Erny

Thanks SBT. Cheers Erny

Cosmolo - I began a thread about Mandela's rough paw pads. Not "Nasodigital hyperkeratosis" as was indicated in the 'other' thread referred to here. You know about the health issues I'm having with Mandela. His rough paw pads I'm not even sure were actually connected with his issues. But one thing I have noticed since we went to the Naturopath and begun feeding him with nutrient additives is that his pads aren't as rough now. I don't know if this is coincidental or not and if it is not I really couldn't tell you exactly what vitamin/mineral it would be that might have been specifically missing and causing the rough pads. Below is the link that I put up in the 'other' thread, in relation to "Nasodigital hyperkeratosis" if you want to look at what this is about. Mutant Hairy Dog Feet

Have you looked at the MDBA Website? I purchased mine from them. I presume they still supply them.

Thank you - that would be appreciated. I don't think my boy needs any, but it would be helpful to know (and to have it on hand) should the occasion arise. Cheers Erny

Pardon my silly question - Can you 'overdose' a dog with electrolytes? IE If you gave it to a dog that doesn't need it, can it do any harm? I used to feed my horse electrolytes when we had a big run eventing or working-out. But I found that fairly easy to assess because the sweat on horses is obvious - you can use that to tell if the horse has lost a good amount of fluid. Dogs don't sweat quite as obviously. So, is there any harm in giving the electrolytes 'just in case' due to conditions?

Thinking of poor Reg. Come on, fella.

Under the guise of animal welfare? It's all about bureaucracy ...... really. <sigh> The real aim and ideals of Animal Welfare simply gets lost in the quagmire. Sadly.

You'll really only know once you've been to the Vet. It could be that the bone has aggravated something - it might not be a case of surgery as perhaps the Vet will determine that the problem is minor. I hope so. So take a deep breath and hang in there. Blood doesn't always have to indicate super serious stuff, but it always pays to have it checked out. Take his owner's phone number with you, in case you need to get consent (unless you already have authority for it). But let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. The good thing is that he's under your care and that he is receiving the attention that he needs.

You have more faith than I. I read "power". And "money".

I don't quite get this bit. Why "consider" prosecuting the dogs' owner, I wonder, if the case was as black and white as it has been reported? I hope the elderly lady is ok. What a shock to her system (not to mention the injury to her body). Poor love.

I don't know anything about Blue Green Algae other than it is not good - have no idea of 'safe' levels etc. However, I'd be avoiding it until it is confirmed as being ok. I can only think it could be worse for dogs, as they often drink the water they're in. If it were me, I'd stay well clear for the time being. I can understand you missing it, all the same I think it would be safer to avoid it and something you are potentially less likely to regret. Edited for spelling.

Yep - seems that way. What about Ruth Downey's cattle and the way the RSPCA shot them? I believe I recall that a number of the cattle were belly shot from a distance. That was disgusting. Someone needs to look closer to home. I agree - one shot would have been better/nicer, for the Roo. But the only reason the Cop was placed at the scene was because an Animal Ranger couldn't be found to get there as quickly as the Roo deserved. Apart from that - is it possible the Roo would have struggled to get up if the Cop got any closer? It's a wild animal - unfamiliar at being up-close and personal with human beings. We don't know. Hugh - this is not your story. RIP Roo.

Hey Elfin. Sounds very pro-active of your clinic to be doing this .

Kelpie-i. I thought about you throughout the day today. I know your pain, as many of us do. It is devastatingly horrible. I found that all the 'firsts' were the absolute hardest to deal with, but once faced, the pain softens and you endure better. Today was your first first. I can imagine how raw you feel. It's like a knife and the pain is keen. Hang in there kiddo and give yourself time ..... a big from me.

Be your dog's leader. Not as you think of yourself, but how your dog thinks of you. This calms with you being calm and assertive. Setting guidelines and boundaries, and steering your dog to observe them. Being consistent. Being fair. Being clear. As a leader, you gain the respect of being the one whom your dog defers to - the right to 'govern', to make the important decisions. With leadership comes the responsibility of protecting your pack (ie dog). So not only do you train your dog to play/interact appropriately with other people/dogs/animals, but you also make sure that other people/dogs/animals interact appropriately with your dog (or not at all). Aggression is usually based in an element of fear. So exposing your pup incrementally (ever increasing) to new/novel experiences in ways where your pup's confidence is encouraged and traumatic experiences are avoided, will go a long way as well.

Hortfurball - thanks for the suggestions. The Persian Silk ...... I got really excited when I saw and read about it. Until the bit about them seeding everywhere and becoming a nuisance. I need to be concerned for myself but also mainly for my neighbours and I wonder if that is likely to be a big bother. I really love the tree though. However, the Virgilia Tree !!! I remember that from my childhood. We had one growing next door and it was beautiful when in flower. We spent many hours climbing in it. I will definitely look into this more closely, as this may prove to be just the tree that I am looking for. Cheers and .

Au revoire, Bud. We'll miss you but never forget you.

I'm posting on behalf of my good friend Kelpie-i, her OH and her son, and to Buddy - their life long friend and beloved companion. This is the email that tells us of Buddy's passing. RIP Bud .... companion to all - best friend to his family. My tears are for Kelpie-i, her OH and her son, to whom Buddy was and in their hearts everlasting, their rock and legend. Bless you Bud. May Kal find you at the rainbow bridge and learn your kindly nature and gentle wisdom.

Just checking - you are looking for cases where dogs have been impounded and forcibly desexed prior to release, or are you looking for cases where dogs have been impounded and the council has been forced to release dogs without desexing. Sorry that I'm a little confused on what you're after. Or perhaps you would like to hear from both? As I mentioned, I don't know of anyone who has had either of these experiences, but you just never know who you might come across .

Off-hand, I don't know of anyone, Harry. But I will keep an ear out and, with this knowledge, actually raise the question should I think it a possibility, and will direct people who have been so affected to your email address.

Just came upon the more recent events in this thread, Cosmolo. Congratulations on the pups being born. What a lovely start to the New Year for you . PS I like the pup in the photo where 2 of them are being held. The pup with the dark muzzle.

Health Food Stores, slk.

But what requirements? Does the dog have to have a reliable sit/stay? Or a reliable sit? How does that make the dog tempermented suitable to its environment? What of the old dog (partially blind, even; or with arthritis that slows him/her down) who is happy to while away its time in the company of its elderly mistress or master around the home and home garden/surrounds? What use is a sit or a sit/stay in circumstances that don't demand them? Will that owner be declared unsuitable as that dog's owner? What will then happen to the dog? Will it be denied a home in an environment that does very well suit - instead, because he's old and a bit on the decrepid (but happy) side, be pts because the 'market' for people who might want to own such a dog is relatively small? I mean, how do we judge? And do we have a right to judge? (Particularly with a "one-size-fits-all" rule that would HAVE to be set as a standard, if it is to be a blanket rule/law that affects all). And from one Council funded training school to another, there are different trainers. So where a dog might pass under the tuition of one trainer, it might not under another. Some of those things are quite subjective. I see lots of people whose dogs don't sit on the first (or even second or third) command. I see dogs who pull on the lead held by their owners. I see owners not doing much about that in the way of correct training. But many of these dogs are happy. And many are not a nuisance to others because the owners have them on a lead. Or don't take them to environments that are unsuitable to the dog's temperament. Yet, for all of that, the dogs are still happy. They play ball in a vast back yard. They might travel with their owners to holiday homes (rented or owned) and get to see a variety of life and fill their senses with new sights and smells. Should these owners be told that because their dog doesn't sit on the first command; or because their dog pulls on the lead; that the owners are not fit to own them? That they are irresponsible owners? That they MUST attend a training school to be decreed 'fit' to be a dog owner by some (potentially) wet-behind-the-ear-not necessarily-broadly-knowledgeable person as fit or unfit? What about funding? Shall these people have to pay for the training? If not, how will it be funded and by who? Should the poor be disadvantaged? Should the very money that they religiously save so that their dogs are well looked after and happy, be spent on potentially unnecessary training? Should the 'rich' be disadvantaged by having to subsidise these classes - even though the very contents of the classes themselves don't necessarily equate with "now you are a responsible dog owner"? And what about those who live further a field, where Council grounds (or wherever the dog-training establishment shall be sited) is a considerable distance and perhaps don't own a car? What about shift-workers, where the training times and days simply don't fit in without them having to take time off? In regards to the school/s not taking dogs unless they were Council registered - I agree, Longcoat, I'd not heard of it before either and I actually was convinced the owner had muddled up the information. Maybe she did. However, in light of what's coming through in this thread (and I think this person might have lived within the City of Frankston district) maybe there is something in what she has said. I don't know which school/s this was. Perhaps it was a Council based PPS and not a "school" as we know them? It just seems to me to be a bit too coincidental, now that the information from this thread has come to light, to be completely mistaken. ETA: The Government and Councils need to stop trying to stop the leaks in the Dam by poking thumbs in the hole (ie making up more regulations/legislations to patch up the last). They're running out of thumbs and it is getting (read : has gotten) ridiculous and unworkable in that the majority of people they are hurting ARE the very people they should be celebrating, encouraging. The Government and Councils need to show us that when they make a law, they make it with knowledge that they will be ready, able and willing to police them and that the laws WILL work - that the laws WILL target the very people who caused them to be a necessity in the first place. If the laws WON'T work, then those laws need to be scrapped. But they never do this. Why not? Do they think they will lose face? I would cheer a Council, a Government, who had the gumption and pride in their responsibility towards service to 'their people' to stand up and admit "this isn't working - this won't work (even, perhaps "we were wrong") and agree to sit down with the people who really can and will seek to make things better for people and their dogs and for the dogs themselves. I would cheer a Council, a Government, who instead of spending the countless dollars that they do on inventing unworkable laws, spent it on an educational avenue instead. Smoking cigarettes, not all that long ago, was a 'cool' thing to do. Now it is anti-social and those who smoke (*cough* ) often feel a social outcast for smoking when we do. The campaign that brought THAT about heavily targeted media representation to broadcast it. THAT was education. IF the Government and other orgs really care, why not pit together and spend their collective dollars on media campaigns rendering it 'not the done thing' to buy and house pups/dogs irresponsibly. Not the done thing to not be responsible.

This is exactly the point (or at the very least, one of the major points). This would not be the first law that causes conflict between breaking the law -vs- animal welfare. The worst of it is that it is made under the guise of animal welfare, so there are cases that to observe the law under that Act will go against the very essence of its intentions. And this is what makes me cross.

I had a client who came to me and informed me that she hadn't taken her (now) 6 month old pup to training before, because the schools that she enquiried with in her area would not accept dogs unless they were registered, and that she was unable to register her pup unless it was desexed, but she didn't want to desex her pup before the age of 6 months. That was about a week or two ago - before I heard or knew of all of what is being discussed in this thread. I queried this owner, as I'd not heard of any school insisting on Council registration as a pre-requisite to accepting it as a member. But this is definitely as she understood it - to her it was made very clear. This is third hand. I still don't know the accuracy of the information, but given what we are discussing here, it now doesn't surprise me as much as it did then.