labadore

Go the Labs, well done Guy Spagnolo and your beautiful boy on your BOB and BIG wins, now just one more :D You and your beautiful labs do our beloved Labrador breed proud

Fantastic news, congratulations Guy Spagnolo, he is a beautiful boy and has done so well. Can he go one further :) Love the Driftway lines, just beautiful examples of our beloved breed :)

Cut it in half or into more manageable sized pieces with a meat cleaver. I used to do that for one of my Labs who struggled with a a whole head and would always eat the lot once I cut it up for him :)

Methinks your those awfully cute pink collars will look very pretty on your gorgeous lab girls, particularly your black beauties :)

All Blacks Gear for dogs I ordered a couple of the collars, tags and travel bowls for my black lab boys, hopefully they will come out with match leads soon. Love the pink ones for the girls, very cute :laugh: was very tempted to buy a pink collar as well, but if dared put it on any of my "manly" boys, I think they would leave home :laugh:

I am so sorry for your loss of your beloved boy . I know you must be so devastated and my heart goes out to you and you are in my thoughts as you grieve for your gorgeous boy He will have a very special place in your heart forever and will never be forgotten. Run free Sam with all the other Labbies at who would have greeted you and shown you all the best Labby places. You will be missed forever

Unfortunately our beloved breed comes in for a lot of criticism on weight and every man and his dog (both non Labrador owners and Labrador owners have an opinion about a Lab's weight) . Yes there are many overweight Labs out there, but so many confuse a muscular, solid & very fit Lab with being overweight because they don't resemble a "field" Lab. There is a major difference between the show/bench lab and field/working labs and I have always preferred the show/bench Lab as they are the Labs that are bred to standard. My current youngster is from a very well renowned Labrador breeder who has been breeding for over 35 years and showing and judging Labs for many many years and I got my youngster from him as I believe his Labs are an excellent representation of our breed and he breeds to standard. Funny thing is I actually get a lot of compliments from Rotty owners on my boy who say he is the most solid and fit looking Lab they have ever seen and some ask if he is part Rotty :laugh: If people want a slim build Lab they can get a field/working Lab as a show/bench style Lab will never be a slim build Lab as they are completely different builds, unless a show/bench style Lab has been purposely keep very lean due to joint injury or to appease their owner's often misguided view on how a Lab should look :D In saying this, I do realise that unfortunately, there are a lot of overweight Labs out there, but not all show/bench labs are overweight just because their body build is larger as a lot of these dogs are very solid and fit. In some people's mind, all show/bench labs are fat and nothing any of us say will change their their opinions, even though they have never run their hands over the Labs they judge as fat and I am not talking about the obvious overweight Labs here. Anyway no amount of criticism of our beloved breed will dampen my joy for both the very happy and gorgeous Romeo and his delighted owner. :) Great achievement

Thanks showdog for that great pic of Romeo jumping up so excited as his result :laugh: his excitement is so typical of the Labrador, love it and many thanks for your pics and posts in response to other posters regarding the Lab. I know everyone is not a Lab fan and I don't expect them to be as we all have different tastes in dogs, but as a Labrador owner and lover of many many years, it is just wonderful to see my beloved breed do so well at such a prestigious event and the obvious happiness of both the dog and owner/handler was just so lovely to see.

Of course the Labrador was fat, they are all fat

Fantastic news for our beloved breed, well down Romeo, gorgeous boy and congratulations to his owner Franco Barberi

I am very sorry that your beloved girl has a mass on her spleen I hope and pray for a better outcome for your girl than I had with my beloved Lab boy who I lost to Hemangiosarcoma when he was 10 years old, 5 months after being diagnosed with this awful cancer, despite having the Splenectomy surgery (removal of Spleen) and Chemo. I am a little puzzled that she has been diagnosed with spleen cancer, when the full body ultrasound hasn't been done to determine if the mass has spread to other organs or surgery hasn't been performed to remove the mass and send away for testing. The reason I say this, is that a mass on the Spleen isn't necessarily a malignant cancer i.e. Hemangiosarcoma, if it hasn't spread as it could be a Hemangioma which is a benign tumour and the only way for a definitive diagnosis of the mass is if it is removed and sent away for testing. Whilst a full body ultrasound can check if the mass has spread to other organs, I believe that the testing of the mass is the only definitive way to diagnose whether it is Hemangiosarcoma or Hemangioma. Whilst blood tests can reveal if all is not right, which it did in my boy's case as his results showed he was anaemic and my vet referred him to the Specialist for an ultrasound based on his blood test results and physical examination during which he could feel a sizeable lump, bloodtests unfortunately cannot pick up/screen for this cancer. If your girl is in good health (apart from the mass on the spleen)and there is no evidence that the mass has ruptured or spread to other organs, then I would recommend the surgery, as my boy who was close to 10 years of age and up until about a week before the mass on the spleen was found, was in great shape and he recovered very quickly and very well from the Splenectomy surgery. This surgery is not without risk though as it is a major surgery and the mass could rupture and bleedout during surgery, but your Vet will explain all this to you. Without the surgery the mass could rupture at any time and bleedout and is a horrible way for a dog to die and also without the surgery you won't be able to get a definite diagnosis on whether the mass is Hemangiosarcoma (malignant cancer) or Hemangioma (benign)unless the full body ultrasound clearly shows the spread to other organs. Also because of what another poster said in this thread I just want to mention that just because there is no evidence of the mass spreading/metastasising, does not mean that a dog does not have Hemangiosarcoma. The testing done on the mass is the only definitive way to find out if it is Hemangiosarcoma or Hemangioma. As mentioned in my boy's case he was diagnosed with Hemangiosarcoma, despite the fact that there was no evidence that the tumour had spread to other organs at the time of his surgery or during the ultrasound. Unfortunately, Hemangiosarcoma is a very aggressive Cancer and by the time the mass is evident, the damage has already been done and there are just no tests that can be done to screen for this awful cancer. My boy actually had bloodtests (not for a health reason) two months before his diagnosis and his blood test results didn't indicate there were any problems in any areas, in fact he got a clean bill of health with both full blood tests and urinalysis and full veterinary examination Please do not lose all hope and think the worst (i.e. Hemangiosarcoma)until the test results come back or full body ultrasound proves otherwise, as your girl may be extremely lucky to only have a Hemangiomma. You are both in my thoughts and I know how worried you must be and I am sending lots of positive vibes your girl's way and lots of your way.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't... errr! It's nice to see a study that looked at both extremes and what issues could possibly arise from each. T. That is what I found very interesting. Whilst I wasn't surprised about the increase in HD and CCL, the rate of the increase was pretty surprising, 100 percent increase, or doubling, of the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males. I was surprised by the "Late neutering was associated with the subsequent occurrence of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma in females". I have a personal interest in Hemangiosarcoma having lost one of my Lab boys to this awful cancer and apart from the orthopaedic issues, is one of the reasons why I have not had my 3 year old Lab boy neutered. When I was doing lots of research when my boy was diagnosed with Hemangiosarcoma, I found quite a few articles on the pros/cons of neutering/speying and they specifically mentioned higher risks of Hemangiosarcoma for neutred/speyed dogs, with females having a higher risk than males, which seems to be borne out in this study as well. Also the Golden Retriever is one of the breeds with the the highest rates of this awful cancer, so I suppose the results of a study conducted on one specific breed should not be that surprising with regards to Hemangiosarcoma findings. I am glad I have a preference for the males :) as I personally believe it is easier to manage an intact male than an intact female as I would probably be a bit paranoid with an intact female, worrying about the possibilities when she was in heat and the responsibility that goes with that. Whilst I could probably manage an intact female for a couple seasons to ensure the best orthopaedic outcome, I would not like to have to manage this for a bitch's lifetime. I take my responsibility of managing my intact male lab youngster very seriously and he is the first of my males that I have decided to keep intact due to both the orthopaedic and health benefits and his breeder is fully aware of this and very supportive. Obviously it is a personal decision and I am not advocating everybody needs to keep their dogs intact. We all know how many irresponsible dog owners are out there

Very Interesting study released yesterday UC Davis study regarding early spay/neuter suggest neutering affects dog health also link to the actual study is available for viewing too Actual Study - Neutering Dogs: Effects on Joint Disorders and Cancers in Golden Retrievers PLOS ONE: Neutering Dogs: Effects on Joint Disorders and Cancers in Golden Retrievers Golden retriever study suggests neutering affects dog health February 13, 2013 Neutering, and the age at which a dog is neutered, may affect the animal’s risk for developing certain cancers and joint diseases, according to a new study of golden retrievers by a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis. The study, which examined the health records of 759 golden retrievers, found a surprising doubling of hip dysplasia among male dogs neutered before one year of age. This and other results will be published today (Feb. 13) in the online scientific journal PLOS ONE. “The study results indicate that dog owners and service-dog trainers should carefully consider when to have their male or female dogs neutered,” said lead investigator Benjamin Hart, a distinguished professor emeritus in the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. “It is important to remember, however, that because different dog breeds have different vulnerabilities to various diseases, the effects of early and late neutering also may vary from breed to breed,” he said. While results of the new study are revealing, Hart said the relationship between neutering and disease-risk remains a complex issue. For example, the increased incidence of joint diseases among early-neutered dogs is likely a combination of the effect of neutering on the young dog’s growth plates as well as the increase in weight on the joints that is commonly seen in neutered dogs. Dog owners in the United States are overwhelmingly choosing to neuter their dogs, in large part to prevent pet overpopulation or avoid unwanted behaviors. In the U.S., surgical neutering — known as spaying in females — is usually done when the dog is less than one year old. In Europe, however, neutering is generally avoided by owners and trainers and not promoted by animal health authorities, Hart said. During the past decade, some studies have indicated that neutering can have several adverse health effects for certain dog breeds. Those studies examined individual diseases using data drawn from one breed or pooled from several breeds. Against that backdrop, Hart and colleagues launched their study, using a single hospital database. The study was designed to examine the effects of neutering on the risks of several diseases in the same breed, distinguishing between males and females and between early or late neutering and non-neutering. The researchers chose to focus on the golden retriever because it is one of the most popular breeds in the U.S. and Europe and is vulnerable to various cancers and joint disorders. The breed also is favored for work as a service dog. The research team reviewed the records of female and male golden retrievers, ranging in age from 1 to 8 years, that had been examined at UC Davis’ William R. Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital for two joint disorders and three cancers: hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma and mast cell tumor. The dogs were classified as intact (not neutered), neutered early (before 12 months age), or neutered late (at or after 12 months age). Joint disorders and cancers are of particular interest because neutering removes the male dog’s testes and the female’s ovaries, interrupting production of certain hormones that play key roles in important body processes such as closure of bone growth plates, and regulation of the estrous cycle in female dogs. The study revealed that, for all five diseases analyzed, the disease rates were significantly higher in both males and females that were neutered either early or late compared with intact (non-neutered) dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear and lymphosarcoma in males and of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females. Late neutering was associated with the subsequent occurrence of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma in females. In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The new study, however, was the first to specifically report an increased risk of late neutering for mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma. Furthermore, the new study showed a surprising 100 percent increase, or doubling, of the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males. Earlier studies had reported a 17 percent increase among all neutered dogs compared to all non-neutered dogs, indicating the importance of the new study in making gender and age-of-neutering comparisons. Other researchers on this UC Davis study were: Gretel Torres de la Riva, Thomas Farver and Lynette Hart, School of Veterinary Medicine; Anita Oberbauer, Department of Animal Science; Locksley Messam, Department of Public Health Sciences; and Neil Willits, Department of Statistics. About UC Davis For more than 100 years, UC Davis has engaged in teaching, research and public service that matter to California and transform the world. Located close to the state capital, UC Davis has more than 33,000 students, more than 2,500 faculty and more than 21,000 staff, an annual research budget of nearly $750 million, a comprehensive health system and 13 specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than 100 undergraduate majors in four colleges — Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science. It also houses six professional schools — Education, Law, Management, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing. Media contact(s): Benjamin Hart, School of Veterinary Medicine, (530) 752-1555, [email protected] Pat Bailey, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9843, [email protected]

Excellent post and I totally agree, "his behavior is inexcusable" and your last para "May he serve as a reminder of how precious life can be whatever it is and her death not be in vain" is beautifully put. This is what being held accountable is all about, that hopefully, lessons will be learned from this tragedy from others in the profession and that the poor dog's life was valued as highly as it should have been and that everything possible is done to prevent another special service dog dying a horrific death due to the negligence of it's carer

Please stop confusing pet ownership with working with service dogs. They are completely different!! Working with service dogs is a job/profession. This is about a senior guide dog employee whose negligence caused the death of a dog in his care. He has been trained to a high level in the proper care of these dogs. He failed one of these dogs, big time and caused its agnosing death. He should lose his job and not ever be allowed to work with service dogs again. Again this is nothing to do with pet ownership, I don't understand why people keep drawing these parallels

I am even more sickened now with this revelation in your post that I have bolded So he takes one of the dogs out of the vehicle and leaves the other one in it. My god, he intentionally left the poor dog in the vehicle, he is a senior instructor who should have known better I just want to scream and cry at this totally preventable, totally unnecessary, totally cruel and totally horrendous death of this special dog. That poor poor dog I need to take a break from this thread, I actually feel ill

There is a fine line between an excuse and a reason :D Within the context of this thread, I believe the "reasons" being offered are excuses.

Woah Woah Woah. OK I'm backing out of this thread. That's the most insane thing I have ever seen on this forum. Thanks for giving me a badly needed laugh today with the bolded comment :laugh: . Man I have only been a member for just over 12months and not a very frequent poster, but have read many many posts/threads over the years prior to joining and a longtime, prolific poster like yourself, who has participated in some lively debates, says my comment is the most insane you have ever seen on this forum, please :laugh: If empathy had nothing to do with it, as you claimed, you would not have posted to start with. Your empathy obviously lies with the dog, which is fair enough, and you obviously have no empathy for humans - that's fine. But your pointing the finger at people who expressed sympathy for the dog handler and then saying empathy has nothing to do with it Does. Not. Compute. I thought you were backing out of this thread. :D I think you just like to twist things around - we can argue the point but I won't :D

Brookestar thank you, great post and couldn't agree more

Woah Woah Woah. OK I'm backing out of this thread. That's the most insane thing I have ever seen on this forum. Thanks for giving me a badly needed laugh today with the bolded comment :laugh: . Man I have only been a member for just over 12months and not a very frequent poster, but have read many many posts/threads over the years prior to joining and a longtime, prolific poster like yourself, who has participated in some lively debates, says my comment is the most insane you have ever seen on this forum, please :laugh:

My life literally revolves around my animals and my kids but if I saw one of my animals putting a child in danger or if ANY child was in danger I would not hesitate to help them. How on earth does your post have anything to do with what Megan is responding to. She responded to one of my posts that had nothing to do with kids vs animals, I haven't brought into that argument, as I have just focussed on the issue of the handler/carer being held accountable and responsible for his negligence causing the death of the poor dog. Please don't take this off topic as that argument has been done to death in this thread. If you all want to argue that point, then as another poster suggested previously, start another topic to discuss that and guaranteed that I won't participate in that one :D

Brushing it under the carpet and ducking responsibility - Because so many of you are either blaming something else i.e. memory lapse, forgetfulness, Forgotten baby syndrome, wrong type of vehicle etc and expecting everyone to have empathy with him when the plain and simple fact is he was negligent in leaving the dog in the car in soaring temperatures to die a horrible and painful death. and he needs to be held accountable for this act of negligence as the outcome of this negligence killed the dog in his care. This was a special dog, a valuable guide dog who had so much potential to do so much good in the community and the loss of this dog to the guide dog association is huge and will set them back both in time and financially. Double standards as in other threads negligent people who caused a dog's death are crucified and hung out to dry, with little or no empathy or compassion and heaps of outpouring of sympathy and condolences for the poor dead dog, and rightly so I might add. What makes this case so different?? Why do the majority of posters empathise with the person whose negligent actions caused the death of this dog? It seems that a few of you are relating it to personal experiences of having forgotten your dogs are in the car. I personally don't understand how that can happen. I am always extra vigilant when my dogs or grand kids are in the car, and if I ever needed to transport them during extreme heat (will only ever do it if absolutely necessary) I am always on high alert and always make sure I am prepared (water etc) in case of a breakdown. When you work with service dogs you don't have a choice of when you should transport as it is part of the job to transport in all weather conditions and during the extreme weather conditions, the handlers/carers should be in a heightened state of alert/awareness anyway and should be more responsible and reliable than the general public as part of their job. I have been a longtime supporter of guide dogs and I think they do a terrific job, but if this guy does not lose his job and they don't implement more rigorous procedures for transporting of their dogs, I will rethink that support for sure as that to me would send a message they don't value their dogs as highly as they should. Lets look at the name of their organisation "Guide Dogs" - they are their whole reason for existing and if any of these wonderful dogs die due to the negligence of their handler/carer, then that handler/carer needs to pay the price of losing their job. In my mind and likeminded others, empathy doesn't come into it.

I agree & it saddens me that people are making excuses for this moron. He knew it was a hot day, he shouldn't have left the dog in the car for 5 minutes. I hope he is sacked. RIP sweet puppy, you not only lost your life, but a blind person out there has lost a pair of eyes & a loving companion. He didn't intentionally forget the dog - that is the big difference. If he had said "I'll leave it there for 5 mins" and then never came back that would be different. You are implying that he deliberately chose to leave the dog in a hot car which is a very different scenario. Last week I got home from agility at 10pm. Opened the gate with my stuff and then remembered Fergus was on the back seat. He has been trained to sit or lie nicely when in the car (with a harness on). I love my dog very much, I am not a heartless moron but I forgot I had him with me for all of 20 seconds. If I didn't normally have him there and I wasn't going home I can imagine that I could forget. My dogs are much loved and my life outside of work revolves around them. You can forget to close a gate and end up with a dog dying a terrible death. You can forget to give a dog their meds just once and end up with a dog dying a terrible death. No one is "making excuses" for this person, they are saying that it is a terrible tragedy. labradore - it is pretty low to try and paint the people on this forum as "not caring about dogs" just because they aren't baying for this guy's blood. People on this forum do real things to help dogs every day. What I see on this forum is double standards which is not all that unusual to real life . Some people talk the talk and others walk the walk. In today's society there is always an excuse for some wrongdoing and ducking and diving taking responsibility for their actions. Blame it on this blame it on that - poor thing - we are expected to have empathy and compassion for everyone's failings and bad decisions. People need to take responsibility and be held accountable for their actions and more people to need to make a stand on being outraged at some of the outcomes of people's failings and negligence and not brush it under the carpet by excusing it under the guise of empathy/compassion.

I understand it could be a sensitive issue for people to write about. However, I was only referring to the posters who had taken the time to express empathy for the guy in this thread without expressing any sympathy for the poor dog. which if this is a forum of dog lovers as you put it, I thought that would be a normal thing to do in a thread like this and have seen this done in many other threads, so why not this one. I wouldn't have thought that needed to be stated on a forum full of dog lovers but perhaps you like things to be spelled out in detail. Yes I do and don't think that is unusual for a forum . Just have a look at some other threads where a dog has died tragically due to negligence. Posters have expressed sympathy/condolences for the dog and condemnation for the person that caused the death of the dog due to negligence. In these other threads posters are outraged (and rightly so) and demanding all sorts of punishment (mostly painful) for the negligent person and hardly anyone has "empathy" for the negligent person(s). Negligence is negligence now matter how you want to dress it/sugar coat it. The outcome for the poor dogs is the same, a horrible death So yeah I do have trouble understanding the amount of "empathy" for the person whose negligence caused this poor dog's death, compared to sympathy expressed for this poor guide dog in relation to other threads where a dog died a horrible death, also due to negligence. I also thought that guide dogs/service dogs were held in high regard in the doggie community for the valuable jobs they do in the community, obviously not on this forum.

I don't like the term dog lover .... I think what may come across in posts on DOL is that there are those experienced and long term owners of /workers with dogs who see things with more pragmatism. Some see dogs for what they are- a wonderfully complex and beautiful animal with whom we can communicate well, which returns our friendship, and which can work with us ,and adapt to our needs :) not furry 'people' or surrogate children ....personally I feel that takes away so much of what 'dog' means to me . To me .. 'dog' means power,and a wonderful gift of senses to use in their world .It means speed and reactions and adaptability, and skill. My enjoyment of things dog includes being with them in a 'pack' situation - watching them hunt or work sheep, guide a visually impaired person, and adjust their behaviours to accomodate humans who behave a bit differently, or have less mobility . They are just amazing creatures , and I could not be without them in my life. They are not human ,they are animals - complex and intuitive :) :) The terribly sad loss of a trainee Guide Dog ...yes it did happen because of the actions of a human .not on purpose, not deliberate neglect , but because he is human, and his brain let him down. I completely understand what are you saying and maybe inferring that I feel towards dogs as "furry 'people' or surrogate children" and think they are human, not animals. Nothing can be further from the truth. I love dogs for being dogs, plain and simple. My dogs are an extremely important part of my family and have been for many many years, but I never mistake the fact that they are dog and probably why I love them like I do. With regards to your statement I do have an issue with "not deliberate neglect". Below is definition of neglect and I believe very apt for this situation. I have said all along this person's negligence caused the death of this poor dog who he was responsible for/had a duty of care for. He needs to be held accountable. neg·li·gence [neg-li-juhns] Show IPA noun 1. the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect: negligence in discharging one's responsibilities. 2. an instance of being negligent: a downfall brought about by many negligences. 3. Law. the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.