Salukifan

I think a decent dog training club would really help you on your way. Being shown how to go about things beats any amount of written advice.

He is untrained. What do you think he understands about being on lead beyond "I can't reach the things I want to because I'm attached to this thing"?

Another tool I'm no fan of. Chain is uncomfortable in your hand and when you are teaching your dog to have no weight on the lead, they can't give you that 'weightless' feel you are going for. What happens if you ignore the leash antics?

Collar and TRAINING. I have no idea what the attraction is with harnesses You have no control over the dogs head, half the time dogs seem to be pulling like a train on them and in combination with a flexi-lead, it positively encourages pulling. With a longer coated dog, they will wear the coat. Harnesses are difficult to fit well and many of the more popular brand restrict a dog's movement. They shouldn't be left on dogs in offlead areas or when unsupervised but people do both. I'd strongly recommend some good training classes where you can teach your pup to walk on a loose lead - the earlier that lesson is learned, the better for both of you.

It will be a cold day in hell when regulation alone results in greater education of anyone.

Thanks for that. I'll check out the Milbemax. I've also checked the Guardian instructions and it also says to give 3 monthly for intestinal worms. So basically what it is saying is it does cover heartworm but ONLY if you give it monthly? This was never explained to us by the vet who gave them to us. Now our current vet (well the receptionist assistant person) has told us as long as we take Drontal chews (their recommended worming treatment) monthly he will be covered for heartworm. i don't understand this at all either as it doesn't even say it covers heartworm on the specs. They also said our other option is the 12 month injection which as I said before I'm not at all keen on. Do vets have a problem with heartworm treatment? Well at least the 2 we've used so far are making things very confusing for us. What each wormer covers can be looked up on the product information on the internet. My personal view is i prefer to do my own research rather than trust the advice of someone trying to sell me the product. FYI, click here for Bayer Australia's material safety sheet for Drontal. In all the other guff you'll note that Bayer states its use is for intestinal worms only . Your vet's receptionist needs a slap up the back of the head for two things: dispensing veterinary advice and being WRONG. Id be inclined to print off a copy of that safety sheet and shove it up the receptionists left nostril. There is no way in God's green earth I'd give a dog the heartworm jab. Far too much information around on harmful side effects. My personal regime (well for my dogs) is Drontal tablets 3 monthly for intestinal worms and Proheart monthly tablets from September to March for heartworm. My dogs hate the chews. Bear in mind though that where I live has very cold winters and that period covers any mosquito activity easily. I am no fan of the monthly treatments for intestinal worms, heartworm and fleas. Fleas are not an issue here for the most part and I don't hold with treating for parasites that aren't a problem. If I lived in a more flea prone area I might use a different regime. Oh, and vets often charge like wounded bulls for wormers - check out prices on the internet. I like your regime. We live in Canberra too. But I have a question. If you say you only give the Proheart from September to March then there is a 6 month lapse. Does that mean you need to do a blood test before restarting the Proheart at the start of each Spring? This is the dilemma I have now. Our last treatment was 3 months ago, which is apparently fine for the intestinal worms side of things but not the heartworm. And we now supposedly must have a blood test before giving heart treatment again. i don't have them tested at the beginning of spring because I'm happy that I've treated during the time that mosquitos can spread it. However, given that it seems your pup has never been effectively treated for heartworm, giving preventative could kill him if it takes out adult worms in his heart (IF he has any). In your case, I'd say a test for the presence of heartworms would be a smart move. You'd probably be unlucky if he's got any present but better safe than sorry. You might want to ask for vet recommendations. I'm southside and use the Animal Medical Centre in Phillip and Inner South Vets in Narrabundah. I'll warn you though, neither are cheap.

Thanks for that. I'll check out the Milbemax. I've also checked the Guardian instructions and it also says to give 3 monthly for intestinal worms. So basically what it is saying is it does cover heartworm but ONLY if you give it monthly? This was never explained to us by the vet who gave them to us. Now our current vet (well the receptionist assistant person) has told us as long as we take Drontal chews (their recommended worming treatment) monthly he will be covered for heartworm. i don't understand this at all either as it doesn't even say it covers heartworm on the specs. They also said our other option is the 12 month injection which as I said before I'm not at all keen on. Do vets have a problem with heartworm treatment? Well at least the 2 we've used so far are making things very confusing for us. What each wormer covers can be looked up on the product information on the internet. My personal view is i prefer to do my own research rather than trust the advice of someone trying to sell me the product. FYI, click here for Bayer Australia's material safety sheet for Drontal. In all the other guff you'll note that Bayer states its use is for intestinal worms only . Your vet's receptionist needs a slap up the back of the head for two things: dispensing veterinary advice and being WRONG. Id be inclined to print off a copy of that safety sheet and shove it up the receptionists left nostril. There is no way in God's green earth I'd give a dog the heartworm jab. Far too much information around on harmful side effects. My personal regime (well for my dogs) is Drontal tablets 3 monthly for intestinal worms and Proheart monthly tablets from September to March for heartworm. My dogs hate the chews. Bear in mind though that where I live has very cold winters and that period covers any mosquito activity easily. There is also a daily option for heartworm. I am no fan of the monthly "all-in-one" treatments for intestinal worms, heartworm and fleas. Fleas are not an issue here for the most part and I don't hold with treating for parasites that aren't a problem. If I lived in a more flea prone area I might use a different regime. Oh, and vets often charge like wounded bulls for wormers - check out prices on the internet.

Broken necks have ended more than a few Whippets' lives

Friend's dog brought it back from a national speciality a few years back - dog attended trial when it still had no symptoms and news of the outbreak hadn't broken. Dog infected a number of dogs at the trial, some of her friends dogs and those of us who'd had contact quarantined our dogs as a precaution. Lots of entry fees for several weekends for lots of dogs went south. It may only be an "inconvenient" disease but it has the potential to inconvenience a LOT of people beyond you. It can inconvenience people out of matings, titles, national attendances....Ask Customs - they had an entire kennel of dogs requiring quarantine a few years ago. I believe they vaccinate for it now. Vaccinate or not for KC, your prerogative. But please quarantine your dogs if you have contact with KC - or indeed anything else. The lives of other dogs may depend on it. And you'd think this was common sense but FFS do NOT take a dog with a cough or diarrhoea to an event!!! Has he been titred? The presence of a dog of questionable immunity at my local vets would piss me off big time. What a dog contracts and what a dog can incubate and spread are not one and the same thing.

Same as the human flu vacc. I get that too. Flu I can handle but I prefer to avoid the nastier strains.

If my dogs contract KC, they are out of all ANKC events for weeks. I also don't need my geriartic dogs exposed if at all possible. So they get the nose one. KC isn't going to kill them but if it hits at the wrong time, it would be bloody inconvenient. Eg. with a bitch due for a mating. My personal view is that if you have your dogs in situations where they are in areas with a high density of dogs (such as shows and trials) its a good precaution, but it's not essential. Ditto for dogs housed in kennel situations at any stage.

Who knows? I certainly don't. But if you believe the RSPCA, they weren't put down on a whim.

is the issue lack of bladder/bowel control or ease of access outside?

I'd say profound temperament problems or heath issues would justify the decision but without further facts, It's hard to say anything about the decision.

It's actually a bit of both. When dogs are in prey drive and giving chase, areas of the brain actually shut down and all focus redirects to focus on hunting. So things like pain reception and hearing may not be functioning as well as usual. Mind you, some dogs seem to have absolutely no concept of self preservation and will fling themselves wholly into what they're doing. My youngest is like this - shredded the pads on all four feet at a big dog play date not long ago. Limped around unless there was a chase on in which case he was in it!

I tend to pool orders with friends to get to the free postage limit. I mostly buy beef jerky, the liver fangers and duck jerky ( that's the poodles' favourite).

Australian Pet Treat Company have it and usually at a fraction of the cost of buying it from retailers.* * Haredown Whippets receives no commission for constantly spruiking this company but given how much she spends online there, she should have shares by now.

I don't think debarking is the worst thing to happen to a dog (sure beats a bait) but there are hoops you have to jump through to do it lawfully and there is careful post recovery care that needs to be given to prevent scarring (and that raspy bark people hate). That said, be aware that a dog that cannot bark to annoy you, also cannot effectively vocalise pain, alert you to strangers or to dangers like fire. That may not seem like a big deal but try locating a dog lost in bush that cannot bark to tell you where it is. We had to find a friend's dog in such circumstances - poor thing was strung up in blackberry and we were lucky to find her. It is not a procedure that should be undertaken until all other avenues of controlling the barking have been exhausted and that's what the law requires.

Yes, I vaccinate my dogs in accordance with the AVA's revised 3 yearly protocol after puppy shots and the 1 year booster. It is also a requirement that my dogs be vaccinated for entry in to all ANKC sanctioned dog events and every entry form requires you to confirm that has been done. IMO titre tests are as good as that. If you choose not to vaccinate your dog, that's your prerogative but do other dog owners a favour and keep your dog out of dense dog population areas like off lead areas. You should also NEVER set foot in the bush. I may not like foxes but they don't deserve to die of distemper and neither do dingoes.

There's that word again. Use of anything relating to breed in an attempt to disprove the need for BSL won't work. There's only one thing you need to know about breed based bite statistics.... people who research dog attacks for a living won't touch them with a barge pole. They discredit ANY attempt to assign bites to breed for a range of reasons including misidentification of dogs and the fact that they don't account for crossbreeds. You can't win the BSL debate with any argument that involves breed because breed is irrelevant, inaccurate and unscientific when it comes to dog bite data. That's what's wrong with BSL in the first place.

My personal view is that the moment opponents to BSL start talking about the threats to dogs and dog ownership, their argument is sunk. You have to focus on the purpose of BSL, not the "victims". The aim of BSL is to improve community safety. You have to phrase your arguments in those terms. A significant proportion of society doesn't give a toss about dogs or dog ownership. More folk think banned breeds ARE dangerous dogs. You have to lead them down the path of explaining carefully and succinctly how the banning of certain dog breeds fail to improve everyone's safety. Rallies with dogs, the usual "my dog is a big marshmallow" stuff and rattling on about dog owner's "rights" (we don't have any) marginalise this as a "dog issue". It isn't. Don't make it one - you do, you fail. The best way to improve community safety is to target responsible dog ownership with education. See, not a "breed" mentioned - no hunting down dogs just focus on making sure that dogs are carefully bred, selected, socialised and trained. When a dog attack happens, ask the hard questions - how WAS the dog bred, selected, socialised, trained and managed. If a chil was involved, was there adequate adult supervision? Not argument about what breed or breeds it was. And for God's sake, no blaming the victim or excusing the dog's behaviour. I respect the passion of bull breed owners but they are often their own worst enemies. You can't fight this on a "but the dogs aren't nasty" basis. You have to get beyond it. It was me that coined the term "BSL targets the wrong end of the leash" . Don't make the mistake of doing the same thing in trying to get rid of BSL.

Assuming of course, that they get over the hurdle of being a "breed" at all. That's not an inconsiderable hurdle. :cool: In all of this, there is one irrefutable message that needs to be pushed, and pushed hard on anyone with influence on this issue that will listen or that gives a damn. Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Work There's no emotion, no agenda, no amount of statistics or argument that can change that fact and that's what needs to be sold. Forget everything else, forget about your breed or anyone elses breed. It really is that simple. Any proposals for breed bans should be supported by statistics that cannot be found to support them. That's what we need to push.

Yes, I get that. But we don't have any proposals yet to counter. And there may not be any I prefer to keep my powder dry and wait for a concrete proposal rather than speculate and exhaust patience at the Commonwealth level on what might or might not occur. The focus at this point needs to be on finding out if there ARE any proposals.

No, people in the state of NSW should be concerned and taking action. The NSW state government is not going to give a toss what anyone who doesn't vote for them thinks or does. This is why it's important to focus efforts and not send a whole bunch of people off half cocked before further facts are known. All the "you're breed will be next" and bombarding politicians with pics of kids and restricted breeds and/or abuse failed and failed dismally to prevent the introduction of BSL. Many members of the public regard restricted breeds as the spawn of Satan and are perfectly happy to see them banned. People have to get SMART about this. As I said earlier, you need cool heads and careful strategy. Ruthless I admire what Team Dog aim to achieve but I cannot agree with their current methods. The information cut and pasted to form the first post in this thread is what I'm talking about. Promoting hysteria among dog owners does not help here. I will offer whatever support I can via ANKC channels.

Got one! :)