mita

WX, by sheer coincidence, I came upon the Animal Protection Perth website....& found they have the most gorgeous T-shirts for sale. In fact, I'm checking grandchildren sizes....so a couple of them might get worn in Qld. So, out-of-staters who can't rattle a can, might like to contribute by buying a very cute shirt (adult & children sizes).

It all hinges on the extent to which the evidence about dog bites/attacks can be got into the public mind. That they're grounded in human behaviours, not a dog breed label. We really need to keep plugging away at that re BSL. But the label 'Pitbull' has taken up space in the public mind as a natural-born killer, however undeserved that label may be. A very hard position for the APBT to get acceptance in. Whatever happens there...I agree that a campaign needs to support the ANKC recognised breeds. Not out of elitism... but because there's standardisation of breeds, a registry for the dogs, & identifiable sources for breeding And most of all from the public view, some sound evidence that dogs from this group tend to go on to have fewer problems with aggression. The Weekend Australian newspaper carried an article about designer dogs last weekend. In which a dd breeder remarked that rottweilers eat children. There was no rebuttal on this point. So breeds like Rotties are also at risk for' legendary savagery' as an image. Pity the author of the article didn't visit he Pet Therapy team from Dogs Victoria....dogs which visit the elderly & children. Purebred rottweilers (who still follow their show 'careers'!) are prominent members. When the leader of this team, who owns Rotties, spoke on Radio National, she gave a brilliant run-down on everything that goes into the 'making' of purebred dogs.....which would explain why any negative breed stereotype did not apply to the Rotties in the team. So, a yes, from me that the ANKC recognised breeds need support. And far better PR, too. (About health matters, too. I'm tired of 'info' going to the public that purebreds are 'falling apart' health-wise....when my experience with owning purebreds is the opposite. But this is a different issue.)

You're right. If they don't list source of information re how that breed label was reached....we have no idea at all what the actual breakdown was. The only group of dogs where actual evidence would back their breed on a microchip.....would be the purebreds with papers IF proof was required. And if this info was mandatory in reporting on dog/bites. These purbreds with papers are the only dogs that can form a distinct group among all that finish up with 'Staffy or 'Staffy X' on their microchip. So, there's a good reason for putting ANKC- papered on the microchip....because it'd then allow this group of dogs to be measured against how often they turn up in the stats figures for dog bites/attacks. If the science holds that dogs from registered breeders tend to have less problems with aggression, then these purebred staffies MAY buck the trend for so-called 'staffies' being over-involved in bites/attacks.

You're not wrong, JRM. But we talked on another thread about how there's a need for authorities (police, rangers...etc) to have criteria to follow in reporting on/investigating dog bites/attacks. Like they have for car accidents (they have 3). Just some mandatory standardised vital boxes to tick. All useful data to pull out to tell about the background & contexts for dog bites/attacks. Like, US studies have extracted interesting info.....which has led their Vet Assoc Task Force on serious Dog Bites/Attacks to say that going down the breed per se route in prevention, doesn't lead anywhere useful. Studies have revealed other interesting descriptors rather than just breed. Like, owners of offending dogs tend to have more than usual traffic offences, the dogs tend not to be registered....& it's not the first time the dog's shown marked aggression. So at a level of seriousness...medical treatment required...it would be mandatory to tick off a box if dog sighted....or not... & .to check microchip & also council registration & if ANKC papered. This data could then be pulled out to get accurate info.

I only agreed with you! Maybe we can get the ANKC to lobby that all papered purebreds show it clearly ID'd on their microchip. Apart from the research value in getting accurate data re dog bites/attacks....there'd be value in getting health information for vet science & demographic information for councils. And it's not elitism...

Yes, a way has to be found to clearly identify specific breeds that have ANKC papers....on their microchips. For research purposes, these dogs form a distinct group. They fit a prescribed standard & their location for breeding/raising is identifiable. Making a leap from what current research says.. .those variables tend to be associated with less problematic, aggressive behaviours. So, for data collection re dog bites/attacks, these dogs should be identified on their microchip, as belonging to that separate group. Also, when council registration forms.....or any other forms for ID'ing dogs....are filled in, the owner or observer has to indicate Primary Breed & Secondary Breed. Owners of mixed breeds have a go at putting something in both boxes. But when this information is pulled out of a data base, only the Primary Breed comes up. So, for statistics on mixed breed where someone has put 'Staffy' first...they'll come up 'Staffy'. As if they're part of the standardised group of Staffies. SG's also got a good point that numbers count. And the popularity of the 'staffy' increases both the number of papered staffies, non-papered staffies & the mixed breeds that get named 'staffies'. Another good reason, to have microchip ID that separates out the papered purebreds, to see how they measure up against the dog bite/attack count.

Your 'banging on' is my 'discussing'. Go back & read in this thread & you'll see my remark there wasn't anything about 'Why'... was based on the introductory section at the front of the newspaper. Only when shown the full article, was I able to comment more fully. Allowing that Mr C's reasons WHY were included. I don't agree with you that it was well researched. There was not one reference to substantial research in the entire piece. Yet, there is some sound Australian research which compared the registered breeder of purebreds with other breeders. The article was not balanced. The only comments with any depth about purebred dogs, were in the summary given by Dr Peter Higgins. The remainder allowed much stream of consciousness by breeders of designer dogs, with none of their not-a-matter-of-fact comments subjected to scrutiny. All more likely to cement their various 'beliefs' in the public mind. On one point I'll agree with you....& that is the need to get constructive material 'out there' to the public re purebred dogs. And that doesn't come from that article. I'd wish for a great deal more PR work by bodies representing purebred dogs. And on another one, too....The Australian sure is a very conservative newspaper. Any extreme position...to right or left....doesn't allow for intellectual balance.

Ditto.

Agree entirely. Our sheltie boy gradually lost his sight until he went blind across the last 5 years of his life. He had an eye condition....that was diagnosed, but nothing could stop the deterioration. Like the OP's husky, he was happy, safe & secure. There were only a few basics that kept him so. Keeping his tracks thro' the house & garden clear. Making a noise & saying his name before touching him (he'd get a fright if something came at him suddenly). His sheltie 'sister' was his seeing-eye-dog, self appointed. I actually found that this lovely blind boy became closer to us, in a very special way. Because touch meant so much to him.

I've been lucky. Our own local vet has been willing to come. I like the idea of our dog having their last moments in the peace & security of his or her own home. Big hugs coming your way.

I'd be wanting that made explicit. It wouldnt' worry me paying for the cremation but I'd want Pets at Peace to be able to pick the body up OK. I was fortunate that it was my own university where I knew their ethics & kindness well. I trusted them totally. It also happened that the staff loved 'Grandma', who was a great favourite.

Little Gran's ashes are buried under our mango tree. That she'd hide behind, when bath time was on. Science keeps looking for information & that's what they would have got from Gran. Also, there would be samples for ongoing teaching purposes. By the way, I'd agree to that....had it been myself. I see it as a last gift. A gift to advance knowledge which will help others. When our dad died of a rare form of cancer, the doctors, respectfully, made a similar request. My brother was horrified, but I knew my dad's thinking would be the same as mine, on this matter. So we talked it thro'....& he agreed, too. But, to each their own. Others might not see it the same way.

I did. Our nearly 23 yr old small mixed breed dog....originally a rescue as a puppy...was a patient at a university vet clinic in her last couple of years. Named 'Grandma', by that stage (she'd dropped her name 'Tessa' at 13 yrs). When she died, the university asked, respectfully, could they perform an autopsy for research study purposes as it was rare for them to see such an elderly dog. Certain organs & samples would be retained. We agreed. Her ashes were returned to us, in a very nice container. With a lovely letter of thanks from the university. Meanwhile, 'Grandma's' story & pic were written up in the campus newsletter because the staff came to love her...& she, them. 'Gran' would have been delighted to know that her 'friends' at the university would continue to learn something important about dogs, thanks to her.

Happy ending. This lovely boy's Cav Rescue fostercarer fell in love with him...& has adopted him.

Now that butcher is using his brains, rather than a bad mood, to meet a huge consumer need for quality food products for pets.

Gorgeous pic of a chocolate poodle with this article.

That's what I don't understand, either. The butcher has those items & is willing to sell them...but not for dogs to eat. What are you supposed to say... 'It's for my husband who eats like a German Shepherd?' Years back, my mother had a great local butcher who cashed in on the fact that her persian cat, Colette, would only eat meat, if it came from his shop. Offer Colette some stuff from a supermarket, & she'd turn up her nose. Maybe it was connected with the amount of preservatives that was allowed then. But that butcher put up a funny sign with Colette's picture & her 'testimonial' that she'd only eat his meat, not stuff from a supermarket.

Thank goodness Ruby is responding well to the antibiotics. Just a pinch of physillium is needed....the fibre helps the passage of the faeces. My vet also advised that a probiotic be given, as the antibiotics whack the good bacteria in the gut, as well as the bad. You can give yoghurt for that. Or, in my case, I used powdered Protexin, which is produced for animals (like horses & dogs). 1/4 teaspoon sprinkled on food. The vet advised continuing that for my tibs & they have it sprinkled on their dinner, too.

If you click on "Making Oodles" on the original link, it takes you to the full article. Or Making Oodles. Sorry, I don't know how to copy the article here. Interesting reading. Thanks for that! The neighbours can be left in peace, now. A great deal of space was given to the DD breeders to say their piece....well, I guess it would be so, because the article is about DDs. But it swamps the points made by those who were speaking for purebreds. Dr Peter Higgins, Dogs NSW, did well again....he was the best one on the ABC forum that followed the screening of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed program. If only the points he made could have been spelled out further & examples given. I wish there'd be another article about the world of purebred breeding....& the dogs...in their own right. Instead of being put up against DD breeding. Where the only things said about purebreds tend to be reactive.

The lady with the crossbreeds, who says Rotties eat children, should be introduced to the Pet Therapy Team from Dogs Victoria. Rottweilers are among the members....& don't eat the elderly people or children visited. Person who runs that team owns Rottweilers....& was the most articulate person I've heard, speaking about purebreds on Radio National. http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Content.asp?ID=180

actually it was a short from a longer article in the weekend australian magazine. which did an ok job in trying to portray both sides, even if it wasn't always correct and some of the ppl were obviouslly mad (the woman breeding all crosses claiming that 'roodles' are fab because they don't eat children like rotties do?!) Thanks for that, mackiemad. I was shown only the front section of The Australian by a neighbour. So I didn't see the further material in the magazine. All I can say is Thank god for that! Because the introductory bit, fell in a heap. We don't get The Australian. It's too right wing for me. Now to go & borrow the magazine from the neighbours. ...and read the rest.

I thought the article went pear-shaped after reporting that the labradoodle creator regretted what his action had set off. It just pointed to the torrent of 'oodle' types it had spawned. But no reasons were given WHY this was regretful. Just went on to get a quote from someone that seemed to support oodles. Oh, but they're so popular. The 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong, argument. Comments from representatives of purebred registry were not sought. There was also nothing in the article that picked up on the screaming headline on the front page that suggested big money might be being asked for the designer dogs. Nothing to challenge that as value for money.

You're dead right, sandgrubber. Well said. Science is not about proving things....it's about finding what does not apply. It does so via measurement, not via personal opinion. But that doesn't mean what people say doesn't count. It does, obviously. But from a science view, it's called anecdotal evidence.. Science picks things apart, & tests by measuring.

What Aziah & Showdog said about how bites can change....absolutely true. The word 'development' should be used a lot more, with puppies & young dogs....just as it's routinely used with babies & young children. The rapid growth during infancy & early childhood, sees all sort of changes. And 'differences' can emerge. Which is why the word 'development' is the pediatrician's rule of thumb. It should be the same for all who deal with puppies & young dogs, during their period of rapid growth.....& changes. Change is what the period is all about, for good & ill. That's development.

lillysmum, I went the 'got to check for tumour' route with Gracie's anal gland problem. But I asked, could it just be compacted? No....could be some lethal tumour, so she had an op. And was left with burns where they'd shaved her bottom & sloshed antiseptic on her. Poor little creature, cried for night after night. Result of the top....no tumour, but a compacted anal gland. What I'd suggested! We now go to a fantastic vet, who used to look after our animals years back. We travel a couple of suburbs to get there. She's a breath of fresh air. Far more emphasis on prevention, than reaching for any old treatments. One thing she told me to do for good functioning of anal glands, is to put a pinch of physillium (from health food shop) on the dogs' dinner. Every preventative thing she's told me for our 2 tibbies has worked a treat. Like guidelines for their diet. The dogs have never been so healthy....& there's no over-treatment. She's a very experienced vet at The Gap, if you want to get a second opinion. PM for name & phone no.