Erny

But it's not really about cost or risk. It's about the dog having immunisation against the disease and NOT NEEDING more drugs pushed into his system. ETA: It's about the health of the dog. We vaccinate for health, certainly. But over-vaccinating is contraindicated for health. And the really annoying thing is that this does not seem to be the prime concern by many Vets. Their prime concern is diffused/complicated by the bureaucracy of the vaccine manufacturer label. And we can only guess at what the prime interest by the drug manufacturers are, if they still insist that the vaccination is required on a routine 12 month basis.

That's fair enough. But if that was the only reason why some of these Vets not only advocate but push for yearly vaccinations, then I still think they are wrong. There is no reason why they cannot explain that they must recommend yearly vaccinations due to manufacturer specification and if the owner informs the Vet that's not what they want for their dogs, then the onus has to be on the owner and no longer on the Vet. There would be no reason to keep pushing the point. If what you've written above IS the only reason why.

99% (loose term - not statistically based) of aggression that you see is based in fear. Whether that be fear of the stimuli, fear of loss of status, etc. etc. When the aggression is occurring outside of the home, you can pretty much be certain it is based in fear (using the expression "fear aggression" in the way it is most commonly known). I don't rely on body language to tell me what that dog is 'saying' (ie whether the aggression is fear or dominant). You can have a dog who is essentially afraid of the stimuli but has successfully practised the aggress behaviour to the extent that it is very confident the behaviour will keep him from harm - that he will win. Yet the motivating drive for the aggression remains the same : ie fear. I'm not suggesting to not make note of body language - but just don't assume that because ears are forward; mouth is short; and so on, that the dog's aggression isn't based in fear. That might simply be showing you how confident the dog is about it being able to win or not.

I don't always go out with my food treat pouch, but when I do, and when I'm running, I'll usually tuck my top over the food treat pouch and that tends to stop it bouncing. Either that, or I slide it to the back of me. It still bounces a bit, but either not as much or I notice it far less and it doesn't get in the way. I wouldn't like to have valuables in it though (eg keys) for fear they'd bounce out. I usually wear my DOOG Belt as well. And to that is hitched my ever ready camera, as well as my dog's Orbee ball. By the time I'm loaded up with all this extra baggage, I'm usually too heavy to run anyway, LOL.

Print out the AVA Release which confirms its view that yearly vaccinations are too much and put that in front of your Vet. I agree that Parvo is "very, VERY important". No one argues with that. But if the dog has good anti-body levels, what's the point of subjecting the dog to unnecessary over-dose of drugs? Why doesn't your Vet do titre tests if he has the dog's best interests at heart - wouldn't that be better for the dog? These are the sort of questions I'd be asking him. Or, as you say ..... look for another Vet who is a bit more open-minded. And, IMO, Canine Cough vaccination is not "very, VERY important" and there's no way I'd place that in the same category as Parvo. Canine Cough is a doggy equivalent of flu. Sure, like any resperatory virus you need to keep an eye on it forming a secondary infection, but mostly, a dog with Canine Cough, if cared for properly, will recover. Just like we do. And besides - if Canine Cough vaccination is so "very, VERY, important" .... your Vet should be panicking because there's only a few strains covered (usually two - which is the C5 vacc) and yet there are in excess of 100 strains of CC. That being the case, many of our dogs should have carked it from Canine Cough by now.

Care needs to be given in the interpretation of "3 yearly vaccs". Are you talking about the super-charged vaccination which is purported to be the subsitute for the 1 year vaccination (and which I wouldn't touch) or are you talking about the 3 year vaccination regime, in which the usual vaccination is given but only once every three years? Mind you, I wouldn't (and don't) do the latter either, past the usual puppy vaccinations.

I'm in South Eastern suburbs. I don't know of a Vet or Vet clinic around here who is so new-age and open-minded to the "less is more" ideals of vaccinations ........ however, NO Vet as the right to "insist" anything, when it comes to our pets, especially things such as vaccinations. My local GP Vet is Dr. Steve Waits. His clinic (Beaconsfield Veterinary Clinic) is conventional when it comes to vaccinations (ie recommend yearly vaccs; regular worming; etc) but they know that I don't advocate that type of regime and so they don't pressure me. I did ask about titre testing once and Dr Steve seemed fairly open-minded to the idea of doing that when I was ready. He was going to find out costs etc. As it turned out, my dog's health issues led me down the path of more holistic veterinary measures and hence I ended up seeing another Vet (Dr Bruce Syme) in Castlemaine. Whilst I was there, I had bloods taken for titre testing, which is why I haven't yet followed through with Dr. Steve Waits. But perhaps if you were to contact him he would be able to inform you as to whether he now does the titres.

Luke hasn't given anything that has been helpful, nor given any answers to the questions/concerns I've raised. I'm not sure what Luke's 'stance' is on the Bill. I've asked, but haven't received a response to that question. ETA: Received an email from Luke tonight. He's going to vote for the Bill.

Gosh, he's developed into such a legend. Go Charlie! Good on you .

Sorry to hear your sad news and loss. It's a difficult time, to say the least. to you.

Read away. I'm going to mow the lawn. Too psyched out on this to concentrate. Marvelous what mowing the lawn (and walking the dog) can do to clear the mind .

Upper House. I'm taking a wee break on this. I threw myself into it to the detriment of my own income generating work and I need a bit of time to re-focus and try to get that side of things back on track.

Further to the above ..... I've received Media Releases made by Mr. Bill Sykes MP and Mr. Peter Walsh MP. Seems the Liberals and Nationals did not oppose the Bill. I don't get it. I just don't get it.

Received the same. Typically, our current Labour Government hasn't even bothered to TRY to answer any of our questions. Because they can't, really. So they just bully their Bills through. Why? One can only guess there's more in it than what meats the eye. They obviously have their special reasons that they aren't making privvy to us. No vote coming from me for them.

Yes - it's normal. It's memory of suckling on mum . My boy used to do this a lot - most sleeps - in his early days. He's 2yo now and still does this occasionally, although he "oofs" and runs more than "suckles" these days. He's gwowing up .

And this is what I'm going to say . "Quick fixes" aren't necessarily the shallow foundationless methods you seem to think they might be. From where do you have it that "quick fixes" are equivalent to not having a foundation before you build your house? In fact, perhaps it would be clearer if you're able to explain what you regard as a "quick fix". Maybe we are sharing different images, perceptions, of what a "quick fix" might be.

I was agreeing with you. And simultaneously trying to offer an acceptable reason to others for why you would want to spend more time fixing a problem than less time. Because some problems are symptoms of a deeper problem. But sometimes they are helped along by whatever other method some would refer to as a "quick fix". "Quick fix" is a term often used not because it didn't do the job and do the job well, but because it did the job quickly and in a way/method that someone else didn't like. "Taking the long route" is not necessarily the best thing for the dog. But it can often make the handler feel better. "Quick fix" is often a term thrown at people to make them feel guilty, as though they've been lazy and not spent months and months when weeks to months (or less) may do the job with just as good, if not better, result. IMO, if the message is made clear and the dog can learn quickly rather than slowly, without any more detriment to its psych or well-being than the latter, it's not such a bad thing. Just generalising, seeing as how "quick fix" was used as a generalisation as well.

What's wrong with 'fixes' that are quick? Do you think they don't last long term? Or are you saying that you prefer training that takes a long term to harvest results?

Oh - that's heart warming and lovely. Lucky Bailey. Lucky You. And good on you . Pictures, please . You know it is mandatory. Otherwise you will be ed.

Sometimes it is not leadership that might be the issue (or sometimes it is). But you definitely need the respect of leadership from all dogs in the pack to be able to have any chance of stopping aggression from escalating to a full on fight. So, either way, leadership is needed. This just to clarify. Leadership in place isn't by itself necessarily going to stop the aggro. If the two dogs have a 'thing' about each other, sometimes there's not much we can do to make them like each other. But leadership (the respect that comes from it and the acknowledgement of your right to govern) can go a long way to helping the situation/s.

Hey Staranais Thank you so much. You don't even live here, yet you're in there pitching in with us to try to stop further wrong happening before it does. Cheers, and us Victorians in Oz land very much appreciate your help Erny.

There are a number of things any one or all of which can be going on. There is no guarantee to a 'fix'. Older dog is in her prime. Younger dog is rising into prime, maturing. As a result there is likely to be challenges for 'top dog' position. Your friend needs to address his leadership (and the leadership of anyone else who is a member of the household. This is essentially what the trainer/behaviourist should have gone through, at the least. Leadership in this instance needs to be strong (that does NOT mean bullying) and very consistent. Two females. Although some do get on, it is fairly well known that if any gender is the most likely to have issues, it is two females. There will need to be a management system in place, especially for those times when the dogs cannot be supervised. Your friend might do well to seek the services of a behaviourist who can offer more than suggesting only to teach the dogs the "leave" command. If that's all the behaviourist did offer?

Not sure who was speaking, but whoever it was has asserted that he wants the debate for the proposed Bill (amongst 7 others) to have been held by 4pm on Thursday. It's being argued now by the Member of Kew, that pushing 8 debates through in such a small amount of time will give the "leaders" of those Bills time enough to have their say, but doesn't allow the opposition time enough to argue them. Now the Government is having a big argument about how good their "Business Program" is. They went to the vote and of course Labour won it which as far as I can tell means that the proposed Bill relating to Domestic Animals Act is to be listed for debate on the Government Business list for this week, which means it has to be debated by 4pm on Thursday or it goes to the guillotine. Not sure if "guillotine" means it goes to the Vote without debate necessarily being conducted or completed, once 4pm Thursday comes around.