WoofnHoof

Aww love the droopy lips always makes me smile seeing a horse having a nice snooze with their lower lip hanging down

Good luck Jules Yeah I agree the LD is bloody exxy, that was also a factor in weighing up surgery if he'd lasted another two years I'd have spent the same amount feeding him as it cost to do the op, crazy hey? Mine was not keen on the kibble so he was going through 3 cans a day!

I don't know anything about specialists in Melbourne but I'd say you need someone who would have a better ultrasound machine to look at what's going on inside the liver, they usually inject a dye and the machine shows up the blood flow, very interesting to watch. Hopefully you can get a clearer idea of what's going on.

Good to hear she's feeling better today

Yeah I was feeling fairly shit about Gen as it was. Bile tests will be back tomorrow. Thanks for that info Flick_Mac. Did they give a life expectancy after the operation? I know Flick Mac will probably have more recent figures but I was given the 50/50 for the intrahepatic (I think there is a small risk of needing a second op with the extrahepatics but obviously not as much). Then I was told about 30% of patients have post-op seizures which can be fatal my dog was on 24 hour seizure watch for 3 days post op, you aren't allowed to see them in that time either in case they get overexcited they need to be kept very quiet. I can't remember what the risk of portal hypertension is but the risk is there I was told that if that happens they have to go back in and open the shunt back up either a bit or a lot to relieve the pressure on the underworked liver. If they make it through post op and the liver takes over and function becomes normal they have a normal life expectancy. I was told that because of the lack of blood flow and 'work' for the liver it tends to shrink further and further and can shut down completely which then leads to other problems. That's why they don't tend to give an estimate of more than a year or so after diagnosis. ETA just wanted to add recovery is amazingly quick I took my boy home after a week and it was a struggle to keep him quiet unitl he got the staples out he was feeling so good

Yeah Sonny was ok but very very woozy after his desexing took him a little while to bounce back, in hindsight it was another sign that something was NQR but he didn't crash like he did with the xray but he was already crook when he had that. When I looked back there were a few little signs but in and of themselves there was nothing big enough to put it all together until he started showing the neuro signs and even then my vets had never come across a shunt before so it wasn't on their radar at all.

TBH I didn't really weigh it up very much I was told of all the risks but after having such a terrible fright with nearly losing him when he went into the coma and dramas with misdiagnosis once I had a diagnosis I just wanted him fixed. I did have to wait for the bank to approve the loan but after that it was full steam ahead I just figured it was worth the shot at a normal life rather than try to medically manage it and possibly still lose him anyway. It's a personal decision of course but for me it was a fairly easy one to make because I'd nearly lost him once already and not knowing what it was or what I could do so when I had an answer and a treatment that could make him completely healthy it made it easier to take the chance. Plus we had the best surgeon in the world in the country at the time she had the highest success rate which also gives a certain amount of confidence I suppose.

Yeah when I was reading up the bigger dogs are more likely to have intrahepatic, no real guarentees with these things though. Sounds like she's doing pretty well in spite of it and she's still pretty young, mine was relatively normal as a pup other than the tummy issues. He would have 'off days' I used to call them where he looked a bit ordinary and not as bouncy as usual, in hindsight that is the symptom they term as 'depression'. When he was on the diet and meds he was ok but still getting sick on occasion so I was glad I opted for the surgery, of course I don't know how I'd feel if it had gone the other way. His prognosis wasn't great without surgery I was told he'd probably only live another year or two so I figured it was worth the punt. Oh yeah it is also pretty damaging on the finances, the op alone was $5k then I had ulrasounds, meds, special diet etc on top of that. Although the quote given for the op was between 3 and 6 so it really depends on a lot of things it might be quick in and out it might be more complicated like my fellow's was. He was costing $60 a week to feed on the low protein diet as he just wolfed it down it was the first time he could eat something that didn't make him sick I guess the poor bugger. ETA the ultrasound showed he had bladder crystals also, they cleared up on their own after surgery.

Hi Jules I just posted a bit of an essay in your thread in general, success of surgery depends on a few things but you'll have to wait for bloods and ultrasound anyway.

Hi Jules it's a bugger if it's a shunt, they are not something I would wish on any dog or owner that's for sure! How old is Amber? That is usually a big factor as to whether surgery is considered. My boy was diagnosed at around 9-10 months from memory he was about 11 months old when he had the surgery. He had intermittent vomiting which I put down to sensitive tummy, same with the odd bout of the runs. He never had seizures until after he'd had a really bad turn of pacing and head pressing after which he fell into a coma. When he came out of it he was having seizures and couldn't see or hear. Thankfully he recovered from that but yeah they aren't always textbook and a lot depends on their diet, the initial neuro problems seem to have started with me trying a new food which was higher in protein than the previous junk I had him on. Then the coma appears to have been triggered by the sedation from the abdominal xray he got when I took him in as part of the normal check for obstructions etc. I've heard of a lot of dogs having decent quality of life with diet and medical management, it can depend on the severity of the shunt and the amount of time they've been ok without medication. As far as surgery goes it depends on the type of shunt and the extent of it. If the bile acid tests indicate a shunt your vet should refer you to a specialist sonographer to detect the location of the shunt, if it's extrahepatic (outside of the liver) then surgery is your best bet it has a really good chance of success and if the shunt is successfully closed then your dog will be 100% normal for the rest of it's life. They use a small ring to place around the vessel which slowly closes off over time so as not to overload the liver, eventually the liver should grow and take on the job it was supposed to. If it's intrahepatic (inside the liver) as my dog's was it's a bit more complicated and risky. They have to shut down the blood flow to the liver and cut into it, it can be very difficult depending on how deep they had to go. At the time of his op they were unable to apply rings to intrahepatic shunts so what they do then is they stitch it halfway closed in the hopes that the liver will then take over once it has a bit of blood flowing through it. It has about 50/50 chance of doing the trick if it doesn't they usually do a second op to close the vessel down completely. Lucky for me one op did the trick and it's now 4 years later and my husky is a very normal very active boy he hasn't needed medications since the op and was taken off the low protein diet not long after that. His blood biochemistry is now perfectly normal so he is very much the poster child for a successful op Anyway that's the low down on the surgery options for you, your best bet is to get onto a canine internal medicine specialist they will be able to help you through it. ETA pic of my boy not long after he had the staples out, you can see they opened him up from sternum right down, they actually had to cut through the sternum and diaphragm to follow the shunt and make sure it didn't diverge.

I can't, bacteria doesn't magically jump from the dog to someone's plate or mug. The more people learn about what sort of things are a more realistic danger to food safety the better IMO. In reality dogs are no more of a food hygiene risk than anything else that abounds around eateries, but because of the misguided perception that they are dirty or whatever most places would rather get rid of the dog than argue with people who know nothing about microbiology or food safety. I didn't say anything about bacteria. I merely said that some people resent having animals around when they are eating and I can understand why. You probaly didn't read it properly. I did read it I just went with the most common perception that dogs at an eating establishment constitutes a hygiene risk. Sometimes it's worth pointing out that the hygiene risk is overstated, I'm glad that in your case you are fully aware of food safety issues and don't need to be told but some others may not so IMO it's always worth making people aware of it. Either way no one in this thread has suggested that all eateries allow dogs just those establishments that do wish to allow them should be able to do so without being penalised for it. There are already heaps of places that don't allow dogs anyone who doesn't want to eat around dogs has never been forced to.

Because the dog might look at them? or better yet, I'm not kidding about this, someone rang into the radio one day when poor Jackie O was kicked out of a cafe because she had her dog there "the dog might sniff a chair or the table, and because all dogs lick their noses, they all have saliva on their noses and I'm allergic to dog saliva, I could go into anaphylaxis if I sit on the part the dog sniffed!" *like insert blonde bimbo attitude here* Bahaha maybe if they sat there with a bare butt in which case there are some real hygiene issues there!

I can't, bacteria doesn't magically jump from the dog to someone's plate or mug. The more people learn about what sort of things are a more realistic danger to food safety the better IMO. In reality dogs are no more of a food hygiene risk than anything else that abounds around eateries, but because of the misguided perception that they are dirty or whatever most places would rather get rid of the dog than argue with people who know nothing about microbiology or food safety.

K9A I remember the husky one from 07 from memory there was some question over whether it was an attack as such as I recall some information suggested the dog took the baby from the cot dropping her on the floor resulting in head injuries and death. Not to detract from your point of course because while it may not have been an 'attack' as such it certainly adds to the substantial body of evidence which suggests that it's a bad idea to leave any dog unsupervised with children.

Aint that the truth! Well said, Quick. Seems a pretty simple concept - not sure why some people arent getting it. Not really about 'getting it' it's about getting it right. Also to me it's about whether there is a better way to educate and administrate those laws, I've often said that a federal (or at least state) government agency should be responsible for animal welfare compliance and enforcement. Let's face it it's easier to get one national government body to allocate funding for a project than it is to get however many councils all towing the line. Kill two birds with one stone, get education happening nationally and get animal welfare regulation and enforcement wholly into the public system.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, maybe I've spent too much time listening to John Lennon, but hell it's better to push for mandatory education that may or may not work than sit by and let other groups enforce dangerous dog laws that definitely don't work. Anyway this dreamer has to go to work so feel free to put forward any better ideas that might encourage the public to actually learn how to look after their animals properly

Pretty simple - they dont have the resources as it is. How is bringing in courses, testing, another piece of paper going to change the fundamental problem as it is? Add to that the ridiculous dob in a neighbour with a pitbull hotline. If the ACOs are already overburdened and under resourced, where are they magically going to find non existant time in the week? Make a dog complaint to your own ACO and see how long it takes for him/her to follow it up. It's not because they're lazy - it's because there isnt enough time in the day or week for them to keep on top of dog complaints, a lot of which come from vexatious complainants who hate their neighbours. And you havent answered the question - if you're so keen for repeat dog license offenders to go to prison - which prison? They're already full! Obviously the system would need resources beyond that which are currently available I've never said it wouldn't. My point is not about the specifics which no doubt would be sorted out by people who are actually qualified in that sort of thing. I'm merely proposing a method which would enforce education because voluntary education is not enough. How do they manage kids who won't go to school? I have no idea but I'm sure someone does. How do they punish people for minor traffic offences? I don't know but I'm pretty sure someone has a job to figure it out and they get plenty of chances to comply before they get thrown in with Bubba so most people can figure out that it's easier to comply than it is to argue about it. It would have to be a pretty special kind of idiot who would keep breaching the terms of their license as currently is the case with people who drive without one. Are you afraid that a little old granny might go to jail because she can't afford a license? Well that wouldn't happen in a transparent, accountable, government controlled system would it? There are already procedures in place help people do the right thing in similar instances. I would certainly much prefer the resources from a stupid dob in a dog hotline to be spent on an actual education system which teaches people responsible pet ownership, that's all.

So you think it's a good idea for someone repeatedly found without a dog licence to go to gaol? Which one - a purpose built prison complex for unlicensed dog owners or just shove them in any prison not already full to capacity, like what used to happen to people with overdue parking fines until one got his head bashed in and his brain left all over the floor at Long Bay. and what's going to happen to the already choked court system when all of your hypothetical breaches jam it even further? It would take the average person years to get a matter before the Local Court (who is going to pay months worth of impound fees while waiting for a court date - the tax payer because the dog owner wont be able to), or should we have a purpose built bad dog owner court as well? The Court of Canine Sessions? Yes people who cannot follow basic requirements should go to jail, that's what happens to people who repeatedly drive without a license. Maybe once a few end up in the slammer people might begin to take their animal care responsibilities seriously! You talk about all these problems with prosecuting people and yet complain that existing laws aren't enforced? If existing laws were enforced you'd get the same result (ie repeat offenders paying fines or in jail) so what's the problem? The way I see it if something like this were set up it would be the perfect avenue for animal welfare and management issues to be handled by a government agency, as they should have been from day one, as government is the only agency equipped to administer it.

That's the thing mandatory education doesn't mean you have to walk your dog x amount of times a week, it just means that you have to learn why exercise and socialisation are important. Not everyone knows that exercise and socialisation or lack thereof can play a part in many problem behaviours, just as not everyone realises that tinned dog food is comprised of an awful lot of water. If we can get this kind of information more widespread we can go a long way to addressing many of the problems we see. Sure you'll always get people who are non compliant but the more educated the community is as a whole the more socially unacceptable non compliance becomes.

I have little doubt that the same thoughts were aired when driver's licenses were first introduced. I remember seeing a 'flashback' from the news when penalties were first introduced for not wearing a seatbelt, it was all very radical and there were many who scoffed at the idea but guess what the majority of us are now compliant and less likely to spread ourselves over the bitumen in the event of an accident. No doubt the animal handlers who have participated in training courses thought they wouldn't learn anything and it would be a waste of time, turns out it wasn't and it is a concept being implemented in cattle and pig handling facilities with benefits being seen in welfare, safety and production.

Obviously continuous breaches should be prosecuted, they can't keep buying dogs if they are in jail or paying large fines. It's no good setting up a system without serious penalties. People who drive without a license often get behind the wheel again but they'll only do it a few times before they end up in jail. RSG just sounds like the council isn't interested in prosecuting any of those people for repeated breaches. When someone's dog kills a child in that area I'm sure they'll become a bit more interested in prosecution. However it would be better if there were a concerted push for effective education before that happened. I'd rather our tax dollars be spent on a mandatory education system than wait until another child dies, after which our tax dollars will be spent on hunting down and killing the type of dog that happened to be involved.

Someone asked about policing it in the other thread, one idea I thought was that it could be like a meter reader job, someone goes around the houses checking off the ones with obvious signs of dogs, database is checked to see if the resident has a license. If they don't they get a letter in the mail 'please update your license or apply for one you have x amount of days/months to inform the office of your license number'. If they fail to comply they can have a show cause type of meeting with a person from whatever department is handling it, if they can provide a reasonable justification as to why they haven't done the course then that can be taken into consideration. Pretty similar to having a wildlife license I would think. In the case of your neighbours you could then report them to the relevant authority, and they need to show cause as to why they have breached the terms of their license (ie adherence to CAA and local laws), if they don't have one they can be ordered to get one, if they don't comply their animals can be seized until such time as they comply, if they don't comply by a set time frame the animals can be rehomed. Anyone who has shown a breach of license terms can be immediately red flagged on a database so that they will come up in any further checks on that address. Obviously the policy makers etc who already set up these kinds of systems will have a better idea of how it should go but that is something I thought would be simple and effective in most cases. ETA I also think this would be an effective way of checking for animal abusers, breeders could check if a potential puppy buyer has had their license revoked or suspended and they can check why before they decide to sell them a pup. Currently the only way to tell if a person has been in trouble with animals before is if they've had a conviction recorded (assuming you can access their records which you probably can't anyway).

RSG the test wouldn't be designed to educate *you* it's designed to educate the people who don't know, thereby increasing the proportion of people in the community who *do* know the basics. The thing is the current state of affairs will not continue, sooner or later they will start cracking down on leash laws and chipping but before they do that they will start cracking down on restricted breeds, that is what the public want and that is the current focus of the decision makers. It would be much better to direct that focus to a more effective community education strategy. It may not change anything in your street but then again it might, there is plenty of evidence of changes in attitude following the completion of animal behaviour courses in livestock handlers results in better welfare outcomes. As the handlers learn about basic animal behaviour and cognition they begin to have more respect for the animal and treat it better. This has been verified in trials, I see no reason why this principle couldn't be applied to the wider community.

GT posted a link in this thread to an NZ licensing program, quite interesting. I doubt a basic course would need to go into detail about training regimes etc more just to educate about the importance of doing some training, same with basic animal care and nutrition we all know that could be debated ad nauseum but there are a few basics that everyone should know. That is what I would think would be appropriate to cover in a basic course. As well as local laws pertaining to dog containment and off leash areas etc. Yep it might be boring for people well versed in it but there are a lot of people who are surprised at what they don't know and if they have to do it in order to keep their dogs well they'll have to do it boring or not. As for who polices it who knows but someone will be policing pit bulls and amstaffs and whatever other breed comes under the microscope before too long so I'd rather have them policing a mandatory education system than just wiping animals out. Once the infrastructure is in place it would be relatively easy to monitor, get meter readers or council workers to note down each address with an animal, check the database is there a licensed owner at that address? Yes all good. No send them a letter saying you have x days/months to complete the course and obtain your license then if it's still not done it might go to a show cause type situation where the person has to justify why they haven't done it and have a panel or a judge assess whether it's reasonable. Most of the current infrastructure is already in place it's just adding another element, like a boat license or a wildlife license.

Thanks for the link GT, NZ seem to be quite proactive in a lot of animal welfare aspects.