sandgrubber

A friend who is running a boarding kennel has gotten a few complaints from people claiming that their dogs had ticks when they came home from boarding. The contract says owners are responsible for flea and tick protection . . . there's enough wildlife in the area, not to mention other boarders, that it's difficult to prevent occasional appearance of ticks. (No paralysis ticks . . . probably just ordinary brown dog ticks). The pesticides used to get rid of ticks seem pretty nasty (like carcinogenic). Someone told my friend that keeping the area well watered (expensive and at odds with water conservation regulations) would keep ticks away. I suggested buying a good tick protection substance and offering a dose to incoming dogs for just over wholesale price, and if the cusomer opts out, making them sign a waiver. Curious about whether and to what extent dog owners hold kennels responsible for flea and tick problems, and how they would respond to the option of take the treatment or sign a waiver when they showed up at a boarding kennel.

I wrote them and asked what they'd charge for shipping to Oz. Here's the reply Thank you for the inquiry. We do ship to Australia. We can ship either UPS, which is very expensive (over $100 for just one kit) or US Postal Service which is less expensive but does not have a reliable tracking system. We usually check with the recipient to be sure that they are confident with their mail service and recommend the US Postal Service. Shipping costs will vary depending on the size of the order and the specific address. Shipping for one Target Kit (12 test kit) to Australia via USPS would be $48. If you were looking to buy in bulk I would suggest speaking directly to the Manufacturer. We are a distributor of the product and therefore cannot give any price breaks for quantities, but I am sure they would.

I wish a lot more people who should not own a dog were content with getting an i-pad (the i-pad's probably cheaper in the long run). In Oz as the USofA, there are too many people who have dogs that shouldn't

I'll bet he's a good boy and he'll enjoy good health. I'd guess he won't darken a lot more, based on the 'creams' I've owned. But probably more cream than white . . . I enjoy the color spectum and it chafes me that the breed standard wants to lump the whole thing into three categories.

I used to teach statistics (not by choice). People get 'random' wrong, routinely. Show them true random distribution and they find a pattern. If you want to get people to think something is random, show them a randomized pattern. I know. I know. Everyone hates statistics and this is far too abstract to understand without an hour of boring lectures that you'll fall asleep in if you aren't going to be tested on. But . . . please tolerate us science nuts . . . that beer surprised me . . . the label says 8.1% . . .maybe my brain is misfiring. American beer labels don't present the 'standard drinks' thingy . . . I tend to assume the cheap ones are weak . . . wrong this time . . . Bottom line . . . I agree with people who say patterns of attack are unlikely to be truly random. Ok, if the dog's brain is mis-firing cause it is sick, it may attack in a pattern that has nothing to do with the setting, but it's not random . . . the patterns come from the dog's sickness, not the environment. I'll shut up . .. I don't think I'm adding anything other than jargon . . . but if anyone wants to listen there's a mega-load of evidence on humans as pattern-seeking animals who almost always fail in recognizing patterns that are truly random, and routinely classify random events as pattern. . . . and if you're looking the wrong direction for the cause you won't find the pattern. And if you ever get press ganged into teaching statistics . . .Lord help you . . . you may find this diatribe interesting.

There was a big brew-ha-ha a couple years back on DOL about whether it was ok to say a Labrador was 'cream' . . . the Labrador breed standard only recognises three colours . . . yellow, black, and chocolate/liver (no one EVER EVER says liver). Majority opinion was that it was not ok to describe a lab as 'cream', though the breed standard says yellow may range from cream to red fox. No one even mentioned 'white'. I thought I was kicking a hornets nest by asking about whites. I've had dogs I would call 'cream' but their ears always turn yellowish when they mature. The 'whites' I'm talking about seem to lack even the faintest yellow tint, but still have black noses, pads, eye-rims, etc., like, say a Westie. I find them quite striking and am curious about whether they breed true and how the colour genetics works. Note colour genetics in Labs is generally described in terms of only B/b and E/e genes, but Wing'NWave Labradors provides a more complete explaination of 'white . . . from http://www.labbies.com/genetics2.htm#WhiteThe "White" Form of Yellow Although the "white" color is considered by most Lab breeders to be a very light shade of yellow, this color may be quite distinct from the yellow shade that may represent cream-colored yellows represented as genotype [As_B_ cch_ee] above. In fact, the "white" color may be represented by another allele that may be found at the C locus. The "cd" allele is responsible for producing white hair in other breeds of dogs, like the West Highland White Terrier, while allowing full expression of dark nose and eye pigment. Though this white color may be distinct from the yellow coloration, it should still be grouped with the other yellow variations since its expression is also controlled by both the E and C loci. I guess, technically, I was thinking that the breed standard focus is on the E and B locus .. . can the standard recognize another variation that is coming form the C locus in combination with the E and B loci. Getting pretty technical. Sorry.

Another difference between Australia and Europe is how common dogs are. In Australia, almost half of all households have dogs. In Europe it tends to be more like one in five. Europeans consider dog ownership a priveledge, and they pay a lot to do it . . . licensing fees are high, puppy prices are high . . . etc. Dogs are much cheaper in Australia, and people, on average, invest a lot less in their dogs. I'm in the US now . . . I'd say the US is in between . . . but not to the standards of Europe by a long ways . . . and in some ways restrictions on dogs are even harsher than in Australia . . . for example, there are very few dog beaches in California and the off-lead parks are terrible.

I think most are agreed that the 'silver Labrador' is a hoax. But I remember Mary Roslin Williams in Advanced Labrador Breeding describing a magnificant pure white animal with pitch black points . .. . and suggesting that there was a legit white Lab, as opposed to a 'yellow'. I'm in the US now, and in looking over dogs here I find quite a few people claiming to have 'white labs'. The AKC breeders among them note that the 'white' is a subset of 'yellow' as recognized by the breed standard. But, having done a bit of looking, eg, see the pictures you get if you google 'white Labrador' and check the pictures link (http://www.google.com/images?oe=UTF-8&gfns=1&q=white+labrador&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=cUh2TZiKPIO2sAOc8JzTBA&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1403&bih=901), I find myself thinking that there may be a 'white' as distinct from 'yellow', and that the whites are just as Labrador as yellows, chocos and blacks. (These are mostly US Labs, and some of them aren't so good by English/Australian standards, and some of the pictures shown are clearly yellow or chocolate . .. but some look like there's no yellow pigment in the coat). Does genetics bear this out? If genetics and the breed standard part company, and white is not just a variant of yellow, what happens. edited cause the links didn't work.

One man's 'substance' is another man's 'bulk'. I share the preferance for 'substance' and a 'good head' and the US field Labs do look ugly to me. But form follows function . . . may be that the conformation we are breeding for isn't ideal for a working gun do As noted previously, there's 'Standard' as established in the Breed Standard, and an operational standard, as what is recognized by the general public. Semantic arguements are generally boring, and I'm happy to concede that I'm talking about 'standard', not 'Standard'.

I stand corrected . . . I had no idea that eBay ads had such an interface with rescue orgs. This is getting off topic . . . but maybe it's worth encouraging this in Australia. Pet Finder makes their ads for dogs available on a variety of sites ... including ebay classifieds in local areas. Like here: http://www.ebayclassifieds.com/user?id=518868 If you check the ads you'll see they've all got Pet Finder on the bottom.

oops, double post

It's better than that. Further study shows it gives you 12 tests for $95 . . . plus the cost of a blood draw . . . and results are available in 30 minutes! The down side is the outcome isn't real precise. But it will pick up the important rise when they go from being on season to close to ovulation. If you check their website, they also have some other good AI stuff . . . shipping packs for chilled, insemenation kits, extender, etc. see http://www.equitainer.com/Canine/index.htm and scroll through the options. They also say the prog test works well for predicting whelping date, eg when elective Ceasar is called for. Technical aspects of the prog test kit can be found under 'documentation' on the scroll down menu From what I can figure, Anglesun hit the nail on the head . . . it's accurate but not real precise. Which I'd much prefer to precise but not accurate

???? I didn't mean to imply there's a problem with naming dogs. I've just noted it is something that most rescues do with the dogs they're trying to find forever homes for. Breeders and puppy mills seem less likely to name their charges when they post adds. (Look at DOL puppy postings . . . you won't find many names). I named every rescue dog I have every taken it to be rehomes, What would call them #4456 ?

If they want referances, as opposed to references, I'd guess they wrote the add in a hurry and I'd be inclined to go with the spirit of the thing rather than getting hung up on details. I'd read it as "we don't sell to just anyone . . . please tell us something about yourself". Asking them what they mean is a good idea; and don't be surprised if they want 'proof' rather than just you saying you are a great dog owner and will take fantastic care of the puppy.

I don't think this is correct . . . doesn't look at all like petfinder.com adds. They don't put them out in groups of four. The fact that each dog has a name does look like rescue work. Thank you. Province is everything.....! Without it, it is impossible to comment. Talk about jumping to conclusion eh! Any time someone puts up something, they need to put the link.

In weighing this all up, it should be considered that loosing a finger is a big deal. My mother lost her middle finger due to gangrene in an infection. The phantom finger pained her day in and day out for decades. For a blue collar bloke or a musician, a lost finger may mean a change of job as well as a lot of pain.

There are a lot more guns and a lot more hunters in the US than Australia . . . so there's a lot more for a field gun dog to do. They don't have to get trained on those stupid dummies . . . they get the real thing from early on . . . and I'd expect US Labs, in general, outperform Australian Labs in field trials . . . would you expect a border collie from Singapore to do well in herding? You can also find proper English style Labs in the US, some of them field trained, some with big old peripotent studs (Kupros Master Mariner) in their pedigrees. I put the pup pictures up cause it sort of shocked me to see that anyone could present pups so far from what I expect of a Lab as Lab pups to the general public . . . sorry, I've lost the links . . . but it was a Gumtree quality site . . . not the sort of place where elite breeders advertize pedigree pups.

Yah, it cuts both ways. There are guns all over the place in the US, and a lot of people hunt birds. So there's lots of call for real gun dogs and field work is a reality for lots of US Labs. There are quite a few breeders who specialize in working labs and sell pups after training them the basics . . . from that perspective Australian standards have, in general, declined. The 'seen on the street' Lab here is lankier than the norm for Australia and has a narrower, triangular looking head. What I meant by 'deterioration' was that pictures of pups who don't even have Lab colouring can be advertized to the general public as Labs. There's 'standard' in the show ring . . . but also 'standard' in the everyday use of the word. You can find fine labs here as well . . . and pedigrees stemming from the same peripotent dogs as you find at the root of many of Australia's leading Labs. One thing that's surprised me here is the current craze for 'white' Labs. Some are stunning . .. . apparently Mary Rosylin-Williams, in Advanced Labrador Breeding (book) was premature in bemoaning the disappearance of the snow-white dog with strong black points.

I'm not big on the show ring . . . but things can get out of hand if there's no enforcement of standards. This is a set of puppy ads I found browsing the internet in the US awhile ago. I can't believe they're advertized as Labradors.

If they tested with cats and chooks, half the dogs, of any breed, in Australia would fail. The GAP VIC green collar only means that dog has been temp tested with small fluffy dogs and I think if they are extremely good with small fluffy dogs they then get tested with cats and chooks are another thing again.

Lots of news about it on many sites. Those of you who like following the mushers might want to go to Google and check in on this year's twists and turns. GO MUSHERS!!!!!

microchipping isn't required in WA councils pay poorly. turnover is high. there are some great, and some pretty average Rangers, and quite a few are new to the job and not so cluey about dogs. Depends on the council and history and who knows what else.. Given the iffy way the legal system works, owners of serious guarding breeds need to be extra cautious. Not nice, but I think the system needs to make an example of someone from time to time. I hope others learn from this unfortunate case. I'm glad to be out of WA and in a place where there's no BSL, but you need a license to have an un-neutered dog or bitch and they hit you with big fines if an intact animal is found wandering. Lots of pit bulls here. I find them much less frightening than Akitas. I hope the poor guy who lost fingers is getting some compensation.

Thanks SwaY. I've done the Draminski thing and sold the equipment cause I couldn't make it work. A vet showed me how to do the cytology thing and I concluded I'm not good enough with a microscope. This seems to be a different option that does an approximate reading of LH based on a blood sample and results can be interpreted as ng/ml . . . it is intended for use by veterinarians or others with skill level that permits them to draw blood. In otherwords, it looks like a less precise equivalent of the prog test that would cost me $90 here and take so long it's hardly worth doing. I tried using search, but can't find any discussion of similar options . . . seems to me that a kit that allows your everyday small animal vet to do a test in house would be a great option . . . If you have pointers to equivalent tests, I'd appreciate more specific references.

If this criterion was applied across the board, there would be no social justification for BSL. So long as we tolerate HA dogs, society is going to use what means it can find to try to control them. BSL isn't a great mechanism . . . but breed is not irrelevant. The bull terrier breeds seem to be most at risk cause they are so often named in HA/DA events.

Form follows function. In theory, conformation as shown in the show ring, should be a basis for determining what dogs are true to the functional breed standard. Alas, the ring is a corrupt judge and has become more of like a fashion parade 'cat walk' than a serious way to evaluate solidity and competence. Not to mention that 'function' has changed for many breeds. Leaves breeders without solid guidance. If there's blame, I'd lay it on the k9 pedigree/judging establishment . . . though blame is less important than the question of 'how do we produce healthy dogs that will fit into modern dog roles'. Edited to correct typo. This bloody system doesn't allow me to correct as I write. Am I alone in this problem?