~Anne~

Why would you need the tets re-done?? Is it the same clinic? Regardless of which clinic, the Vet MUST have records of the consults and what the results of the test were. Tell your Vet you insist they wirte the referral. It is illogical that they want to see the dog yet again before writing the referrla when they have already seen him.

Because if you didn't put importance on those things you would be seen as a negligent dog owner. It is also an argument used by some people against breed specific legislation, so there is an ulterior motive. But those of us who have closely observed and documented the behaviour of dozens of dogs, can see that the genetic factors are the really important thing. Huski, you constantly use your own dogs as examples. Your husky acts like a husky and your beagle acts like a beagle. They are a product of their genetics, they are very influenced by your own mood and body language and possible experience has taught them that it is beneficial to react in a certain way to certain threats and challenges, because it has worked before. You are to be applauded for the effort you put into training them, but if you had chosen a whippet or a pug instead of a husky, you would not have to do the same socialisation and training, and you would not see the same sort of aggression. That may not be fair that some dog owners don't have to put as much effort in as others to have their dog behaving in a way that is acceptable, but it is true. Those who are seeking to overturn legislation on the false basis that environment plays a bigger part than genetics are doomed to fail. Great post. Umm, what issue where? I think you have gone off on your own little tangent and assume things that are not true or real to be honest. Wow, again I'll applaud you on a very ridiculous post. It is so filled with assumptions and stupidity I can do no more than laugh. I am sitting trying to figure out what exactly you are actually saying. I'll start, and finish, with the fact that you have wrongly assumed my knowledge level, my stand on BSL and other animal welfare issues including purebred dog breeding, my past and present support of the EDBA, the MDBA and my beliefs regarding current, future and past legislation. I think you need to pull your head in and find another tree to bark up 'cause you've got the wrong one here. I don't think it is hypocritical to place an importance on raising, socialising and training our dogs so they do not develop any behaviourial problems (not just aggression). I have lost count of the number of dogs I have met whose owners bought them because 'x' breed is a great family dog yet the dog has xyz behaviourial problems - not because of it's breed or genetics but simply because the owners have failed to raise and train it appropriately. It is vital to choose a breed that is suitable for your lifestyle, and to go to a good breeder to ensure you are getting the best chance you can to have a healthy dog with a good stable temperament but very few dogs will automatically grow into a perfect, well adjusted adult if we don't raise and train them accordingly. Whilst I am a huge advocate for the purebred dog, we do not want owners to become complacent about properly raising and training their dog because it's 'x' breed and should just automatically be a well behaved dog. Totally agree with your post except you are either deliberately misreading what I am saying regarding hypocrisy or I am not explaining myself well. Greymate and others seem to understand what I am saying though without any problems. To me it is simple. Don't play the illogical or weak argument and whilst no-one should be emphasising negatives, to completely disregard facts in the debate will see the debate lost for ever.

And it is that attitude, whether you mean it humorously or semi-seriously or not, that will sink everyone. I have Pugs so I don't care if they ban all those "big powerful nasty dogs that are born vicious" Oh no, now the law makers have decided my "hideously deformed Pugs" need to be banned too. What's that old saying about hanging together or we'll surely hang separately? THAT IS UTTER DAMN CRAP! We each CHOOSE the breed that suits us and our lifestyles. Some of us are small dog lovers, some love the samrt ones, some love the long haired and some love the short haired. I love the Pug becuase of its friendly and gorgeous nature. PERIOD! For you to even insinuate that people who prefer docile, small or less powerful dogs are causing BSL to grow is pathetic. Your post has to be the most stupid and ill thought out post I have read in a long time on here. You talk of someone who prefers a Pug as causing a divide in the dog world when your post is what causes divide.

Yes. The veterinary dermatologist that lectured us at vet school reckoned that allergies occur in dogs, in descending order from very common to rare, were: Flea saliva allergy Atopy (allergy to inhaled or absorbed allergens) Food allergy Contact allergy From what I've seen in practice so far, that definitely seems about right to me. He also noted that dogs with one type of allergy were far more likely than your average dog to develop a second type as well. Yes, I agree. Hence why I hate the commercial food vs raw/barf. The itchy skin and allergies is commonly used as a reason for people not to feed commercial when it simply isn;t true. This debate then seemed to extend to mainly kibble and the number of times I have read people stating that the grains in kibble cause itchy skin is too many in number to even think about.

Every dog, cat and human even is BORN with certain behaviour traits. The experiences they have will help shape how those behaviour traits manifest as well. However, they are born with them. We argue this when we advise people to buy purebred dogs. Buy a Cavvie, they're family friendly. Buy a Pug, they're non aggressive. Buy a Maremma, they're fabulous guard dogs. Buy a Border Collie, they're great at herding. We state "Buy a purebred and you know what you are getting!" We tell people that we can determine the temperament, the look, the longevity and the diseases, purely by the breed. And yet we argue on the other hand that there are any breeds that have character traits that can lead to aggression. Come on. Lets not be hypocritical. We can't say this when we want someone to buy a purebred but then ignore it when it comes to thses issues. A pug, who is abused, may develop behaviour traits that need to be managed but there is less liklihood that the behaviour that unfolds will be aggression related. In all of the Pugs that come though my home, some who came from abusive backgrounds, I only ever had ONE that showed DA and I have never, ever, ever, ever had one that showed any HA. I am not saying that the Pug is perfect, but it is at the total opposite end of the spectrum of many large powerful breeds. Aggression is NOT a trait of the Pug. It does happen, but it is rare. There are many breeds where aggression is more common. It is a breed trait. I don't care which way you want to argue it.

Not neccessarily, however a child born to parents who have specific personality traits that are common to those who are murderers and similar, such as risk taking behaviour and addictive personalities, WILL have a higher chance of getting themselves into trouble. The environment and experiences they have will also determine if those behaviours are used for good or evil.

No, i'd never argue that but do you really agree that the majority of aggression displayed in dogs is entirely genetic? Am I really the only one who thinks that the way we train and socialize our dogs is also integral?? I don't think anyone is saying that though. My argument is that people can not say that genetics do not play a part. It simply isn't true and it blows our arguments for whay a purebred dog is a preferred choice out of the water. Pugger - I agree. I usually use the term 'powerful and large' breeds as there are many more than just the APBT that I would personally consider to be a breed not matched to certain types of people and families. The Pug lacks strength and size which is a bonus. Over the eyars, we have had many scuffles between dogs with the rescues coming and going and we have only ever once had one draw blood. He managed to latch onto an ear and there was a small mark that oozed a drop of blood. Their face shape and their lack of aggressive drive ensures the only damage they inflict is usually accidental and very minimal.

Great post - thanks for the info!

As long as the focus of the 'slagging' is purely the Council itself, I see it as a good thing. The pound is a product of the Local Government for Blacktown. Constituents and the community have a right to be upset and call for change. Those calling for change I believe are not neccessarily wanting to hang the workers of the impound facility itself, but the Management and Councillors who allow the operations of the facility to remain third world. The squeaky wheel gets the most oil as they say. The staff who work directly with the animals at this facility can only benefit from improved conditions. I can't any of them have an easy and fun job. They too see the misery but they can only work within the guidelines that are set and the resources that are provided to them.

I would avoid any spot treatments actually. His skin will be extra sensitive. I would opt for oral preventatives personally. Speak with your Vet. I personally use a product called Sentinel Spectrum and have not had any adverse reactions with my dogs or the rescues. This isn't suitable for big flea infestations though. I have heard of lots of severe reactions to spot on treatments.

And that folks sums it up.

All of the above. And that's the point - you need a certain combination of factors for a deadly result. Actually, I'll have to disagree and say that this is a bad analogy to use. Sometimes, there is no need for the match at all. Nature can create fires too.

Yes, when testing for a diet allergy, you can still medicate a dog and give preventatives as these are not proteins they ingest. I would continue to treat your dogs as you normally would for parasites. The Vet can do skin testing to test your dog for atopic reactions.

Wonder what that means. Trigger event. I was hoping someone with knowledge might shed some light on why they think this may have caused a reaction. Is it possible it was a dominance issue? She said "go" and he said "don't push me"? I know next to nix about behavior in this context. It is also interesting the grandson had recently visited. If the feedback comment quoted above is correct, could the grandson have been stirring the dog up on his visit and trying to engage it in vicious play or reactions??

If you are going to trial an elim diet, you'll have to do it properly otherwise there is no point and you will not get a result. The idea of an elimnation diet is to find a protein source that the dog has never ever eaten. Protein sources are known allergens in some dogs. It is thought that the dog develops an allergic response to proteins within the first year or two of its life. Puppies are best fed only one type of food for as long as possible because of this. Variety is not neccessarily needed in a dogs diet. If you think that he has never ever had kangaroo (think of food you have fed him over various stages of his life - have you ever fed him 'kangaroo' flavoured commercial food for example, it may contain traces of kangaroo). If you think that kangaroo is a 'novel' or never tried meat for him, then trial it. Keep in mind that kangaroo can be too rish for some dogs. I choose goats meat for my trials. It usualy is around $8 - $10 a kilo and you can get legs, bones, minced and diced meat. Many butchers in areas with high numbers of middle eastern and indian communities will sell goats meat. You must not feed anything else, except for a carb source if you choose to. A cheap and easy carb source is sweet potato. This can be fed boiled. Do not feed treats, do not feed kibble, do not give vitamins or additives. No fluids except for water. You must completely remove all possible food allergen sources for anything up to 12 weeks. The only food that should pass your dog's lips is the chosen protein source, carb source and water. Medications are obviously ok. If the dog's skin begins to settle, it can be considered that the allergy is food related. If it doesn't, you can't rule out a diet allergy because it may also be atopic. Many dogs suffer both kinds. Once the allergic reaction has cleared or settled, you recommence the normal diet, adding one item at a time for 7-14 days days and watching for a reaction. If there is no reaction you add the next and so on. If it is a diet allergy, you will notice a reaction when they are fed a protein source that is a culprit. You then cease feeding that food item immediately and determine the type of protein it is. This is done until you know all protein types and sources that affect the dog. You can then look at creating a diet plan that covers the nutritional requirements of a canine, and also meets the needs of your dog's allergies. An elimination diet is only a temporary diet.

From the update; Rocky lashed out as Mrs Bonic tried to usher him into another room about 11am. He began gnashing her right arm, so she put up her left arm to try to defend herself.

Lamb is also common in many dog foods, so it usually isn't an untried source. I would go for goat or camel or even kangaroo. I also wouldn't use rice as it is a grain, and sometimes grains can cause stomach upsets. On a last note, I have to disagree with the protexin too. An elimnation diet requires you to feed absolutely NOTHING else. No additives and no vitamins. Nothing bu the one simple protein source, and if need be for added bulk or energy, one simple carb soucrce.

I don't deny it Anne and all the research supports that it plays a part. What concerns me (as I posted yesterday) is that the moment a breed label is applied to a dog, all other searching for explanations ceases. Genetics alone can never explain these sorts of tragedies. I'd like to know how that dog was acquired, for what purpose, how it was socialised and housed and what function it performed for its owner. I'd also like to know its age, sex and desexing status. And I'd particularly like to know if it had a history of aggression. There ARE pitbulls, Rotties etc that are big cuddly teddy bears.. partly because they've been bred for stable temperament and no doubt because they've been raised to form effective social bonds with people. Any large powerful dog requires effort, management and respect. That includes breeds most folk would never consider a danger.. Golden Retrievers are just as capable of this sort of damage. Their saving grace is that they haven't been irresponsibly bred as extensively as they are overseas and few people who want a 'tough' breed are interested in acquring one. I really feel for people who love the big powerful breeds. And I really hope they managed to save this poor woman's arm. Yes, I couldn't agree more with what you have said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/vick.dogs.rehab/index.html That's a lovely story but I am not sure why you highlighted it to me? I haven't said that a dog can not be rehabilitated. :D I am only arguing the point that we can't claim that genetics do not help determine a dog's temperament and that we make a mockery of our claims of the certainty of the characteristics of a purebred dog by arguing this. So one could argue that BSL does indeed have it's place and restrictions should apply for certain "breeds" ? Breed or cross aside, I would still like to know how many of the boxes that particular dog ticked. I do not agree that we should exstinguish any breed, nor do I believe that dogs who have never displayed aggression in any form should be seized, caged, removed from loving homes or euthanased. Dogs who have the breeding to become dangerous in the wrong hands, should never be placed in the wrong hands. There should be restrictions placed on the ownership of some breeds. This not only should apply to large and powerful breeds but working breeds kept in suburbia and others who likewise are owned and handled by people in conditions that the breed is not suitable for.

PF - while I understand that environment plays a part, I will once again use the Pug as an example. You can chain up a Pug, lock it in a cage, beat it with sticks, never let it socialise and allow it to experience every horror there is and only probably 1 in 1000 will display aggression (except maybe food aggression). A guess I know. Do the same to a Pitbull and what would happen? I won't even try to guess but we all know the results would be far different to what would happen with a more docile breed. You CAN NOT deny that breeding and genetics play a large role in the temperament of a dog.

I have not had a lot to do with Pitbulls, but I have met many Staffies and I have only ever met one staffy that displayed human aggression. In fact they have all been quite the opposite except for Gypsy! Gyspy didn't like the neighbour and I am sure she would have bitten him had she have been given the chance.

I agree with what Sas said - re specialist. It seems you haven't tried an elimination diet, but just listened to advice about faw/barf vs commercial maybe? One of the biggest flaws about the debate with raw vs commercail is that people say it is the preservatives and grains that are the cause of skin issues. This is wrong. The most common allergens are beef and chicken. Most commercial foods have beef and chiken prodcuts in them, even if it is only falvouring made from these things. I had a rescue in who was allergic to beef, chicken and dairy. She also was allergic to dust mites and so her allergies were twofold of both dietary and atopic. Your dog may or may not have a dietary related allergy, but you need to determine that by testing with an elimination diet.

Media reports this morning said that the sog attacked her as she entered through the back door. Perhaps it thought she was an intruder?? I guess we will never really find out what happened. The end result though is a dog seriously injured her in what appears to be a prolonged attack. The dog obviously was a ticking timebomb and this may or may not have been picked up. I know that I will never own a dog that is a strong or powerful breed, unless it is a docile breed. Like it or lump it, the Pittbull, and many other breeds, are far from being a docile breed.

These arguments always frustrate me. On one hand we push the fact that if you choose a purebred dog you KNOW what its temperament will be like. You KNOW what its characteristics will be like. It is a genetic line we follow, we breed for temperament yadda, yadda and now suddenly we say "Hell no, a dog isn't born aggressive, it is the upbringing that makes it aggressive!" This. Is. Total. CRAP! A Pug is NOT aggressive. It is born that way. It is genetics. It has NOTHING to do with the upbringing. If I can say that a dog is born without aggression, why then can't it be said that some dogs are born with aggression? Sure, the Pitbull may be maligned, but the argument that a dog is created and not born, is dumb.

Congratulations on the award Troy, it was well deserved. You have done so much for the purebred dog world in so many ways. Your support of the MDBA Awards shows your commitment even more so. PS - Phew, so glad I didn't scare you off too. It was fabulous to meet you!! I was so glad when I heard you were coming and sitting at the same table as I was.