john.davey.1960

I use the results of drug testing on animals every day in my practice. Working in a specialist branch of the profession where drugs are rarely specifically licensed (and therefore safety tested in animals) the 'byproduct' of human testing is that it does provide useful safety and efficacy data enabling me to use human drugs 'off label'.

Careful what you wish for- no animal testing means no safety data for these drugs in animals (however useful or not that data is for human extrapolation).

If penicillin was tested in guinea pigs it would never have got on the market. thalidomide was tested in animals and was found to be safe!!!! Be careful what you wish for, close enough is not good enough. Animal testing is simply legal shenanigans to exculpate the guilty.

Hello!

I'm not sure is this is the right section but I am reaching out to you all for some help or suggestons of who to contact.

My friend in Sydney (Enmore/Newtown area) has been told by his landlord he can no longer keep his 2 Staffies and he needs to remove them immediately . They are desperately looking for anyone who may be able to offer to look after them for approx 4-6 weeks while they look for a new dog-friendly home to rent. All food etc will be paid for. Dogs are maybe 4 years old, both males. I'm not sure how they are with other dogs and cats or around children.

If anyone can offer help, has any friends or knows of anyone in the Sydney/Newtown area who may be able to help, or can list any foster groups I could put my friend in contact with please let me know ASAP. Please pass this on to anyone you know who may be able to help as this is urgent!

Thanks everyone!

Christine

Tell him to read his lease. Unless it says no dogs then there's nothing the landlord can do until renewal time. Don't worry about the whiners. Either they're there to help the dogs or feed their egoes.

Published online 28 June 2011 | Nature 474, 551 (2011) | doi:10.1038/474551a

News

Call to curb lab tests on dogs

Canine remains the default option in outdated pharmaceutical toxicology.

Marian Turner

Dogs make popular laboratory subjects, with uses including drug-toxicity testing, above.Y. Forestier/CorbisMan's best friend bears a heavy burden in the pharmaceutical industry. Every year, tens of thousands of dogs are subjects in drug-toxicity studies in Europe and the United States, even though many scientists think that they are poor predictors of drug effects in humans. Discussions on this sensitive issue have now been opened up by a hefty donation from Hildegard Doerenkamp, a Swiss philanthropist and passionate dog-lover, to the Zurich-based Doerenkamp–Zbinden Foundation, which supports work to reduce animal testing.

Toxicology researchers from academia and industry, and animal-welfare groups met in Budapest last week to develop an action plan and discuss how to spend Doerenkamp's donation of more than €1 million (US$1.4 million) to drive change. Scientists need to identify what information dog tests provide that tests in vitro or on rodent species cannot, they say. And regulatory authorities such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency need to harmonize their requirements for dog testing so that pharmaceutical companies can minimize the number of animals they use.

Regulatory authorities usually require that drugs are tested for toxicity in both a rodent and a non-rodent species. The latter tends to be dogs, because they are readily available, easy to handle and in many ways physiologically similar to humans. Pharmaceutical testing accounts for around three-quarters of all dogs used in science.

But scientists inside and outside industry say that dogs are not always the best option for testing and could, in some cases, be replaced by in vitro tests. In spite of these reservations, and public disquiet over the use of dogs in testing, very little has been done to curb the practice, says Thomas Hartung, a molecular toxicologist and head of the Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, which organized the meeting.

Regulatory agencies are nervous of changing procedures. Any adverse reactions to a new drug, for example, could be blamed on new tests failing to spot dangers. Only if a battery of in vitro alternatives can match the level of toxicity prediction that dogs can provide will regulators agree to a change, says Hartung. So far only one such test — used to predict whether a compound could lead to cardiac arrhythmias — comes close, but it has not yet been internationally validated.

In its action plan, to be published in the next few months, CAAT will call for the setting up of a database of dog-test results to help to identify more targets for in vitro tests by highlighting physiological effects seen only in dogs. It will also call for a better definition of those tests for which dogs provide the best model, and those for which another species — such as the mini-pig — should be used instead. Toxicologist Georg Schmitt of Hoffmann La-Roche in Basel, Switzerland, says that pharmaceutical companies should not use dogs by default simply because facilities and test protocols exist. "Dogs can be oversensitive to some compounds, such as hormones, and their gastro­intestinal system behaves differently to that of humans," says Schmitt. He says that studies in which dogs have proved to be poor models should be published.

The full article is posted with free access on nature.com . . . but you need to sign up and sign in to get to it.

The sooner this obscenity ceases the better.

The problem with a GPS on/in a dog would be that ANYONE with a reciever could watch and track when and where your pet goes, which can be used by thieves to determine when your home, by nasty people to know when to steal the dog...the possibility for nastiness is endless. The government is also one step closer to controlling thhe people of this country...

Sadly that is entirely correct horse. The naieve will beg to differ but they are not acting in the dog's best interests.

Will there ever be an end to this mass dumpage? People make me sick.

Yes, when we stop traeting dogs other than the companion animals they are and supporting organisations which kill them because they refuse to buid sufficient shelters. Go No Kill Australia.

As usual humans degrade themselves and their companion animals in attempts to justify bad policy. Dogfighters, hunters etc. would say they produce the best dogs while we all know deep down there is more to dogs than being our workhorses. Get rid of sniffer dogs and racing dogs and let dogs be what they truly are, our companions.

The majority of dogs would be MUCH happier doing the job they were designed to do that sitting around all day being 'companions'. I actually find it a little distasteful to have dogs considered as purely our 'entertainment'. While humans have developed a rapport with them, the majority of breeds were NEVER designed to be just companions and to say so shows an extreme lack of understanding of the species and its development.

Dogs though history and now have assisted man. The jobs that dogs do are many and varied. They were on the whole bred to work. There are dogs that heard stock, dogs that protect stock, dogs that find things such as lost or trapped people, cancer, truffles and so on, dogs that alert to impending seizures, dogs that assist the deaf, dogs that assist with mobility, dogs that assist the blind, dogs that help control vermin, dogs that protect us, dogs that help us transport ourselves and our goods from A to B, dogs that help us hunt and feed our family (and on a worldwide basis these are still very important needs - we should not be so insular as to only look at dogs through western urban eyes).

I have met working dogs doing all sorts of roles and on the whole these dogs are happy, fulfilled, and live a fuller life than most 'companion' dogs who live at someone beck and call in their backyard - many of which are slowly going crazy for lack of a job and doing the things that we hear about time and time again on these forums - digging, barking ,escaping, destroying things etc etc. The 'working' dogs on the other hand get on the majority more attention and more fulfillment doing something they were bred to do. When it comes to 'sniffer' dogs quite a few are dogs that have such a high drive that they were not suited as 'companions' - Their suburban backyard owners couldnt give them what they needed to be happy. They could be PTS by the pounds and shelters at that point but instead they go on to have a fulfilling life as a working dog.

Time to get real. Dog fighters say their dogs are happiest when fighting, hunters say their dogs are happiest when killing, slave owners say their dogs are happiest when chasing runaways. Dogs have to change with the times. Killing them rather than retraining them says more about the killers than the dogs.

As usual humans degrade themselves and their companion animals in attempts to justify bad policy. Dogfighters, hunters etc. would say they produce the best dogs while we all know deep down there is more to dogs than being our workhorses. Get rid of sniffer dogs and racing dogs and let dogs be what they truly are, our companions.

If some of these animal rights orgs ever get their way, you can say goodbye to your companion dog, may as well replace It now with a hardy stuffed toy! I'm sure It can be a great companion for you and It's rights will never be violated!

Take away a working dogs ability to work and you may as well kill them all, Is that what you want What do you suppose will happen if all these dogs were just companions? Sure some may very well adapt to a life of sleeping and eating, but I guarantee many won't!

I've said It before every dog has a purpose, take away that purpose and you'll be left with nothing let alone a companion

Your right about the animal groups. Dogs are what we make them. Pits are no more natural fighters than GSDs are natural, shepherds. Agility would be better for dogs than seeing them blown to bits on the battlefield.

What about the good homes they go to? What about the good breeders that sell pups overseas? Since when is a flight internationaly any more stressful than a domestic flight? Parts of Asia are closer to Northern Australia than the Southern States? Does that mean we shouldnt send any more pups to Darwin or Cairns too?

And since when did AQIS let unmicrochipped pups be exported?

Poor animal welfare sucks, but why do the RSPCA need to twist the truth or out right lie in these articles?

Because that is how they con people out of their dosh.

As usual humans degrade themselves and their companion animals in attempts to justify bad policy. Dogfighters, hunters etc. would say they produce the best dogs while we all know deep down there is more to dogs than being our workhorses. Get rid of sniffer dogs and racing dogs and let dogs be what they truly are, our companions.

Buying animals is like buying a lottery, no guarantee of anything. Does anyone really believe people who can't get dog control right will give a toss about the dogs. Their victims will simply be the poor. Where will it end when some one realises that the bitch they bought needs a C-section or the face that can't breathe is summer is actually a misformed dog irrespective of breed standsrds. It seems like the dog community is continuing to stick it's head in the sand while their rights are whittled away.

Typical uncaring council in my view in league with this country's greatest companion animal killers. Where's the the proof the dogs are suffering? None quoted so I suspect there is none.

Next we'll be killing dingoes, oh we already do that! It is precisely this type of thinking that resulted in no Tass ie Tiger. They were a pest. Prove the legislation can and does work before killing companion animals.

Supporters of this type of legislation need to show where it has worked in the past. Basically it is a revenue raiser and has nothing to do with animal welfare. Microchipped dogs continue to die in droves and now we can add cats to the list.

HA or DA is about dogs not knowing where there place is in society. It may be genetic or a product of poor socialisation or more likely both. It is not in a dog's nature to be naturally aggressive. Even the Fila, despite much nonsense peddled about it exits as a show dog in thousands of homes with no problem. Likewise the APBT (or SBT or AmStaff). Grotesque media reports turn the animals into monsters yet Labs causing similar injury are ignored or mislabelled as APBTs.

The first and still the best are Dr Carl Semencic's books on various breeds. Richard Stratton's first book mentions the breed. The Johnston was the pug-faced manstopper, Scott lines were abused for fighting and there is a third line not known about except by the aficianados. The dog in the last Little Rascals film was a Scott type.

All forms of animal torture prior to death need to be opposed, whether it is Halal, Kosher or Indigenous practices. If we can't change their minds then we need to oppose their methods and not sell to them. Of course somebody else will but it is their concious which will not be troubled, not ours. Australia does not have a good track record with animals and neither do the animal rights people. We need to fix our own problems first.

Interesting to note that removal of the cats led to an increase in rabbits. Man controlling the environment in an unscientific and dangerous way ... again!

I find the whole concept of 'feral' and 'pest' animals contradictory, unscientific and an excuse for more slaughter. Humans should look what they have done and are doing to the environment fix that up first.

Inbreeding is the way to produce pedigree dogs and is not harmful if you are prepared to cull any substandard progeny as it is also the way to produce recessive health problems.

The book "Australian Barkers and Biters" had a chapter on Kangaroo dogs. From memory they were thickset crosses and once latched on wouldn't let go. Their heads were broader at the ears.

I don't know if the Chinese kill dogs for their fur, perhaps the fur is from dogs slaughtered primarily for meat.

I'm afraid they are skinned alive first, apparently it gives a better cut. The video from the early 2000s shows the barbarity involved. Yes I did watch it all to ensure I would never be tempted by fur products. I banned my wife from watching it as it is so gruesome, nightmares would have been the result.

Killing animals for their fur is cruel with today's options. I wonder why HSI doesn't care about the thousands killed by BSL. Guess there's no money in spinning that web.

There is nothing to report. Two dogs got into a blue which from a distance you could hardly have seen properly. I'd mind my own business. A Husky growling at a Staffy is an overt threat, dog to dog. The Staffy simply reacted in the only way dogs can. The owners of the SBT probably left the park for fear of the nonsense spouted by many in this thread. It is not a DD.

As for breaking up a fight someone has to hold the non-bull breed while the bull breed's owner uses a breaking stick to break the hold. Physically attacking the dog places the attacker and future humans the dog meets at risk.

If two non-bull breeds are fighting one owner must grab their dog while the other owner grabs theirs. They are at more risk of being bitten even by their own dogs! It is imperative that the dog's owners remain calm. Their energy levels will influence their dogs.

Unfortunately this is what happens in off-lead dog parks. Expecting a dog that is being challenged by another dog to be under control is nonsense and is something that one hears only from the ignorant non-dog owners.

I find it ludicrous that we run around killing eachother, but we involve animals all the time and I don't see why 'companions' should be left behind. I'd guess they're a civilizing influence to the troops . .. if they had more dogs around, I'll bet there would be fewer soldiers blowing it on drugs and alcohol, less PTSD, and fewer soldiers loosing their marbles and terrorizing civilians.

I find it ludicrous we can't go round killing each other without involving animals

And what happens to the dogs given Titanium teeth as this dog was which can bite through body armour, or when hit by shells etc. Perhaps we could use suicide dogs to blow up tanks as Russia did in WW2 or train dolphins to kill scuba divers or have RAAF dogs which are killed if their owner breaks a leg as they're too dangerous for anyone else to handle. No, it may look fascinating but in the end it's war and deadly serious. Keep it to ourselves.

I find it ludicrous we can't go round killing each other without involving animals