Erny

That's a bit unfair. If you've read the posts in this thread, the OP has acknowledged the points raised and is taking them on board.

Yeah - you guys are probably right. What I can't assume is the knowledge of other dog-owners and whether they can assess. But I guess what bothers me is the frequency of "antibiotics for this" "antibiotics for that" that are given out so freely and readily, even when the Vet s/he him/herself doesn't know what the problem is. My preference would be to have a Vet who would tell me that s/he *thinks* it to be "xxxx" (or even, "I'm not sure") and to "monitor for a couple of days" then I'd like to see you again in "xxx" days. If the follow-up visit is just a check and uncomplicated, the consult fee doesn't have to be as much and I think perhaps there could be a number of dogs who would then not be prescribed drugs unnecessarily. Thing is, most dog-owners don't question the Vet's advice and wouldn't dream of questioning whether antibiotics are necessary or not. It's evident, I believe, that our dogs have been/are becoming resistant to wormers - no surprises there, because we are *groomed* to worm regularly - 3 monthly, year in year out. Similar is as likely to happen with antibiotics, just as it has occurred with humans if we don't start being more judicious about their prescriptions. I don't even think that antibiotics, wrongly prescribed, do the dog any good. This is not to reflect on any of you - perhaps you do talk to your clients and let them know that antibiotics might not be necessary; that perhaps they'd like to come back for a check up again in *xxx* days; etc. But many of the Vets I know of don't do this and I also continue to read here how antibiotics are dished out easily without the Vet knowing what the problem is (and even before some of the most basic steps have been taken to try to find out). So, if what I (and in contradiction, yourselves) write here at least alerts an owner to the fact that they have choices, and that there are disadvantages or, perhaps, advantage to giving antibiotics to their dogs and that they can discuss it with their Vet, then I think that's not a bad thing. You are right though, that to have the dog *cleared* of something like having an obstruction down the throat, that would be a good thing. If it is unseen via a peer down the throat, what would a Vet do in this particular circumstance to confirm that's not the problem?

I think what Di* is trying to say (my interpretation) is that because Labradors are (in general) a friendly, goofy, happy-go-lucky breed and are known well for it, that perhaps down at parks the owners 'ride' on that reputation as a substitution (whether that be a conscious or sub-conscious thing) to actual training and don't realise that even in their larking, they can be a bit daunting or potentially damaging. Actually, I don't see that many labs down at the parks where I go - perhaps I'm just in an area where their population isn't as great as it might be somewhere else, and I wouldn't have 'pinned' them as a breed that cause me that sort of grief. Mind you, I don't really have much grief from any other breed of dog either - not in so far as bodily harm through joy is concerned. But I can *see* where Di* might be coming from (not saying I agree with her statement as I have no idea of formal stats, but obviously she is writing from her own experience), because the general human population do see labs as the *friendly* dog and perhaps some owners rely on that and take those attitudes for granted, ie that no-one will mind. Don't be too critical of Di*. I think she is seeing things through her own eyes and experience.

I'd monitor him and not take him to the Vet if it was Canine Cough. I'd not be exercising him and I'd be inclined to give him a few doses a day (ie teaspoon) of Active Manuka Honey (UMF 20+ or higher) which you purchase from a Health Food Store, while he is symptomatically coughing. It's pricey, but it is good stuff. Make sure he's drinking (keeping hydrated) and if you don't think he is drinking as much as he should, put one dose of the AMH in a SMALL amount of water (he might love it so much he'll guzzle too much water). When the cough stops, cut down the AMH doseage to a daily dose until two or three days past all symptoms. Watch him over the next couple of days, looking for some improvement in the cough. You can expect him to become a little lethargic (just as anyone who has a cold might) but if he appears too much so, or if he has any trouble breathing, or becomes too mucousy from the nose, or if he develops a temperature, or you're just not sure, take him to your Vet for his/her opinion. Keep him free from drafts and chills. IOW, treat it almost as you would a child suffering a cold. If there is no secondary infection, there is no need for antibiotics. Some Vets prescribe antibiotics regardless. This is something that is for you and your Vet to discuss and for you to choose. I'm not a Vet. But this is what I did for my boy when he contracted Canine Cough and I admit that I do work to avoid the administration of drugs if they aren't necessary. ETA: Oh - his throat might be feeling a bit sore too (my pup had a sore throat at one stage of CC), so give consideration to the food you are feeding. Dry kibble, for example, would be somewhat scratchy on a sore throat.

Why are breeders heralded as the only 'group' that are not dumb/are responsible enough to be the owners of entire/intact dogs? Breeders are not the only ones who have reason and cause to own entire/intact dogs. And what about those they sell their dogs to, "on breeder's terms" ? What makes those people smarter/more responsible than others to be able to keep an entire/intact dog than others, just because the breeder chose them?

Quite frankly, even though these children might be doing the wrong thing by your dog (you won't know unless you're able to catch them in the act) I wouldn't risk my dog getting into strife at their hands. Whether your dog ends up biting those kids or not, the most worrisome is that those children could cause your dog to dislike children (and/or any unfamiliar people) if she is traumatised by them. You've seen them patting your dog, but you also obviously have cause to not trust them. Although I strongly think that your home and surrounds to your boundary lines are yours and you shouldn't have to accommodate the stupidity and senselessness of others, I think I'd arrange to modify things so that my dog was out of harm's way. (Eg. Raise the height of your fence; erect an internal fence to keep your dog back out of their way.) It's not right that you are the one who has to go to the time, trouble and expense for the loutishness of imbecilic people (if that's what they are being), but your dog is a member of your family and needs you to protect her against trauma/injury and potentially having to pay with her life for the ills of others. I'd also put up a web cam of sorts and catch these kids with evidence, which, seeing as their parents don't seem to be doing much if anything (or, if they are, whatever they are doing is ineffective) I'd hand in to the police if I thought that a good telling off of my own wasn't going to be enough to send them packing and not repeat.

You are to be commended, Mrs Tornsocks (no prizes for guessing how come you thought up THAT as your DOL name ? ). Many people start off these sort of threads only wanting to hear murmers of support, and not contradiction. You have taken all the comments not only in your stride, but on board. You are obviously a conscientious dog owner in terms of your dog's behaviour - whether you think it right behaviour or wrong behaviour, is beside the point. You are responsible enough to be able to hear/read different opinions and take them on as constructive points. As far as aggressive dogs are concerned, I promise everyone here that there would be a story that could be recounted about any and every dog breed alive that had one or more of its kind exhibit aberrant behaviour. It is not about breed. It's about deed. And that most often (but not always) stems from the responsibility of the person who owns the dog or who at least owned the dog at some stage. This thread isn't about breed specific anything. It is about the people at dog parks and what their expectations are or should be. Personally, I think the level of intelligence towards responsible and respectful behaviour, both over their own dogs and towards others, is also commendable and it is refreshing to see that shine .

Hi Megan, good on you for taking on this girl, and what a horrible start to her life. ;) but this is an opportune time for me to give Megan the for what she has done as well. I know Megan and her girl dog she's speaking of, and Megan's hard work and dedication has had her dog coming a long way from where she had been.

Wow ..... I remember your thread, when you first created it. Firstly, it's hard to believe that a year has gone by so quickly. Secondly, how STUNNING has your boy turned out to be!! He's a very handsome lad indeed !! And thirdly, congratulations on gaining such a title. It goes without saying how proud you would be and by the sounds of it, very deservedly so. Well done.

:D .... I love your comparison description. It's so apt.

:D ..... I am presuming you agree with me, Perse? :D

But if you NEEDED to react like that "all the time" it would be obvious that the method was not effective for the situation. Which means that you probably therefore wouldn't react like that "all the time". If that makes sense :D. Glad you were able to sort out that bit of behaviour before it went anywhere, though :D

Unfortunately, Hetzer, the dogs who live with us in our human 'civilised' world aren't "in nature". They don't have the daily freedoms they used to have, to wander and mix freely with other dogs as they used to in my childhood days, to self socialise. And what that means is that there are many dogs who aren't always 'stable' in themselves, so to allow your dog to wander freely using off-lead parks for the purpose is not something that will assure you your dog will learn appropriately or fairly or sufficiently, because those dogs themselves have not necessarily learnt appropriately or fairly or sufficiently. By comparison to the UK, for example, our dogs aren't as settled as theirs seem to be (generally speaking). In contrast, our society regards dogs in general as something that is anti-social to be around. In the UK, they have the freedom to travel and mix with humans in their day to day lives outside of their homes. Here, we've battled laws that suggest they shouldn't be in outdoor cafes for fear of a dog hair floating and making its way over to someone who might be eating. :D, to name just one. Here, the push seems to be to isolate the dogs more and more from 'life', yet somehow miraculously expect the dogs to be completely comfortable with 'life'. Which means that after generations of dogs not learning well enough themselves, we have many enough who are bad teachers. So, to suggest (which I think you were) that it is a better thing to let your dog run up to other dogs (whether that be because you allow them to or whether that be because you have no control to stop it) ...... I'm afraid I can't agree.

Hhhhmmm, whilst you're discussing this with your Council, pop that one to them too. Oh - and high level reliability to command compliance does not make "robots" out of the dogs. But that style of argument is again one that I usually hear from someone who is in defence of not having the standard of reliability that should and can be expected as "effective control" when dogs are off-lead.

Nice sarcastic response ("yawn" .... was that necessary?) from Corvus. You're the one that said you apologise regularly. If you are apologising regularly it can only be assumed that you have something to apologise for, regularly. And given the topic at hand, then it goes to follow that what you are apologising for regularly is your dogs' regular non-compliance of command or perhaps that you regularly don't work to even ask for that compliance. You said it Corvus. I've merely made a point of what you've said and where I believe it is incorrect. And of course THAT's what happens on discussion forums. They raise things that people have said and discuss them.

Hey .... there's some really intelligent and knowledgeable responses in this thread, indicating awareness to responsibility and rights and respect towards other people. :D .... good to see and hear :D.

All Breeds Boarding kennels have some nice leather leads that are about 1 metre in length (I could check for you). I don't use them for general obedience training, as I like more room/length to work with. The price on theirs is $26.00 I think. I could check that for you as well, if you are interested. Brown leather. Brass snaphook. Stitched, if I remember rightly. I see you are within the Shire of Mornington. Have you been informed that you must have a 1 metre lead for trialling, or have you been informed that the Mornington Shire Council have brought in a law where there is a maximum lead length (regardless of what you are doing) of 1 metre. Silly law, IMO, made up to try to regulate stupidity. I have a very nice, soft, black one left from my leather stock as well. It is a bit shorter than I usually have, not sure if it is not a bit more than 1 metre though - I'd need to go re-check. Feel free to contact me if you'd like info on either.

I'd need to see this dog but, on the face of what you have written, I'd be inclined to correct this dog for its behaviour. No ifs, buts or maybe's. This is a behaviour that needs to be stopped now. If all other things are in balance (ie leadership/respect/fairness) and if the dog has no other behaviour issues (such as fear, for example) then the correction should do no harm. What correction you use depends on the dog, and I'd need to see him to determine that. Point is, the correction needs to be something that is effective but not excessive. There is nothing wrong with "dominance". Dominance to me is about being calm. About being assertive. But to balance "dominance" you need leadership, and that's about "guidance" and "fairness". As to what the trigger is for the behaviour? Could be the dog is attracted to breath (still no excuse). Could be a learnt behaviour from the way he was raised and played with. So many "could be's". I agree that getting in a behaviourist to observe and see the dog would be the best because then you could be advised on a methodology that is going to suit the dog. ETA: I also agree to the "no couch" approach. Firstly, for safety sake (dog not near your face). Secondly because whilst some people poohoo the idea that having dogs on couches and beds making an iota of difference to their perception of position in the pack, I can personally vouch for that it does. My leadership to my dog is strong and consistent. Yet if I allow him on the couch on anything that resembles a regular basis, I notice very clearly the "insubordination" that follows. So whilst it might not make a difference to every dog, it CAN make a difference and when there is an aberrant behaviour that exists, then this luxury is not one that I would grant to a dog. ETA: Oh ..... and "Hi" and :D and :D for adopting a dog in need of a home.

Hhhhhmmm .... wonder what the relevant Council's response would be to that. "I don't want to put the level of work into my dog so that I can have effective control and you can't make me into what I'm not, but it's ok, because I apologise to other people regularly." To say the "world just doesn't work like that" ??? .... IMO, that's another excuse. The law is that you must maintain effective control regardless of whether your dog is on or off-lead, even in a park designated "off-lead". There's no grey to it. If you are unable to achieve the effective control you need, then you need to look at your training method/s. But you might not, just as other people don't. Because their majority rules and the ones who are super conscious of their dogs and their dog's training needs stay clear of the people in those parks if they don't have the flexibility to be able to choose alternative quiet times and avoid the others who think it is ok, provided they apologise of course. I wonder if some of the people would be "motivated" to training their dogs to a more reliable skill level if they were the ones who were barred from using off-lead dog parks until they did. Yes - I'm being pointed now, because of the argument you are trying to put up in defense of having a dog that isn't command reliable. IMO, it doesn't wash.

Yes - that's true, DerRottweilier. However, it is unfortunate that the scales of weight are far tipped to out of control dogs being common place, and where reasonable foresight by those same people isn't something many of them bother with. These parks SHOULD be able to be enjoyed by everyone and not have to be abandoned because of the majority who find it easier to turn their backs on the fact that they do not have control over their dogs. But ignoring that responsibility obviously works for them, because it does mean that they manage to shun away the people who don't agree with them and the enjoyment of the park is for them and those who are likeminded, alone.

Turkey Trip .... I'm disappointed that you live OS. You're the type of dog-owner who I enjoy coming across and meeting with when I'm out walking any dog I happen to have in hand. Pity distance to where you live isn't going to make that possible. to the way you handled that situation in the park. I used to do the same when I was out with my previous dog "Kal" who, when adopted, was fear aggressive to other dogs. The approach you made to the other dog was often the approach I made as well - a 'signal' from us as our dog's leader that it's ok and also for them to be able to defer to our choices. Keeping your dogs behind you in those types of instances is also something that I practice. Again, it goes to leadership. I enjoyed your post - it was riddled with common sense and responsibility.

I would have said the same, before my current boy. Kal, my previous girl (bless her cotton socks) was fine with the floor boards - the only spots I put mats down were on corners, because even just gently trotting around corners could bring about a slip. She was a very calm dog - not into zoomies regardless of indoors or out. She was a very conservative character. There would be light scratches on the floor boards from every day use, but nothing too drastic. My current boy isn't permitted zoomies inside either, but he will throw the occasional 'mad moment' and leap around almost on the spot, playing play-bows with his reflection in the granite 'wall' I have, which segments off the kitchen area. He'll even stretch out with his front end and in the process his nails will pull in and grip on the protective carpet. In those instances, I'm glad of the large carpet piece I have in that part of the room. What I mean by this is that it doesn't have to be about zoomies or fast running inside the house. Scratches can happen for other reasons as well, no matter how well behaved inside the house your dog might be. To the OP's friends. Wear and tear WILL happen, no matter whether it is from a dog or by people (although more from a dog). And the first scratch on a beautifully polished floor board is the worst. That's when you have that "oh no!!" moment. But if they have carpet, there will be a certain amount of wear and tear as well (in all likelihood). It's the price we pay for having our dogs inside. I went through all the first scratches, the first carpet stain etc. I think it is worth it though for the pay-off of being able to interact and share in my dog's personality all that much more. ETA: My carpet has suffered more than my floor boards ever have. But then, my choice of carpet was the worst mistake I made when I was having my house built and fitted out.

Scratched floors aside, I don't like the idea of slippery floors and pups. In fact, I don't like the idea of slippery floors and adult dogs. Muscle, tendon and skeletal damage can occur if through their excitement they do the splits or similar. It is worse for big dogs, I believe, but I wouldn't like it for any. I have floor boards. Haven't seen much of them for two years because I have them covered with rubber-backed carpet, for the sake of my dog. Decking is similar - I have rubber matting covering my expansive deck area. Although I spend half my life straightening it out because dog looooooves to hoik it all up into a bunch and bury things in it. If there is a bone or a toy at one end of this rubber matting, he'll skritch the rubber matting until he's pulled it towards him. :D. Oh well, a source of amusement for a certain very cherished dog .

Thank you Paulp. I think "baby brain" can be excused :D.

My strongest argument is that people take that attitude of "improbability" and chose to do nothing about it to improve it. So as far as I'm concerned, your comment above isn't really relevant. It's a defeatest statement used to support counter-argument to what I'm saying here. That's blunt Corvus, and not just because it is you. I'd say the same to anyone who would have written that. I mean no personal offence by it but that, IMO, is the fact of it. Most of the lack of control we commonly see at off-lead parks CAN be improved. It's because people either don't recognise or recognise and don't want to make the effort to improve the weak areas of their dog's training, that improvement is not gained. They "excuse" it. I have enormous recall control with my dog, even around other dogs. Its the other dogs in the park that don't, that cause the problems. If you feel the need to apologise "pretty regularly" then it indicates to me something is amiss. Things do happen - we like to think we have eyes in the backs of our heads, but we don't. But for these "unforeseen" incidents to be occurring on a regular basis, something isn't quite right.