the compounds to make normal cartalige. This might also be a path to follow ....Ultimately, the researchers analyzed DNA from more than 3,000 dogs from 143 breeds to pinpoint a specific gene sequence variant, or haplotype, associated with small size in the canine genetic code. Nearly all of the small dogs studied shared this genetic variant, implicating it as a major influence on stature in dogs.... http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2007/nhgri-05.htm Thanks Shortstep- I can only see one of your links on this computer [ long story] but Ill move to the other computer later on to get a look. Im not saying it would be diet but Im looking at it as objectively as I can based on what I know about chondrointin and whats needed to make it absorb and assimilate. It may turn out yet to be a red herring showing which will change as more come in but I just really wanted to understand what age it usually became a problem and Id also like to get a bit of an idea of heritability as in how often it shows in certain lines etc. When you consider studies which have reduced the incidence of HD by diet it may not be such a hard stretch.

Do you know if there have been any studies in this regard? Is the information you have come across showing a high incidence of hypoplastic tracheas in the toy? No I cant see hypoplastic tracheas in the toy breeds showing as an issue so far.Ive had a quick look around for studies and found some for patellas and tracheal collapse which might suggest they are both possibly linked to chondrointin and or the associated nutrients which would make it assimilate but no studies which link them. Ive never lived with a toy breed but I assume it would be more difficult for them to eat some foods like beef bones and that they may be inside more than other breeds apart from other dietary issues. I wont get too into it yet until the survey is finished and we can have a good look at it all but from the look of it there are going to be several things to look at and talk about and maybe get into some studies to look at them better.

Can you explain that a bit please, Steve? My terrier who goose honks has exactly the same diet as the terriers who dont goose honk. Yes but yours hasnt been diagnosed with this problem and it may be something else so unless they are all about the same age, and we know they are either clear for it or have it we cant judge in your case. How long has the terrier been making these sounds? What age I mean did it start?

I think the tracheal collapse for toy dogs is caused by different things to the pug suffering from brachy head. The ones that are showing a high incidence are not brachy heads but toy dogs. I guess one question we could ask is whether the condition in pugs is always caused by brachy head or whether it may be caused at least sometimes because its a toy breed - dunno but worth thinking about. It sets off a whole bunch of questions for me - lack of condroitin - how come ? Im sort of running through what else would be needed to make this absorb properly.Id like to see a follow up survey for thoe affected to look at their diet.

Wow - do you mind me asking what breed? Do you think there was any other underlying medical condition,any others in thefamily with it which caused it or is there any other cartildge or joint issues?

Thats interesting - ths speaks about a lack of chondrointin http://www.vetsurgerycentral.com/tracheal_collapse.htm And - Tracheal collapse is mainly a disease of toy-breed dogs of either sex. Yorkshire terriers are most commonly affected, but Pomeranians, Chihuahuas, poodles, Maltese and pugs are also predisposed. Any age dog can be affected, but the average age at which clinical signs first occur is usually six or seven years. The complete cause is unknown but many factors are thought to be associated, these being: • Generic factor • Nutritional factors • Alleges • Nerve deficiency • Small airway disease One theory suggests that the chemical composition of the cartilage is abnormal and unable to support an open trachea. When cartilage becomes weak, the trachea collapses and air cannot move freely in and out of the dog's body. The reason Im curious is because there does seem to be a correlation between this and patella problems showing so far in the breed survey. I know that PL is more common in toy breeds too but its sparked my interest in the genetics and nutritional areas. It also seems to be more of a toy thing than a brachy thing so that may be important too. It opens up a bunch of questions Id like to see expanded on if the survey remains constant in what its already showing.

Just curious - Ive had a poke around and seen some conflicting reports and I thought this would be the best place to ask about Tracheal collapse. Some websites tell me it usually shows under one year of age and some others tell me it is sometimes not there until middle age. For those of you with breeds who suffer with this would you say its usully early onset?

Far be it from me to suggest anyone living in NSW should not follow the NSW guidelines which were bought out a week or two ago but there is a reasonable amount of reseach to suggest that feeding them without a bowl helps prevent choking and bloat.

Dont get me wrong Im not advocating not desexing I just happen to think dog owners should be educated and make their own choices based on what they think is best for their dog with knowledge.

Sorry, this is a little off topic..... Blackdog, can you point me in the direction of any info you have the introduction of a Bill in Qld Parliament that would have legislated mandatory desexing in Qld. The only thing I'm aware of was the Managing Unwanted Cats and Dogs Discussion Paper, which from my perspective appeared to be a genuine Discussion Paper (and by that I mean where the Gov't hasn't already made up its mind) seeking community feedback on a whole range of proposals, one of which was mandatory desexing. In fact I'd have been suspicious if mandatory desexing hadn't been canvassed as an option. What came out of that process was mandatory microchipping (legislated) and a non-mandatory CoP for Pet Shops (not legislated). Thanks This was the letter the MDBA tendered at the time. State-wide Mandatory Neutering of All Dogs and Cats Discussion Paper Contributed by: MDBA Pty Ltd [Master Dog Breeder’s Academy] 28.7.07 I am writing on behalf of the Master Dog Breeder Academy members to express our concerns and issues we feel should be taken into consideration by your government in discussions on Mandatory Neutering of all dogs and cats . The MDBA is a coalition of Registered purebred Dog Breeders, Canine Welfare and Rescue Workers and Responsible Dog Owners dedicated to animal welfare, animal health and well being, and responsible animal ownership, We support reasonable laws that promote the well being of animals and limiting risks of over population of unwanted pets . We strongly oppose laws that ignore science and interfere with decisions that should in the main be made by dog owners and their veterinarians. Whilst the MDBA supports the sterilization of non breeding animals we oppose mandatory sterilization laws. We believe that any laws which are passed which dictate when an animal should be neutered or which animals should be neutered are unreasonable and will produce severe unintended consequences if passed. Unintended Consequences. Improper Government Role Introduction of mandatory desexing needlessly and recklessly interferes with the traditional relationship between Queensland veterinarians and their animal patients' owners. The decision to perform surgery on one's pet should not be taken over by government. In addition, any bill which establishes an arbitrary age as the standard for mandatory spaying or neutering ignores the variables between breeds and scientific research . The proper age for this procedure is a matter of serious debate in the animal care community, with well documented medical and behavioural problems that can develop from neutering dog’s too early. It must remain a veterinarian's judgment whether a particular animal's health would be jeopardized by following the state mandated standard, and pet owners must be able to make the decision in conjunction with their health professional based on education and knowledge rather than be given no choice because of laws imposed. . Pet sterilization programs alone won't solve the remaining problem . The assumption that drives mandatory spaying and neutering is that pets end up in animal shelters solely because of overpopulation and that mandatory sterilization laws will therefore solve the problem. Proponents of this bill ignore the fact that most of the animals in shelters today: 1) are not young puppies; 2) that a high number of kittens are from feral cats; 3) that according to the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, studies conducted by the National Council on Pet Population Studies and Policy and other organizations, about a third of shelter animals were given up by their owners because of personal issues such as moving, financial strain, or because the pet had a behaviour or health problem; In essence, the data shows that public education, low-cost resources for the poor and reasonable registration/ licensing programs can work . Some proponents deny the role of consumer choice in pet population dynamics, thinking that more sterilization of publicly owned pets and more marketing of shelter animals will solve the problem. They do not recognize that people choose purebred puppies and pedigreed kittens for valid reasons. Consumers want the predictability of a purebred and they want the opportunity to raise the puppy or kitten into the sort of family pet they desire. These are both values that encourage long-term pet retention. We contend that if pet owners choose pets which are more suited to their lifestyles with an understanding of the management issues associated with the dog that this has a huge impact on the animal’s chances of being discarded . 4) that many pet owners use shelters as an alternative to a veterinarian when seeking euthanasia of an old, sick or dangerous animal; that many shelter animals are already neutered; 5) that the number of animals entering shelters in many parts of the world has been steadily declining for decades with some of the steepest drops occurring in areas with the least coercive laws. We support shelters and many of our members work in pet rescue; and have agreed to a strict code of conduct which states their stance on placing animals with problems but nonetheless and despite considerable efforts aimed at marketing shelter animals, consumers are aware that a substantial number of shelter dogs are there because of behavioural or medical problems and that not all re homes are done by putting the family needs above the need to “save “ the animal. Supply and demand and unintended consequences Please consider the laws of supply and demand and unintended consequences in any attempt to reduce animal shelter populations. Mandatory pet sterilization deals only with the supply side of the dog and cat shelter problem. The pet-owning segment of the Australian population is growing and this will not lower the demand for pets; it will just shift consumers to outside sources. It will encourage large scale breeding establishments and volume breeding. Any legislation that attempts to solve surplus shelter problems by focusing solely on the supply side of the problem is destined to fail. To make further reductions in shelter populations, efforts need to be focused on encouragement for responsible breeding practices, on the demand or consumer side of the issue; public education, low cost services and resources for the poor, and reasonable licensing/registration options. Imposing more regulations also runs the risk of diminishing the best source of dogs and cats available to Queensland consumers, which, since demand is constant, will be replaced by out of state puppies and kittens at great cost to the Queensland economy , without improving the welfare of Queensland pets at all. In other words, using a risk-analysis model this entire bill would mean that animals which turn up in shelters will be neutered, not that less will turn up in shelters and that less people will breed more numbers with profit driven motives. This in itself leads to numerous legal and management problems. Forfeiting Millions of Tourism and Trade dollars . Further, the citizens most likely to be adversely affected by an introduction of such a bill are the members and registrants of the Queensland Canine Council, Master Dog Breeders Academy, Cat registry members and hundreds of breed clubs. These organizations generate millions of dollars to the Queensland economy each year These are the same people whose volunteer efforts have the greatest impact on improving the shelter surplus problem through their voluntary work on the consumer or demand side of the problem promoting responsible pet ownership. Their clubs work year-round to help the public make responsible choices in selecting, raising, training, socializing, permanently identifying, licensing and basically learning about how to become a responsible pet owner. They provide and fund rescue services, host microchip clinics and fund numerous animal welfare and health projects at no cost to Queensland taxpayers. To over-regulate this group, as the introduction of this bill would, is a simply recipe for killing the goose that lays the golden egg. In addition to harming responsible dog and cat breeders which are members of recognised registries, some service and working animals bred for specific characteristics and temperaments may not be registered with a recognized registry. Many of our members breed animals under registries other than QCCC and we have grave concerns that introduction of laws for mandatory desexing would restrict their ability to continue with their work and limit the breeding of certain animals that assists the public, such as guide, therapy search and rescue, quarantine and working dogs and ,of course, those working on new breed developments which are not yet recognised . Enforcing this program would put an additional administrative burden on local agencies. Current figures of those households owning domestic pets indicate that pet ownership is a widely held community value. If the problem being addressed by this bill is of the magnitude it targets, is it fair that the tax to pay for it be levied only against the people with intact pets who are responsible enough to get their pets registered? They are no more guilty or responsible for causing problems than the non-pet-owning segment of the public. This proposed legislation is the equivalent of increasing the cost of a driver's license to prevent speeding, rather than increasing the fine for the act of speeding itself. In most scenarios, a few bad apples cause most of the problems, so the goal is to identify them and impose the necessary regulations. This situation is much more complex. The players include the irresponsible pet owners who won't properly care for or register their pets regardless of laws; pet owners who need informational resources and low cost services to become better pet owners; and it includes a very large pool of animals -feral cats -that have no owners. Because none of these groups above are good subjects of regulation, this bill proposal goes after the responsible group that is not causing the problem and asks them to pay for and be penalised by the whole mess. It won't work. This bill will simply create more scofflaws and ill-will toward government. TRADE LAWS AND LEGAL ISSUES. Finally, current law defines animals as the "property" of the owner. The laws of the land guarantee fundamental right of property ownership. The ability of a property owner to make important decisions regarding their property is the most fundamental element of property rights. This is why breeders become so frustrated as contracts made to encourage pet owners to do the right thing after they take ownership don’t hold up in court because the new owner has these rights to fundamental ownership. The result of this bill would be to eliminate the property owner's right to make decisions about their pets' care and give that right to the state and local government entities. This interference of a pet owner's right to make decisions about their pet violates all laws and ethics of natural justice , since the pet owner would be denied control over their property without any semblance of overriding state interest in the outcome. Also , the proposed bureaucratic structure in the bill would lead to unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals in different Queensland sub jurisdictions if local governments are ultimately responsible for creating the list of breeds that would be allowed to obtain permits for intact animals, it is inevitable that the breed lists will differ from locality to locality. This would mean unequal treatment of some breed and cross breed owners and breeders in the state and raises questions under the ACCC by restricting a breeders’ right to free trade .It raises issue with limitations the bill would place on interstate and international commerce. Markets for intact animals whose breed names do not appear on approved registries would disappear, and anyone engaged in breeding those animals in Queensland would be forced out of business. The ACCC are specific about state laws that interfere with such commerce, whether applied to mega-corporations or to an individual in sole proprietor activity. The MDBA has accumulated a wealth of information and first hand experience and observation in this arena; we have introduced voluntary codes of conduct for dog owners, dog breeders and Canine Rescue workers in the belief that education and reward for positive behaviours is a large part of the answer for our current concerns of pet over population and dumpage .If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact us.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases. On the positive side, neutering male dogs eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders reduces the risk of perianal fistulas may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive) On the negative side, neutering male 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 orthopedic disorders increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

10 years. That's it, breed them until they can breed no more, then shoot them Poor, poor old girl. Such a lovely soft breed too. They deserve better, don't they? Blind. Chances are the dog is affected by PRA. It may have ulcerated both eyes by running into a stick, but my bet is on PRA. So, some of the pups will be affected too, and go blind. These pups should have a DNA test prior to rehoming, so someone isn't landed with a dog programmed to go blind. *sigh* And we are arguing about the damage registered breeders do to purebred dogs? I do think someone should take notice of this. Puppy farm unregistered dogs, none tested for anything, and the producer uncaring whether they have any diseases or not. But, they are purebred, so the registered breeders get the blame, even though these dogs are probably 2nd or 3rd generation puppy farm bred. Fact is, there are too many homeless cats anyhow, so if they are desexed at 6 weeks, and a percentage dies, that would probably be better than going on to breed. If they are dead at 6 weeks, they can't breed. Absolutely right Jed - and here's the kicker. The whole premise of the UK doco Pedigree Dogs Exposed was that breeders of pure breds were exacerbating hereditary defect problems. But as I have stated may times on various threads there is a real difference between UK breeders and Australian registered breeders. UK breeders do not need to be members of the Kennel Club - there are exactly like what we would describe as BYB here. In Aust a registered breeder must be a member of a State Controlling body and hence is obligated to be bound by rules & code of ethics. In the UK all a breeder needs to have is two pedigree registered dogs of the same breed and any subsequent puppies will be registered by the kennel Club UK. The owner of the Wondai complex could operate quite legitimately in the UK. They could breed from untested dogs and bitches (because they are not bound by any general or breed specific rules) and have any subsequent litters registered and pedigrees issued by the Kennel Club UK. It is not acceptable to film a doco in one country and then apply the same presumptions to other countries. It is highly likely that in the UK the breeder/s of the Boxer taking a fit or the Cavalier with a brain disorder were exactly the same as the breeder operating from the Wondai puppy farm complex. Dead right - And guess what - inside info - they are waiting on a report to come out from the UK to use to petition a change in legislation on us. They are all poised and ready to go.

In case any of you have missed it - Please pop in here and have a go at our health survey for your breed. http://www.mdba.net.au/

In case any of you have missed it - Please pop in here and have a go at our health survey for your breed. http://www.mdba.net.au/

In case any of you have missed it - Please pop in here and have a go at our health survey for your breed. http://www.mdba.net.au/

In case any of you have missed it - Please pop in here and have a go at our health survey for your breed. http://www.mdba.net.au/

In case any of you have missed it - Please pop in here and have a go at our health survey for your breed. http://www.mdba.net.au/

Sorry, but what's the point of this? Are we back to only breeders are allowed to comment even though this is a rescue topic? And are we now deliniating which breeders can comment based on how many litters they've had? The point of this is that when people get attacked on a public forum they like to defend themselves I guess. If they cant handle the heat they should stay out of the kitchen.Commenting on a topic isnt what that was about it was about commenting on someone's personal situation in public trying to degrade them and lay guilt trips on them. Blackdog is simply giving a tap back. Oh dear. All a bit too pot kettle black for me. Spit it out Sheridan - I dont have a problem handling the heat dear.

Sorry, but what's the point of this? Are we back to only breeders are allowed to comment even though this is a rescue topic? And are we now deliniating which breeders can comment based on how many litters they've had? The point of this is that when people get attacked on a public forum they like to defend themselves I guess. If they cant handle the heat they should stay out of the kitchen.Commenting on a topic isnt what that was about it was about commenting on someone's personal situation in public trying to degrade them and lay guilt trips on them. Blackdog is simply giving a tap back.

Ive got a couple of champs here one of which was no longer needed by the breeder because she didnt want to in breed and she was happy for me to have him to continue with what I was doing in my breeding program. There's heaps of good reasons why breeders would want to sell an entire adult dog.

Should mature dogs only be allowed to be advertised on DOL if they're desexed? I'd say yes. Come off it.Do you reckon breeders will have any ability to make any decisions for themselves soon?

Many negatives. I looked into it a few years, disussed with a couple ofveterinary specialists, a repro specialist and a MACVSc with a specialty in surgery, and I did a lot of research into long term effects, and decided the negatives were many and the positives few. As a breeder of one of the breeds most favoured by pf, it bothers me, but the alternatives are worse, imho. So far the interror-gations have worked, and I make buyers sign an agreement that they will not rehome or sell. I do accept that there are some physical drawbacks to early desexing. However the serious ones are not common. Jed the benefits are that your pup has no chance of ending up in a puppy farm subjected to a life of misery. The benefit is also that your dog cannot be bred from with the boxer from down the road. Your bloodlines go only to the people that are registered breeders/exhibitors. Signing an agreement at the time of purchase unfortunately guarantees nothing. Doing rescue makes you realise how often these verbal/written contracts are breached. A year down the track when there is potential money to be made they can be easily forgotten. I am not saying that everybody should be desexing their pups, I am saying that if you don't then you must accept some possibility that you are contributing to back yard breeding and puppy farming. Whether it's the dog you sold or the progeny of the dog you sold. The purebred and often papered dogs involved don't come out of thin air! Registered breeders also often rehome mature dogs without desexing them. They are all over the breed pages of DOL. There is absolutely no excuse for that. How do you know they arent common? Define common? According to the paper PRS is speaking about they are quite common.

Steve, what do you think is the likelihood of a Maremma protecting its owner if the situation required it? I know they will but their idea of protection is to put them between you and the danger and bark a warning if possible they wont just go in and bite someone unless they are given nochoice. Example. Walk with a Maremma in a park any day of the week and people and dogs on leash are not even noticed. If however a dog off leash approached, the Maremma would yell at it to back the hell off and put itself between you and the dog. If someone approached you in a manacing manner or grabbed you it would do the same thing. The chances that it would bite are remote because it would rather not.If it were to fight off a predator in the paddock it leaves the sheep un garded for another predator to go in the back way. So attacking the threat is a last resort and unless it is an instant occurance they will always warn first. Maremmas as pets do much better living inside than outside. In fact if they dont live inside they can be a problem with barking. However, in my home on their own turf I know mine would give their lives to save me but I wouldnt bet the house on it in a situation like you describe. Its a catch 22 - You dont want to be walking and the dog not socialised and seeing everything as a threat so you want it to be accustomed to other people and have good manners and the more it becomes used to you being approached by other people it sees that as a lesser threat. .

Is this the one that has a vet delivering the pups to a house in the Mt Gravatt area and fills a pet shop there? That one has papered as well as not papered dogs and I know first hand what appalling condition some of those pups arrive in.