Erny

Thank you Haven. They are the ones I was thinking of. Yes - I would like a copy of them, if you don't mind.

IMO, debarking should be the absolutely LAST option prior to pts. I presume, Ellz, as you've been around dogs a lot, that you'd understand and know how to identify triggers and causes for this particular behaviour and what to do in an effort (albeit a BIG effort) to remove the cause. Assuming it is appropriate to do so, I'd go for the $190.00 expense in a second ditch effort to punish/deminish the behaviour (without attachment to you .... particularly necessary if "attention seeking" is diagnosed). I know $ doesn't grow on trees (boy! do I know that!), but I don't think I'd be comfortable jumping that step and going straight to cutting vocal cords as the solution. Just my 2 cents worth.

DBS - Is it possible that the cortisone treatment this dog was on could have an affect on its recovery out of anaesthesia?

Thanks for the up-date, L. And glad to hear your little one will be ok and that it's nothing too serious. I'm pleased you had it checked out - at least you know what you're dealing with. And I think you're wise and considerate to avoid puppy/puppy interaction for this week. Probably good for your little one not to become too stressed/hyper etc. either.

As am I, Amhailte. Looking forward to your return to this thread, Denis. I'm in suspenders .....

I'm going to try to get hold of some submissions that were made when the legislation to ban were proposed. Was indirectly informed (after the ban was legislated) by a polly "in the know" that these submissions weren't even read. Don't know if the "keeper" of the submissions will provide them, or even if they have been kept. But will ask. Might be a start.

Any news regarding the thyroid blood tests, Brooke?

How's your pup going, LilyW?

Although I understand them and their use, I admit to not having had need to use/apply one myself. However I suspect you would find manufacturer's instructions recommend the collar be removed after (eg) 12 hours, the main use of the containment system to be when the owners are not around. Can anyone with a containment system back me up on this (or contradict me) please?

What rhetoric? Now THAT'S gone and done it. I can cope with many things and not lose my cool. But calling us a "Pack of Prats" has REALLY stepped over the line. ( ) Ummmmm ..... your OP didn't exactly reflect that. Nup. Not one bit.

Funny how they do that ..... the one's who "think" they know, but don't ..... and don't want to.

Hey TB! You ain't sighing at me, are you? Wha'd I say? not you, just idiots that dont know what they are talking about!! Thanks TB. I didn't think so, but thought I should check.

Now you're REALLY showing up your lack of knowledge.

Hey TB! You ain't sighing at me, are you? Wha'd I say?

A vested interest in what? The dogs? Don't we all?

Hi Am Call me skeptical. I'm not suggesting to wave the story aside, but on looking at the photo on both links, I'm not sure how 'dressed up' it is or isn't. One other thing, while I was pondering this, that struck me was (in the second link) it is reported that originally Rufus wouldn't allow his collar off, but when the owner did get to take it off, he noticed the injury. Going by the look of the injury as shown in the photo, wouldn't that have been quite noticable well before the collar got to come off? Giving benefit of the doubt, perhaps it wasn't as noticeable, assuming Rufus' coat has since been trimmed away. But in the same photo of Rufus in the first link, I was looking at it and thinking the wound appeared to have been possibly enhanced by way of photograph manipulation????? The other thing that I pondered about was where this 'wound' extends to. It seems to gravitate upwards of Rufus' neck. Now, if it were a malfunction and the battery acid (which in an e-collar would be the only chemical leakage possible????) did in fact leak, I could imagine it leaking downwards, but not upwards and under the collar???? I don't know ..... I am a bit dubious and would like to know more on the authenticity of the author and origins.

I know. It gets that way sometimes. Stay cool, calm and focused.

You're right PL. The government makes me laugh too. But that's what we've got. And that's what we have to work with and around. I appreciate your comments regarding BSL, but that is a separate argument and topic (one which I too have shared your sentiments) and is not really relevant to the topic in this thread. Let's not get off track and let's keep things to informative and constructive discussion pertaining to the re-legalising of prongs.

Ok .... sorry - I misread your earlier posts. I might be being a worry wort but if it were me I would not attend puppy school with a pup that wasn't quite right health wise. If these 'runs' are the result of diet, there'd be no problem. But I'm erring on the side of caution and would hate to think that on the off chance it is something else, that it could be passed to the other pups within the group.

Funny though ..... when they were legal in Victoria, I didn't see every tom, dick or harry running around with one. Probably for two reasons (a) They weren't sold in pet shops and (b) The cost of them (which is probably why pet shops didn't sell them, because the turn over wasn't that great). Whilst I appreciate your concerns here, SP, you need to consider that at this point, check chains are sold willy nilly. ANYONE can use one. ANYONE can purchase a head collar and use one, also with dangerous ignorance, although no-one is up in arms about that. The people who live in rural areas who can't attend regular training sessions? Well .... how do they get on now? IMO, if they have issues with their dog then they have need of lessons and that requires them to get to some lessons. I don't think we need to make this any more complicated than it needs to be.

Yes .... and not for general sale/purchase at a pet shop either.

All quotes taken from the Vic Govt's report as posted by Jaybeece above:- Wrong. The prongs are rounded and bent and the action of the links closed the prongs on the skin of the dog, not into its neck. Huh? So, even though I'm sure formally prepared and documented submissions would have given rise to explanation as to the operation of the prongs, are they saying here that the submissions from individuals didn't also give them this explanation? If that's the case, then this needs to be remedied and not repeated the second time around. And the same could be said of the head collar; the flat collar; the martingale; the no-pull harness; the check chain; not to mention some owners, even in the absence of any training equipment. How can they use "public opinion" as any part or form of basis for decision to legislation prohibition on a tool that the majority of "public" don't know of, about or understand? What percentage of this "public opinion" even derived from dog owners? How many of them even trained their dogs? Hhhhmmm. So, a headcollar is designed to apply pressure to areas associated with the nerve rich craneal area at the rear of the skull, as well as across the muzzle close to/at the nerve rich area in the proximity of the eyes. A no-pull harness is designed to apply pressure to areas associated with the nerve rich areas located underneath the dog's forearms. And none of these actions are viewed as punishment? And couldn't we say the same of ANY piece of equipment (training or no) that we use on and around our animals? What a useless statement this one is, IMO. ETA: I would like any submission/argument to OMIT/AVOID emphasised comparison/reference to the check chain. I prefer the prong to the check chain, hands down. But as a result of the Vic Legislation banning prongs, the check chain is all that is left for SOME dogs who I've known to have already trialled - and failed - via certain other training methods and equipment and without which would certainly not be here and living happily today. If I know prongs are in, then I'm not so worried about the check chains, but I wouldn't like to be depleted from both pieces of equipment as a result of this possible appeal battle.

Hi Brooke. The typical symptoms of thyroiditis may not show up in the young dog. It is rare for a dog to become hyperthyroidistic. Generally this condition reveals itself as hypothyroidism, even though the dog might represent with hyperactivity (and/or even aggression) rather than presenting with lethargy and mental dullness.

This is DANGEROUS. The dog could choke on anything placed in its mouth. The dog will not bite his tongue during a seizure. :shakehead: I agree, Puggles! Where on earth did they see fit to advise THAT!!!!????? I'm actually wondering if this fellow was bitten by something to which it was allergic. I've heard of some reactions that can be similar to what the OP has posted. ;)

Sorry to harp .... but although I agree with turning towards a bland/exclusionary diet, I don't like the thought of yet another 48 hours going by for this youngster. Given that this pup has had the runs since Friday evening (ie 4 days), I would recommend the pup is taken to the Vet.