Erny

Agree - don't fertilize something that is not well. It needs tonic rather than fertiliser and therefore seasol would be a good and better thing.

Brunnings have a warning on their "Green Up" Lawn Food. .I have used the Brunnings "Green Up" Lawn Food in the past. I have had cause to test my dog for presence of heavy metals (urine test). It showed positive for mercury. I do not know if there is any direct correlation between the two occurrences. I cannot think how he could have incurred mercury toxins. I have detoxed my dog and he has shown clear of the mercury. I need to run another test. If it shows up positive then I can only assume he is in contact with something from which he continues to absorb the mercury. That will then involve soil tests. But again - I wish to make it patently clear that I have no evidence whatsoever that the product and the test result on my dog have any correlation to each other at all. I believe that once heavy metals are absorbed they stay in the body unless detoxified. If it is at all possible that the absorption of mercury is from the soil, I believe that it is not necessarily about my dog eating the mercury inclusive substance - it could be from eating the grass that grows from it; absorption through skin; etc.

I have not read all of the posts in this thread, but just one point I'd like to mention. It is my own view but with some forethought, I don't think it is a wrong one (albeit that it is slightly off topic ;)). But I can stand to be corrected or at the very least acknowledge that everyone may not agree with me. It's just that it seems to be a common place in these debates/arguments for it to almost be something to be embarrassed/ashamed of if someone should be making any money out of breeding their dogs. Personally, I don't think that's such a bad thing. Why shouldn't someone make some money for the 'elbow grease' and effort that goes in to breeding, whelping and raising a bunch of pups to adoption age? Doesn't matter that the breeder might do it as a hobby. Doesn't matter that the breeder might do it just because he/she wants to obtain young stock to continue on with. There is still the effort of bringing the others into the world (not to mention the financial risks) and if a breeder can make financial profit out of it, then kudos to him/her. Just my two cents.

Oh owwww!!! :p

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the tongue is a place that bleeds like crazy if it is wounded ??? If Dylan's tongue isn't bleeding much, perhaps the wound isn't that deep? Hey ..... perhaps Dylan will be able to start speaking human words when his tongue heals. Oooohhh .... bet you'll regret that. "I want my food now." "Time for a walk." "I want my food now." "I'm bored." "I need a belly rub." "I want my food now." :p

To help deter cockroaches from hiding in your cupboards, sprinkle cloves about.

Awwww .... that's great. I love frogs and wish they could be plentiful once again, like they were when I was a kid. Never did appreciate them back then as much as now, as they used to be common place and tadpole eggs would appear overnight in a puddle after a rain. Hope you put frog somewhere safe from your dog, and in a nice sheltered cool spot, where he could make his way to wherever he needs to be from there. The presence of frogs indicates unpolluted water.

Possibly hates the hose because of being hosed. The running water from a hose can be very cold. My previous adopted as an adult (avatar) girl (bhcs) used to bolt whenever I picked up the hose too. Until she realised that I would never use it to wet her with. The water was far too cold for her and back then I did not have the hot/cold taps outdoors.

I generally don't "bath" my dog, but I do tend to prefer to rinse of the water from the lake at one of the parks we venture to, when I feel it is necessary. Been down there today - already soaking wet from the rain (we had a great time ) , so a rinse from the hose out the back (I had a hot/cold tap fitted to the outdoors for the purpose) and a good towel rub down and job's done . The advantage with this is that the water goes straight to the lawn - not necessary in the wet weather we've been having but great in the drier months. ETA: And nothing to clean up afterwards - even better . I have never used shampoo on Mandela.

I agree - which is why it is easier and IMO less risky to treat each dog equally. ..... I even remember my Mum saying (with grimace) when we were kids :- "I don't care which of you two started it ... " Lol .... not to suggest anthropomorphic gestures count here, but the topic just triggered a memory.

Huh

What a lovely idea. I'll be in on it too - will start putting some stuff together during the next couple of weeks.

If the tiff is not done and dusted in a nanno second, then I stand in. I'm the leader and I won't tolerate OT aggression around me.

In Victoria, Brumby is advertising that if he gets in, he'll make it so that persons under the age of 18 years may not purchase pets from pet stores. I'd like to know the percentage of pets which are surrendered/dumped as the result of purchase by a minor. Possibly difficult to tell, but to me this "promise" stinks of a "ride the wave of hysteria for the sake of a vote without affecting pet stores and/or anything else for that matter". Kind of like a "claytons" law - says much, does nothing. Perhaps I'm being too cynical. Perhaps I'm being ignorant. But I just don't think this is going to cut it as far as helping dogs, cats etc.

Good suggestion, SecretKei. I use the NRM throughout my boy's training and both he and I find it very helpful.

However, it is unlikely this will happen. In my small involvement in trying to stop the recent Victorian laws (which now empower Council Officers to destroy on the spot; pounds to destroy after only 48 hour impoundment; etc) I asked (as merely one of my questions) what difference to the community if an impounded dog was held for just 48 hours instead of the usual 8 days. The answer I was given was that it is less likely that an owner of (what the pound/council determine to be) a dangerous dog would be able to mount a legal defence inside the 48 day period and this will alleviate much of the legal expense, time and trouble that places such as the RSPCA incurr. So, taking into account the above and given that the Labor Government pushed that Bill through and given that the Liberal and National Parties declared the laws within the Bill to be faulty but would not object to the Bill being passed, there is next to zero hope of any one of the Governments or the likes of RSPCA opening up and saying "ok guys ..... I think we [the RSPCA] needs to play fair and we will now make it so you are entitled to an independent second opinion for the sake of your dog and that *cough* we may even get it wrong sometimes".

Oh yes, I'm not arguing against dominance being a factor, just their treatment of dominance (primarily relating it to sex, size, assuming that males fight more seriously etc). I didn't ever own the book, just borrowed it from the library a few times (a long time ago too), but my recollection was that they gathered quite a lot of empirical data on socialisation, imprinting, fear periods etc but I couldn't recall anything specifically on this topic. I knew there would be something in the literature and I found it - Sherman et al (1996) reported that entire male dogs were more likely to fight, but of dogs in the same household, females were likely to fight more seriously. Perhaps this is the difference? IE That Scott & Fuller's studies related to dogs not "of same household" (so to speak). That's if that was the case. I'd need to refresh my reading to check what the living arrangements were of the dogs in that study (assuming it is expressed). ETA: No - I don't think so .... from the sounds of it, the dogs were familiar. I'd be surprised if Scott and Fuller would have studied dominance within pairs and/or groups of dogs who were not as a pack.

Is there a reason why you are not (for example) using lure to encourage his back feet placement? If there's not particular reason you don't wish to do this, try it. Once his feet hit the spot, click and treat. It becomes important though to wean off the lure as soon as possible. Admittedly, shaping is better (IMO) if you can produce it, as the dog is less likely to be focused on the lure and more on where his/her back feet are, but using the lure method a couple of times might just be enough to get you started.

Hahaha, that's almost cheeky! I can get that one from my local library, certainly a very good reference if not quite outdated in places. I'd say that was more a reflection of the way dominance was thought about at the time, rather than a reflection of what dogs actually do. Do they offer any empirical data to support that view? For that matter, does anyone have any empirical data to support the common view in this thread? I must admit that I don't. Not intended to be - it was something I mentally question marked at the time I read it but never seemed to find a moment to discuss it with my (then) tutor. I put it up in part also because of comments like that of Ash & Elar : and suspect that in days gone by this was a common belief, perhaps because of references such as Scott and Fuller. Yes - things change, as does our knowledge and experience. I've periodically puzzled on what Scott & Fuller had written though. Empirical data? I agree that Scott & Fuller's view does relate to their discussions on dominance, but intra-familial aggression generally is about dominance, IMO. Their opinion (conclusion) regarding the female/female and male/male relationships does seem to have a bearing back to their study outcomes. Admittedly, I find Scott & Fuller a tad awkward/heavy to read in certain sections, and I find their demonstrated study tables difficult to understand.

From : Scott & Fuller's "Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog" (P165) : Just putting this here out of interest and for anyone who might like to discuss.

And that's where the most of everything in the dog world is going (present company excepted). Name the organisations who are prepared and strong enough to stand against the tide, when they see a good thing FOR THE DOGS, even if opinion doesn't necessarily mean they'll win the Jo Public popularity votes. The way I see it is : Master Dog Breeders Association (MDBA) National Dog Trainers Federation (NDTF) Can anyone else name one? Dogs Victoria lost it for me when I was told (in response to my question of "why aren't we doing something about it?") that they need "to be nice to the Government". RSPCA lost it for me when it pushed for the (successful) ban of the use of PPCollars here in Victoria - WITHOUT EVIDENCE of the tools having caused any harm (yet simultaneously supporting the use of head collars from which there IS EVIDENCE of harm from their use). That was a Publicity vote catching stunt as well, in my opinion - has to be, for I can think of no other. ETA: Thing is, are the individual breeders willing to stand up and voice against the tide?

I paid $75.00 for 20kg + $5 delivery charge. I can't tell anyone how it is going. Suffice to say that although my boy hoed into it the first couple of times, now he is a bit intermittant about whether he wants it or not. Also, his poop is great one moment, not great the next. No reflection on the Black Hawk product - just how my dog is. My hopes are that if I am avoiding foods (eg corn; wheat; soy) that might have caused inflamation of the bowel and if the inflamed bowel is the reason Mandela has the "on again off again" digestive issues, then perhaps a bit of time might see him right. Anyway - not to turn this into another "Mandela health story", but just so you all know why I am not saying one way or the other whether Black Hawk is helping or not. I think I need longer to determine this. But typically, he's barely touched it since I went ahead and bought the 20kg bag. Not the first time that's happened to me . Gotta laugh.

I don't know much about the salt requirements of dogs, but I think you'd be better to provide your dog with a salt lick (can purchase these from a horse produce store) that your dog may go to when needed (just as the horses do) rather than YOU adding the salt to your dog's diet. In this way, your dog will be able to self supplement rather than you assuming your dog is receiving the right amount of salt.

Friend of mine has seen Dr Ray Ferguson with her dog. Neck issues - turned out to be a vertibrae issue that, in her instance, is permanent even if the symptoms aren't. My friend has spoken highly of Dr Ferguson who is at the Monash Veterinary Clinic. In your dog's case it may prove to be simply a matter of a pulled muscle or a temporary 'twinge' - I hope so.

That's interesting, Cairo 1. I'd not heard of this before. Thank you for posting a follow-up. So, if the Paniculitis should occur again (I hope not), is it something that requires surgery, or now that they know what it is, is there an alternate treatment method?