mita

Ah ha! I was slow on the uptake there, PPS. Thanks for that info.

Maybe Dogs NSW could be stirred into action because their members' dogs are coming into the 'dangerous dog' frame? Via the lists being released by the authorities of numbers of dog bites/attacks.....& the listing of the most common breeds involved. Those lists are made up of 'purebred' labels. Because the authorities collect the data via asking for/deciding on, a Primary Breed. Which means that all kinds of dogs from all kinds of sources finish up with a breed label.....as if they were all card-carrying purebreds. Staffies & Rotties are affected like this. The Kennel Associations need to get in there quick smart on behalf of members' purebred dogs that are being damned by association. When, statistically, they may be even less likely to cause problems.

You're not wrong, BigBen. In every other area of public safety, the authorities look at the role of humans in causing the problems. If road safety followed the same principle of banning..... there'd be no holding drivers responsible for accidents. Just ban the make of car. And no holding people responsible for making/ driving an unsafe or unroadworthy car. Just confiscate the car to a holding yard. And then shoot it.

Disappointing....because it's still going on about weeding out the 'dangerous breeds'....& how to tell which mixed-breeds have 'dangerous breeds' in them. Why doesn't any of the research-based information about dogs & aggression and the contributions of human behavour.....get into public discourse?????

....which is why I keep arguing that all the various stakeholders in the dog world, should make links with each other. Find what they can learn from each other & find what they have in common. Then ACT together to make changes which will benefit dogs, their breeds & their owners. It's badly needed here, too.....because there's still the chattering on about the 'dangerous breeds' in any public commentary about 'dangerous' dogs.

I hope the program will look at the background of dogs that finished up being 'dangerous' to someone. That dog has been 'produced' by humans. How humans bred it, socialised it, took it into their particular lifestyle, trained it, managed it. The list could go on. Dogs are made 'dangerous' by humans. Just like bridges that fall down are made by humans who didn't build them properly. I believe that an RSPCA person will say he'd like a system of licencing. But they'll have to be ready for the fact that many dogs involved in serious bites or attacks are owned by people who do not even register their dogs. I didn't make that up.....there's research which shows that's one of the 'risk' signs. And also that an owner has a lot of traffic offences. Truly! Both 'at risk' signs are pointing to people who don't have a sense of reponsibility....& most of all, don't think about consequences. Which would extend to how they raise, socialise, & manage the dog.

No. But thanks for the suggestion. Do you prefer a raw diet because it'd be closer to the dog's original diet?

That's the one. I phoned the manufacturer to double check on the ingredients & he told me that it also contained beef. Here you go, it's listed as 'animal proteins' in the dry food. http://www.kibble.com.au/biopet.htm My Tibbies love it. I sprinkle it on their chicken & veggies which is the base of their diet. I notice the same parent company makes a range of dry foods aimed at greyhounds & dogs in kennels. http://www.kibble.com.au/products.htm

My Tibbies have never been keen on eating dry dog food. I've tried all sorts of expensive brands, but they wouldn't eat it or would eat a few pieces (just to shut me up, I suspect). Most of it was wasted. I found a dry kibble in Coles. Called BiOpet Organic Dog Food. Everything in it is sourced in Australia. No sugar, not preservatives, no artificial colours, & not irradiated. I gave it a try.....& the Tibbies ate every bit. They love it. I also told another person whose dogs didn't like dry food....& she bought some & those dogs love it, too. Apparently there's also BiOpet Dog Biscuits because she go some of those, too, & the dogs also loved them. No wasting at all. I wondered if anyone else has used this dry food....for some time with their dogs?

The 'authorities' always start with wanting to 'protect families & children from harm'. And then set off banning dog breeds. When all the evidence points in other directions re dog safety.

Oowah, looks like you got caught in your own booby traps. That's always a worry.

See. I knew it really wasn't just the dog. It's the urge to invent something mad but marvellous... because it works... behind all this. Luke wants to build one of those systems where something sets off something which sets off something etc etc etc etc....until the last something turns the dog off getting onto the bench... in full flight. But what to start with? The pile of old newspapers near the bench, which topple over as the dog starts his jump. And that knocks over the 7 stubbies which makes a hell of a noise, so the dog steps backwards in fright.... onto the bluc tac which holds him there until he smells the chicken breast hidden in the bucket. Which keeps the dog busy until....well, I've run out of ideas (but at least the dog is still not on the bench). It needs a master to complete this fail-safe system.. Damn! I haven't factored in the wretched couch. Maybe it could be suspended from the 4 skyhooks (if Luke doesn't mind sitting there with his feet long way off the floor). That's not really moving it...

I think deep down, you'd love to build an amazing booby trap....where something works when your doggie stands on his launch off spot....like a trapdoor opens up or a fire alarm sounds or Tiger Jack's Scat Mat gives off a charge (what's that?).

Carmel Tebbutt's email address is here. http://www.directory.nsw.gov.au/showminist...BF26216937AA%7D Good chance to give feedback that she's right legislating about breed won't make dog bites/attacks go away. But people showing knowledge & responsibility in various ways....will.

This lady's opened up the door to the fact that there might be more involved re safety around dogs than legislating against certain breeds. She'd be a good person to contact in order to give her some insights into the keys to dog safety. It'd be good to send her some feedback. Like how puppies should be socialised from an early age, how people should get some guidelines in how & where to get a dog that matches their lifestyle & how to train and manage their dogs....& much education about small children being around dogs. The information is all there.....it just needs to get into the minds of the authorities & of the pet owning public.

That cross-referencing doesn't surprise me in what it turned up. We'd see it in everyday life....look at how most people call any nuggety, medium dog....a 'Staffy'. The biggest criticism that's worked in getting BSL reviewed by the authorities....is that there's no scientific base for a dog's appearance being predictive of that particular dog's behaviour. (Point now being made by the RSPCA in the UK). As the reason for having BSL laws in the first place, was in the interests of public safety....then the authorities are back to square 1 in coming up with dog management legislation which is based on 21st century science. But if the method of collecting dog breed data for bites/attacks, is to continue as presently (Primary Breed covering all dogs)....then it will continue to collect 'dirty data'. That is, information that's not accurate. So anything about dog management then based on that data.....will be worthless. I've got more positive thoughts about how the public & the legistlators can be influenced. Can take a while, tho'. Look how long it took the anti-science of Dog Appearance (breed) = Predictive of Biting/Attacking.....to rise up the 'chain' until organisations like the RSPCA is rejecting it (with one notable exception!). The next campaign to bang away at, is increased accuracy re breed labels when collecting data on dog bites/attacks. Breed labels in any list of statistics, should be be strongly questioned re how they were arrived at & by whom.

Damn it, I'm not going to start redecorating because of Barkly!! The baby gates were compromise enough. I won't do it. I won't do it. I won't do it Ask someone else to do it. Someone who doesn't suffer from Couch Moving Phobia (which is incurable, I believe). :) It's the same thing you'd do for a toddler. Like move a stool away from near a stove. I've found that managing dogs & managing toddlers are remarkably similar.

She might have been tiny, but she was a giant when it came to winning hearts. I loved the pic of her walking with Ken along the footpath. It said it all. I'm so glad you both had such a charmer in your life. And that you were there to give her a wonderful life.

KayCee was truly beautiful in looks & nature. By the way, one of the nicest Goldies I know is a boy named Hunter, the same as KayCee's beloved brother. My deepest sympathy to you on your loss.

Agree, NSP. The other variable is who first 'describes' what the dog is....& it may well be a victim or a witness....in shock & likely, no expert on dog breeds. 'Labelling' the dogs for data collection is the elephant in the room of dog bites & attacks. If this data is being collected for the sake of stats & analysis, then it has to be as accurate as possible. Presently it's as broad as anyone's guess. The present system asks for Primary Breed thus lumping in Crosses with Purebreds. And also lumps documented purebreds (with papers) in with any dog, from any other source, that anyone lists a Primary Breed only. This gets ratcheted up when the 'breed' is popular & numerically highly represented in the population. Look at all the dogs, from all sorts of sources with all sorts of appearances, that finish up with the label Staffy or StaffyX. If stats are to have any scientific reliability, it should be only the Staffies with documented papers that can truly said to be 'Staffies'. Which means it may not be a bad thing to add to data collection, an additional question of the owner...if this dog has pedigree papers (with some kind of documentation required, because many people have confused ideas about what 'papers' are). Whatever is done....something needs to separate out the purebreds from registered sources, in the data collection. Because Qld Uni research has shown that the purebreds from registered breeders came out as best in how they were socialised as puppies. And that such socialisation is linked with less likelihood for aggression problems later. Under the present system, these dogs are being lumped in with those from other sources that are likely to be more represented in bites/attacks. So the registered purebreds finish up condemned by association via too broad use of a breed label.

That was a beautiful tribute from Sox's dad. Wasn't he a good boy to make his own time to go to doggie heaven. It's almost as if he knew that would make it easier for his dad....who'd know Sox made his own decision. The photo is gorgeous....showing he sure loved food! No wonder everyone who knew him, loved him. My deepest sympathy on the loss of a truly great dog.

Agree. And also know how how the breed labels were collected & how they were then extracted from a data base. Dog 'labelling' is done by the Council here with the labels....Primary breed & Secondary breed for each dog. People owning a purebred, just write the breed name under Primary breed. People owning a mixed breed dog....like they believe it to be a Labrador X (or looks like that)....have to put Labrador under Primary breed & something else under Secondary breed. But when data is being pulled out, it's pulled out by the Primary breed. So Labradors & Labrador crosses get pulled out as one group. This seems to be one 'standard' way of collecting data about dogs. Primary breed & Secondary breed (if applicable). Or someone is just asked, 'Primary breed?' To which both purebred Lab owners & Lab cross owners would say the same. But data is pulled by Primary breed, giving the impression that the total number is made up of purebreds alone.

Sensible lady....& the science would back what she says.

Good advice here. The little Cav's behaviour sounds exactly my tibbie girl who has a vulnerability to any big strain....in the shoulder/neck region. First time it went, she'd just jumped off a garden terrace onto concrete & screamed. She couldn't move for pain & held in neck in a fixed position. She was rushed to the vet's & required pain relief & a course of anti-inflammatories & keeping her quiet. Another time, the problem broke out, was when I was holding her tightly to try to get some medication (for something else) into her mouth. With all the wriggling & struggling and me holding tightly....that shoulder/neck strain problem happened again. This time she held her neck in a rigid, odd position, as before. But also she had trouble standing on front & back leg on one side. After thorough exam by the vet.....it was revealed as the same problem. She needed pain relief & a course of inflammatories....she was hospitalised for 2 days to make a start. And needed keeping from jumping when she came home. I hope all goes well with you little one.

The kind of useful info that the OP needs at the moment.