Erny

Oops! Sorry Wuffles. I stand corrected.

LOL .... it was a bit chilly, wasn't it? Cold enough to not forget too soon. My hands and feet were frozen like icicles for the whole weekend.

No - I think you're thinking of "Blue Bottles"? They have a really nasty bite. I would use Stingose, if that's all I had to use. Tip : If you're out somewhere, get bitten by a bull-ant or blue bottle (or other ant bite) and are stuck for something to put on it, an old fashioned 'remedy' is to crush a eucalyptus leaf and apply that to the bite site. Could be a myth - I've never tried it. Of course, you need to be somewhere where we have eucalypts and not conifers .

Health Food Shop. Where I buy mine from, it comes in a packet - $8.00. You can get many 'teas' out of that. I use at least one if not two tablespoons of it, to make a 'tea'. Put the calendula in the toe of a stocking and drape it in a cup, much like you would when you're making a cuppa with a tea-bag. I allow it to steep in that until the water becomes tepid to cool. The tea is then ready to use.

If you have some Calendula on hand, make up a tea with it and soak your dog's foot (affected area). Calendula has anti-inflammatory qualities and soothes irritated tissue. Note that Calendula is dried marigold flowers, so if your dog's particularly allergic to pollen, it might not prove the best idea. But there are many people and their dogs who find good results from the application of Calendula Tea. Calendula (which is cheap to purchase) forms part of my medicine cabinet, along with Active Manuka Honey and also Colloidal Silver. Colloidal Silver can be used to help tissue recovery, so that might be good to use as well. I believe it can help ease the irritation of flea bites. Not sure about bull-ant bites, but it wouldn't do any harm (get good quality stuff though). I agree with the others - if the training grounds harbour bull-ants, I think the grounds need treating. Bull-ant bites are painful.

I need to see more, but my first thought was a mix of Blue heeler :D. I agree that BC is predominant, going by that photo alone.

I think that was "a model for an association of professional pet dog breeders". This is the part I don't understand how it is going to make anything better. I raised this in an earlier post. Kate did say that breeders should offer the lifetime guarantee that they will take back dogs they have bred, but commented that in the case of Pet Shops, "they would probably have to have an arrangement with a shelter". I could only gather from that to mean that the Pet Shop would have to be able to move returned dogs on to somewhere else. So what difference then, if they can do that, to the pet dog owner surrendering to a shelter? With this in mind, I raise the question of whether that arrangement would actually make it emotionally easier for people to return their unwanteds back to the pet shop and would therefore potentially do so more readily, relieved of the guilt they might otherwise have of doing so themselves -vs- trying to do something about the reason for feeling they don't want their dog anymore. So, if not shelters, what avenues COULD pet shops have that is going to be in the interests of the dogs' welfare?

I'm not so certain that desexing lowers the drive itself, rather than it might lower the threshold to stress and recovery from stress. Depending on the dog genetics as to whether the latter is likely to be an issue or not. As to other drives like aggression, desexing, I believe, can raise the threshold to those things. In otherwords, it might take more to trigger the dog to inter-dog aggression. Just my thoughts on it.

I would expect they might be a throw back and perhaps could have been useful when hunting, catching and holding down prey?

Funny that you raise "Scott and Fuller". I was just talking to a friend of mine who asked about the seminar and in the course of conversation I mentioned Scott and Fuller and the fact that they ran experiments on control groups of various dogs (beagles and basenji's were amongst two of the breeds) for behaviour differences under certain conditions. The dogs were raised as control dogs for the purpose of the experiments and the results are reported. In "Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog".

I thought she said she did. I could be wrong though ....

This part of what she proposed puzzled me. She acknowledged that in the case of a pet shop, it would probably need to have some arrangement with a shelter. .... was she suggesting that pups returned to the shop would need an arrangement with a shelter because of course, how could a pet shop (business) keep pups that are returned, and that therefore the pet shop would need a place where they could move them on? If that's what she meant, then I don't get it. How does that make anyone more responsible? To me, all that does is shift the action of surrendering the pup to a shelter, from the pup's owner back to the pet shop. On this, I asked Kate the question as to whether she means perhaps that the pet shop have an arrangement with the breeder of the pup, but she said something that money refund would be the difficulty. I don't understand that part either. Why would money refund be any more difficult? Question time ran out or she was directed to another question, so my query remains unanswered in this regard.

I understand what you are saying, Deerhound, but in the scenario that you suggest, the shelter staff would have a pretty good guage of knowing what dog would do what, simply by the fact they interact. The dogs' behaviours would not be limited by breed/genetics only, so the only way a shelter would be able to say what you have suggested would be due to the fact that they have met the dogs in question. IMO.

In the litter that my current (Rhodesian Ridgeback) boy came from, I know of at least one of the pups that was born with rear dew claws. Mandela (my boy) was not born with them.

I don't use spray. I use the hose vacuum cleaner or, if that's not out, the dust buster. You have to clean out the filter/bag though, as it tends to stink up after a while. But at least neither myself nor my dog are breathing in poison. Yes - there's been a lot of flies around this year. A bit more like it used to be when I was a kid.

Thanks LL. It's a bit to go through, but on glance, it tells me that this research/exercise has been done before. I need to read further though.

But the fact that this is done under the name of "research" implies (to me, at least) that we can (or should be able to) use that information for ....... something. But unless outside factors that influence how many times chickens peck are taken into account, isn't the fact that they peck 100 times or 10 times fairly useless, save that it scientifically proves that chickens peck?

Ok - I've only had two dogs that I have had to do this with, but I do say that I've not had a problem in doing it with either. One was my avatar girl, the other my current boy. So I've done it with both sexes as well. I find the exercise quite easy. Wait for a stream to start and then hold the 'pan' component of a brush and pan, under the stream. I clean the pan properly first, so there is no contamination of the urine it collects. Handle makes it easy and I don't get splashed. It has a broad base, so too much precision in your aim isn't required. Can hold a good amount and it is easy to pour/transfer to a suitable container. Whilst I'm waiting for the 'stream' I act quite nonchalant and don't make a big deal about anything. Job's done before dog can say "what the ...?" :D. For the females, come in from behind with the pan. With the boys, come in from the side/front.

Thanks Aidan. I think I am beginning to see the point. So Tammie's thesis is about designing a standard test and recording the different behaviours of different dogs, but not really drawing any conclusions from it? No offence to you, Tammie. I'm not trying to run-down what you are doing. I'm still grappling at the point, particularly considering the money that goes into these things. Behaviour assessments aren't exactly new, although I do recognise that Tammie's tests would be more sterile/pure given the exactness of provided surroundings.

:D Huh? I do see what you are saying, but I am saying that I do not see the point. To spend the money, time and effort to note how often the chickens peck; then spend more time, money and effort to see how often the white chickens peck compared to the brown ones; so we can say "the white chickens pecked more than the brown ones but the results could be flawed because we don't know how they were raised and it might have been to do with their upbringing" ??? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just not recognising how Tammie's study is going to culminate in anything that will be able to be used to benefit anyone if we haven't first been able to measure the impact on the behaviour we are measuring, of prior environmental experience. Help, someone ..... does anyone understand what I am (trying) to say? Have I got it wrong? Am I really not seeing the trees for the forest, or is it the other way around?

I'm sorry, TSD. I didn't recognise you. I'm useless with remembering faces . Sorry that I didn't specifically say "hi". Thanks for your sprinting. You would have definitely been kept busy roving all around the theatre.

You're right, KK. That's a simple example. To liken it a bit more to the study on dogs though, let's hypothesise that the number of times a chicken pecks is influenced by how it is raised. With that in mind, how could you possibly think that you'd be able to determine, even later down the track, whether brown chickens peck more than white unless you remove and/or at the very least take into account how those chickens were raised?

Please define what you mean by "pet-line"? Are these ones that are "dumbed-down" for their various behaviour characteristics - characteristics that can be managed, shaped and directed with training but because people might prefer to not be bothered, prefer to have the 'gene' removed? (Note : I know that's putting it simplistically.) Note : "training" in the above context doesn't have to mean formal training; going to classes; etc. If as much money was applied towards educating people about dogs and get people back to nature a bit, as it is towards changing dogs to suit people (so people don't have to think???), then I think many people would be able to manage and raise their dogs to be animals that accord with our society much better. I also think those who create the laws in this State and in others, need to think about what they are doing as well, as by their own very hands they are causing restrictions upon what we can do with our dogs to make them good dogs in society, yet demand that we make our dogs good in society. If we begin breeding to remove the very characteristics many of our dogs were bred for in the first place, I do very much wonder what we will end up with. After all, it is already well known (and reiterated at the seminar) that when you breed for one trait/gene for trait, it is quite often accompanied with another. I think we need to promote "look at the big picture" rather than looking at one small defined characteristic. I think it comes down to the fact that people need to be careful about what they wish for. If my own dog didn't have some of the behaviours that I've worked to channel into different more acceptable behaviours (success in many areas; work in progress in others) then he wouldn't be the dog that I have, because I doubt much of what I really like and recognise as particularly special (with potential for some great stuff, IMO ) would be there either. ETA: Having said that, this is not to take away from the fact that breeders do need to be conscious of what they are breeding, in terms of conformation; health and temperament. I think many do that already and know their dogs and dog breed well enough to be able to advise potential owners of their pups whether they would be suitable for their lifestyle. But I also know of others who don't do this and are not so strict about it, allowing their own ambitions to over-ride and cloud the ideals that I'm sure they would have started out with. ETA: My dog is my 'pet dog' and companion too.

But I don't see how even Tammie's initial 'experiments' can go towards deciding if this aim is possible UNLESS prior learning and experiences are take into account. And even if they are, if science is about 'measuring' then surely these environmental experiences need to be able to be 'measured' as well. And the only way I can imagine that to be done would be to have a group of 'control' dogs who are born and raised in exactly the same way. Thanks for the explanation Tammie, and my apologies if I am just being a bit dull in not comprehending how your aims are going to be able to be achieved with any great reliability.

When I was a young child and my parents decided my brother was old enough and sensible enough to have a dog, they 'researched' before they opted for a breed. Research wasn't as easy then as it is now - no computers; internet and so forth. Their 'research' relied on asking around of others who had dogs; seeing other dogs in the neighbourhood; speaking to the breeders. So, even back then, there was "research". By everyone? Probably not. But people (going by others in our neighbourhood) did tend to take a more conscious and sensible approach to it. My opinion is that we keep excusing society for not thinking and seeking to change dogs from what they are, to something else is another way of removing responsibility away from people feeling as though they should retain some amount of common sense and rational forethought by getting at least a bit educated before they make decisions that affect life. Are you saying "it's not their fault" because they didn't think? I disagree. It is their fault. But unless laws and authorities stop making it to seem as though bad dog behaviour is about the dog and has next to nothing to do with the owners and the owners' living conditions/requirements and lifestyle, people won't adopt responsibility. Many humans, I think, are inheritantly lazy in that department and the more we make it that they don't have to think, the less they will do so. ETA: I don't much like comparisons of dogs to inanimate objects, but sometimes the analogies can help to clarify a point. When I got my driver's licence and needed to buy a car, I did a bit of research. I knew nothing of cars. I was advised by people who knew (by their own experiences) and I shopped around to find the one that would suit what I needed it for and that would fit within the constraints of my budget etc. etc. No-one told me "you should think about it and shop around". When it came time for me to purchase my own home, I researched. I knew what I wanted, but that didn't mean it was suitable. Too far away from where I worked? Too costly? Too little? Too big? Too much maintenance required? All of this, I knew - "common sense" dictated it. Why? Because it was a BIG financial commitment. THAT liability alone MADE me think. Made me put aside the homes that were out of my reach and/or would have landed me in trouble financially. The pressure of taking on such a commitment MADE me think; MADE me shop around. No-one MADE me do this (although I was lucky to have some good people around me who could advise me when I "thought" I'd made the right decision). So, why don't people see having a dog as such a BIG commitment. A commitment that with next to little forethought could land them a liability instead of joy that it is supposed to be. A liability that would be theirs to sort through and bear responsibility for? BECAUSE "we" make it so "it's not their fault". We make it easy for them to consider things going wrong as NOT being THEIR mistake, or if they do, then at least a mistake that someone else will or should sort out. And of course, dogs are so dispensable in many people's eyes.