Erny

I agree. But not in Australia. We might be a multi-cultural Country, but there are some cultures I'd like to cling to. And that's one of them.

And PSA, may I please ask why is the "Canidae All Life Stages Formula" so much cheaper than the "Canidae Grain Free All Life Stages Formula"? The former contains Flaxseed Meal and Cranberries. The latter does not. So why would the latter be 33% more expensive than the former?

I would be inclined to agree. I prefer the whole raw feeding regime. When I was a kid, that's all that was available as pre-prepared commercial dog food just wasn't heard of. (And no, that wasn't 100 years ago - I might be older than many of you, but not that old .) Table scraps (including vegies), raw meaty bones .... that was pretty much our dogs' staple diet (apart from their brown (bone shaped), green (fish shaped), red (heart shaped) and biege (can't remember that shape) dog biscuits and the other of the human treats we used to share with them, and they did very nicely on it. These days I do seem to see more dogs with digestive issues; allergies; etc. Without going into the why's and wherefores, that just seems to be the facts and although it would do well to address the cause for those occurrences, the point is that those dogs need something they can eat, period. And if that happens to be a commercial food that contains all the necessary dietary requirements; is healthy for the absence of harmful processes such as irradiation; and is as holistic as one can get in a commerically prepared product, then that would have to be the product of choice. (I'm generalising here, because I am not familiar with Canidae food, so I'm not referring to them specifically.) Just a question though, Stormie (or anyone else who knows). If a commercially prepared product comprises of all natural food, the only real difference being that the moisture is absent from it, why would and do some allergy dogs do better on that than they do on raw foods? IOW, what makes the commercial product so different that some dogs can eat it and not raw?

My highlights & colour That's a twist of words, emotions and moral beliefs and IMO is an unfair one to throw at people here. It is NOT "because it's not dogs it's fine". We don't want to add dogs to the list of slaughter animals. I don't want beef, chickens, pigs nor any other farmed animal to suffer. I've signed petitions in the past and I'll sign more if it helps to make a difference. I'd like to be able to change things with my magic wand, but I can't. But don't throw the "you're guilty because you eat meat" at me or anyone else. I resent that emotional blackmail being thrown at me.

I have nothing to add that would be of any use, WP, other than to say "what a trial your poor ridgy has gone through" and I can empathise for her and also for you. If it were me, I'd probably want to look more into the 'bone density' angle of things regardless of what this Vet has said, and yes, I too would be a bit concerned that the Vet isn't concerned about her drinking if she is eating, although eating is a good sign and depending on the food type, yes it does contain water in itself. Good luck - I hope your girl's recovery is swift (as can be) and smooth sailing from now, with no more incidents in the future

Yay!! I love the number "seventeen". It's a good number . Twenty three is also another favourite number of mine. Thanks WhiteEagle

.... Yep, we do!! . I hope it's a genuine count and that no-one did this just to placate me . If it is genuine, then whoever you are ..... good for you and thanks for joining in and helping us help each other to help ourselves and our dogs. .

And I would rather that we ensure that it not only remains not customary, but that it is announced as unacceptable. I didn't hear the segment, but what I wouldn't like "joking" about it is that with continuance it might be taken by some that perhaps some (enough) Australians find it acceptable. Hopefully this was a 'first and last' situation. Too much "joking" about it can, over time, have a desensitisation affect. I wouldn't like that.

Do we have sixteen?

at "Not Happy Joe!" I can't help feeling that this next week will have some critical and influential bearing on the debate. I'd like not for the Government to feel as though those who are going to have their say have "said it" and now that we've done so the novelty has worn off and we'll all go away and let them do their 'thing' without backlash. So for those (particularly) who haven't written in - even just a two lined letter spelling out that you oppose the proposed Bill and support (for example) the points raised by the letter submitted by "Lawyers for Animals" .... it will continue to show the Government we're still 'alive' on this and strongly advocate they DON'T allow the Bill to pass. If this Bill goes through, I think the prohibitive proposals for laws which will negatively affect the good rescue work our rescuers and foster people do, will too easily be passed after that. One more week and a dozen (or more) letters from our (especially) Victorian DOLers (especially from 'fresh blood') will help us shore up the efforts that have already been made. So please take a few minutes to put something together and email off to all the Members of Legislative Assembly. The great thing about emails is that it makes it easier and faster. WE can do it if we do it together . "... show 'em your might" Lawyers for Animals submission/response

"Pressure Point Collar" aka "Pinch" collar. They look awful. They look barbaric. But they are not. You need to know about them and how they work before you close your mind to them. So if you see a picture of it, don't conclude from what you see.

Am I right in presuming that when you refer to "3-yearly" you're talking about the "super-charged" vaccine as opposed to the normal C3 but opting to give it once every 3 years? From what I have read, I wouldn't touch the "3-yearly super-charged" vaccine with a barge pole. But as I mentioned, for that matter, I don't do the yearly boosters either.

There is a "3-yearly C3" they brought out. I wouldn't do that one. It's a 'super-charged' vaccine. Others will be able to explain it better than I. I don't know what your Vet means by "stain" :rolleyes: . If you are going to vaccinate throughout your dog's life (that's not the regime I would follow), then I'd go for the ordinary "yearly" C3 but just give it once every 3 years. As I said, beyond puppy vaccination and a titre to confirm antibodies, I don't do the 'booster' thing. If my dog is immune, then he's immune. No need to fill his body up with more chemicals for the sake of it. If you have to have Canine Cough cover (kennel requirement etc) then you would have a C5 (which is the C3 and two strains of Canine Cough) and then yes, you would have just the Canine Cough annually for each of the next two years after that until the booster is then next due again, when you would repeat with a C4 (or C5) and so on. I think when you do the Canine Cough separately, it is by way of 'live' nasal spray. I'm not sure - as I mentioned, I don't do this. There doesn't seem to be a standard fee for the titre test - it varies so much from one to another, but I think the average reasonable fee would be anywhere between $100 - $150.00. $300 seems way over the top to me. If I were in your shoes I'd probably be wanting to hunt around for another Vet - mainly because he sounds as though he is hell bent on pushing for his preferred regime. That's his prerogative, of course.

I chose to follow the "alternative" track, rather than run with antibiotics, cortisone etc. I know that there is argument that will counter my thoughts, but I took the option of "alternative" first, leaving the conventional option open to me should I require it. I don't have a crystal ball to know whether my choice is right or wrong. All I have is my dog to look at and gauge from how he has been and how he is now. My boy's issues seem to relate more to digestive issues and build up of toxins from within due to his digestive system not functioning at its optimum. The symptoms by all accounts have been the same and/or similar to any other allergy symptoms. Hives; interdigital cysts; oily/flakey skin; ear issues; gunky eyes. We also have symptoms of loose stools and of refusing certain foods. I've worked with him holistically for 18 months. We have periods of success (maybe 4 - 7 months at a time) and then set-backs. I'm now under the guidance of a Canine Naturopath. Even at her own admission, my boy has been a tough job and has taken a long time to respond by comparison to any of the other dogs she has worked with over the years. I've been working under this Naturopath's guidance since last December. We've worked through the hives (he had literally several hundred hives covering the greater portion of his body, when he broke out last November). We've worked through the inter-digital cysts. His coat condition is much improved. He had a small outbreak of hives about a week ago - there were only about 4 or 5 hives and his own body dealt with them without interferance or assistance from me, and they were pretty much disappeared inside two or three days. Nothing by comparison to his previous 2 outbreaks. We've worked through his ears issue and I still tend to treat that once a week (it's only been a recent thing). His coat is good - I know it is capable of being even better. We're working on his now loose stool symptom. I hold my breath when I reluctantly tell you (for fear of jinx) that this seems to be improving as well - albeit slowly and more slowly than one might expect, but that's been the way of it for my boy. It's not over for us and until my boy begins to eat normally, I know things still are not as they could or should be. And I also know that until he hasn't had an outbreak of allergy symptoms for a year, then I won't even remotely begin to think there's a possibility we're through and past that. For us it has been a lot of work, but my boy's issue has made it more complex than perhaps others would find for their own dogs. But we're working on the inside of my dog as well as dealing with the outside symptoms. My kitchen bench is dotted with his 'treatment' supplies. Vitamins; Aloe Vera Gel; Calendula Tea; Colloidal Silver; tablets; ear drops; other powders; cotton wool balls. Don't necessarily use them all at once - it depends on what is happening with him at the time. But looking at him, he's improved, he looks well (albeit lean - but more solid than he was .... time for development may be a contributing factor for that). And I'm happy to know that I've done and am doing it without having to address chemical drugs at this point. I won't tell you that it's easy. But I also wouldn't necessarily suggest that anyone else would find it as difficult as I have either. IMO and as far as my experience has taken me so far, natural methods are worth trying.

Apart from the fact that we don't know what this person has gone through, don't be too harsh on him and judge him on the basis of the actions of others. I feel the guy's pain (if my imagination of what he might have tried is anywhere near correct). The OP mentions the guy telling the Vet he's engaged the services of a behaviourist. Who knows what he has tried or for how long. His financial situation and the 000's of $$$ in home damage the dog has cost him I can well imagine could be devastating. Not to mention that his emotions may well be extending in sympathy for the dog - it's obviously not a happy 'place' that the dog is in either, to be SO anxious and presumably every day (if the owner works) and so severely. I'm making a lot of assumption here, but only because benefit of the doubt on the guy's behalf I think is warranted. From what is written, it wasn't an easy decision on his part. I'm not suggesting the dog should be pts - I can't and won't because there's not enough historical information. I'm just saying that I can empathise with the owner's emotional state and the possibility that he simply feels at a loss for anything else. But I would hate to know this dog crossed the rainbowbridge without the benefit of at least the blood work, including the full blood panel test for thyroid which can only be done OS. And it's quite possible and likely that the owner doesn't even know that behaviour can be affected by neurological issues, some which might be reasonably cost effectively and easily remedied and/or managed. I would have liked to think that a Vet would talk someone through these things, but some Vets don't even realise it themselves. ETA: I think if I had been at the Vet's I wouldn't be able to help myself but to speak with at least the Vet and stick my tuppence worth in. I don't necessarily win friends that way, but I'd hate an irreversible decision being made in what could be possible innocent ignorance. "Dog's voice" and all that.

How can you trust their judgement when it is contrary to even AVA release? C3 is the vaccine for the 3 core diseases. C4 = C3 + Para-influenza (1 strain of canine cough) C5 = C3 + Bordetella and Para-influenza (2 strains of canine cough)

Wonder if the dog has ever had a FULL blood work-up. Yes - being anxious can have genetic links, but sometimes anxiety is caused or exacerbated by medically based issues. Would be worth checking first. Wouldn't it be great if an underlying cause/contributor could be found (eg. thyroid) and then treated, the owner notified and re-united with a possibly vastly improved dog! It would be such a happy ending. ETA: Hate to tell a Vet how to suck eggs, but if this was mentioned to the Vet, I'd be strongly suggesting the thyroid bloods be done via Dr Jean Dodds in the USA. Our Aussie thyroid test isn't going to pick up abnormalties in this respect until it is in its advanced stages (which is also when typical clinical signs become apparent), and it could be in early onset, even though behaviour is affected. Many Vets don't realise that. I am given to understand it is not in their Uni learning literature.

Vet draws bloods. Vet sends them away for testing. Vet lets you know results. I can't recall how much I paid because our Vet visit covered other things as well. I think it was in the vicinity of $110.00 or so, but please don't quote me. This was about 9 months ago. When your dog has sufficient immunity, it's not about "topping it up". Your dog is either immune, or he isn't. When parvo is reported, I admit that I'm that bit more cautious (and to be frank, it's especially during epidemics in certain areas that I'm loath to take my dog in to the Vet clinic, unless it is absolutely necessary - I usually ask if they've had parvo case/s in lately). Vaccination doesn't guarantee against it. But everything within reason. If you would like more information beyond the AVA info link I provided above, google "Dr. Jean Dodds" - she's an early advocate for NOT over-vaccinating our dogs. In fact you'll probably find quite a bit of other information links via google.

From the AVA (FAQ) site : Why is the change necessary? While adverse reactions to vaccines are not widespread, there is a consensus in the scientific community that veterinarians should aim to reduce the vaccine load on individual animals to minimise any risks of adverse reactions, if this can be done without compromising the animal’s immunity to disease. The scientific sources quoted in the new AVA policy outline the available evidence that supports extended duration of immunity for the core vaccines. In summary, improvements to vaccines have increased their effectiveness, and new studies have indicated that immunity lasts longer than previously thought. In making the change to triennial core vaccinations, Australia follows the veterinary profession in other developed countries. Most universities have been teaching veterinary students triennial core vaccination for several years. The American Animal Hospital Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Feline Practitioners, the New Zealand Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Association and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (among others) have all moved away from standard annual protocols in favour of a tailored approach that takes individual factors into consideration. Won’t we see an increase in diseases such as parvovirus in less vaccinated populations? This does not appear to have happened in other countries when vaccination protocols have been changed. In its messages to the public, the AVA is emphasising the need for more puppies and kittens to be vaccinated to make sure that as many adult animals as possible are protected. Read more ...

LOL in there and fight ... Whoops! Sitting on page 2 ??? ... out there and at'em

But doesn't that beg the question of how many dogs have contracted serious and debilitating disease because of the fact they haven't had their annual vaccination (assuming they have at least been immunised as pups)? I doubt the Vets would know, and I don't even know how they'd be able to tell this via studies. But the point is, titre testing is available; it's confirmed that yearly vaccination is over toxicating our dogs for no good reason; and I hate the "there's not that many dogs who suffer from the affects of yearly vaccinations". Tell that to a person whose dog has succumbed serious illness as a result of vaccination reaction. And it's pretty safe for Vets to say "not many dogs suffer by it" ..... how do they know that the dog's life span has not been shortened as a result? No one's going to be able to prove it. I wouldn't do the "3 year vaccination" (I think they charge more for it as well, but that's beside the point). My boy has had his puppy vacc and a titre test confirming antibodies. I don't plan to vaccinate again.

It's not uncommon for a 'pack' member to be the one who diffuses situations. I have a wonderful DVD of my boy with two other 'family' dogs - one of which worked really hard at 'diffusing'. It is always very interesting to watch.

LOL in there and fight ...

Splitting hairs with the rest of the debates in this thread, but do you know the OP is a "fifteen year old"? Or was that assumption? Regards the "reported aggression" by the owner - I agree with Cosmolo. More needs to be found out in that respect. What the owner is describing as aggression might not be. Or it might have been somewhat heavily provoked. Or it might have been that she was purposely making things out to be worse than what they are. More information, carefully sought, is needed. My point is that like any other dog, this one deserves a chance, even if that's by saying "hold up a minute, can we look into this further?"

"Fobbing off" isn't what I was suggesting nor even hinting at. If you read the OP, it seems from what she was able to see that day was not a dog who had toileting issues nor a dog that had issues with men. Further temp assessment needed (Cosmolo is set up for these, I think) definitely, but I like to think dogs stand a chance if there is one and if it could prove to be the best for the dog (ie a 'happy ever after' ending). PS How're your doggies . Haven't seen them in ages.