sandgrubber

Here's an extract from the sheet inviting people to participate. . . . many owner-dog relationships fail each year, resulting in owner distress, community disruption and thousands of dogs being admitted to, and often euthanased in, welfare shelters and pounds. Results from a recent questionnaire study found that dogs which were easy going, friendly, non-aggressive, relaxed and sociable were rated as “ideal” by the Australian public. The development of an accurate behavioural assessment that measures these characteristics in dogs would assist in identifying dogs best suited for living in Australian society and could be used to select breeding dogs. This, along with educating the public about dog behaviour and training, has the potential to improve owner-dog relationships. In my reading it looks like pretty normal PhD research. Possible that the student is trying to get at the genetic basis of aggression -- a taboo subject in human psychology. Highly unlikely that a psych department would support a study that took on both breed and aggression, as that would open a can of worms regarding racism. I sent a note to the PhD student concerned saying that her letter had caused a hubub on DOL and inviting her to clarify. Hope this draws a result.

Agreed, this is correct. Natural, chilled or frozen makes no difference it is the egg that is the determining factor not the insemination. If you know via Prog test the exact day of ovulation than it is easy to track when your bitch is due. Here's what makes frozen AI different (from an excellent piece on K9 reproduction . . . ", insemination with frozen-thawed semen is best performed 3-4 days following the LH surge (2-3 days following ovulation)." I had it wrong above in saying the AI was done at ovulation.

I seem to remember that the expected gestation period for surgical AI was 61 rather than 63 days because the insemination is (ideally) done at the time of or hours before ovulation. . . . and that the day count was likely to be pretty much exactly 61 because there is little uncertainty about the time of ovulation. As I watch Jarrah get rounder and rounder and try to plan my days to accommodate the whelping, I would be grateful to know if others have found their girls know about the 61 day thing.

This statement says 'dogs best suited' not 'breeds most suited'. I think the gist of it is that they're trying to pin down behavioural differences WITHIN breeds, hopefully finding a genetic basis, with the hope of helping breeders achieve desired temperament. Could be something like trying to reduce yappyness and over-excitability . . . which are a problem in suburbs now that back yards are getting smaller and neighbours more in one another's face . . . or understanding the heritability of aggression. Even if I don't want to design a breeding program to produce the perfect pet, there are some behavioural tendencies that I would just as soon be able to keep out of my stock. If someone works out a better way to select for temperament, my ears are open.

Jarrah is big as a house and due 4 January. Fingers crossed. AI, imported frozen semen.

Oops . . . meant to post as a reply in the January thread. Please delete

I think it's too bad that Cav's have gotten so much attention in the debate. Yes they are an extreme example. But other breeds have a lot of problems. I was talking with a Basset breeder who said most Bassets have to be mated AI cause the boys are too heavy for the girls, and Ceasars were more common than not. Not that Bassets should be in the spotlight: just the discussion should include breeds not under the spotlight. It seems to me that many breeds will develop unnatural and unsound physique if hundreds of generations are put to broader, narrower, higher, heavier, lighter, or whatever in any dimension . . . with the head being perhaps the most dangerous part to breed to extremes.

I have public liability for the Boarding Kennel. It also covers breeding. I don't think it would cover shows. I pay around $700/yr. Try Ford Kintner. They do a lot of kennels.

I doubt that very many breeders, even those claiming to 'make a profit', would be operating in the black if they costed the time they put in at minimum wage (not to mention overtime rates during crisis periods) and accounted for the costs of caring for dogs through the full of their lifespans and the costs of maintaining a dog property. I don't feel at all guilty when I sell 8 pups at $1100+ each and am able to pay off some of the mortgage I've taken on to be able to run a dog property. Nor do I feel guilty breeding to the colour specifications of the 'puppy buyer market' (eg preferred colours) -- as opposed to those of the show ring (which is supposed to be colour neutral within the allowed colours, but isn't). It's some work to cater to what the puppy buyer market wants, cause it almost always requires AI and a lot of sorting through pedigrees and talking to people to make sure that health criteria are at least met, and preferably, exceeded. Being a good breeder is hard work and requires some skill. Nothing wrong for getting some return for hard work and skill, or having income adequate to pay off some of the costs.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. So I take it you haven't read about how people who were identified as members of a canine council were refused membership? Serious question. It is a bit hard to run for board if you aren't a member, and a bit hard to be a member if they exclude people from certain groups. No I haven't. Where is this documented? Has it happened in WA? (We're a long way from East, often in more ways than km. When I did my PhD, one of the geography profs was fond of saying propinquity is the first element of causation.). Was there more involved than 'members of a K9 council' involved? Was 'being member of K9 council given as a reason for exclusion from membership?

They don't have to supply "proof". Just letters from other groups who happen to agree with it/him (ie RSPCA/Hugh Wirth). Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness doesn't seem to have to apply when it comes to regulating/legislating. I agree with you regarding the more -vs - lesser support that the RSPCA gets from the joe public. But that shouldn't stop people from voicing their objections (not that you said it should). And this can be done in the form of : telling people of these factual stories (eg. this one; Ruth Downey; etc. etc.); giving donations to some other charity; letters (they accumulate, over time); engaging in the Christmas Card Challenge suggested by the MDBA with the notation "Concerned about the RSPCA powers" on them; voting with your feet; on the back of your voting slips, writing something similar (ie "Concerned about the RSPCA powers"). Keep letting them know you're not happy. After all, when you're in trouble, do you only cry out for help once and quit when no one responds? In WA I see the RSPCA as doing more good than harm. May be different in other states. I could well be wrong cause I don't see everything. In general, I think it's more powerful to take responsibility than to point fingers. All charities have internal politics and many are succeptible to being directed by people with extreme views. Where I grew up (California) there were problems with extreme Christians taking over the PTA (Parents and Teacher's Association) and pushing school prayer, preventing sex education, etc. I don't blame the Christians . . . I blame the non-extreme members for letting extrimists take over. The RSPCA has built up a well respected brand name. I think it's more effective to work to make the RSPCA respond to genuine cruelty than to bad mouth the organisation.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. Non-governmental organisations with strong opinions have a long history of taking control of relevant policing. Note certain Christian groups getting Harry Potter banned in school libraries and inserting their people as 'abortion councelors' . . . or homophobes in standard police units. It takes a lot of work and effective organisation to prevent this sort of thing.

I think the problem in the following statement is in the \'give us\' Give us a system where we FEEL we have the ability to be heard and defend ourselves and our animals and where we dont FEEL threatened and helpless against goliath. . . . . Policing seems to be the most difficult area of governance. If you have a stomach for cursing, I'd recommend viewing The Wire (rent the DVD's . . .HBO stuff), a cop show like no other, which deals with the problem of policing in terms of individuals, bureaucracy, education, and the full gamit of complexity. I see that you (Steve, MDBA, and friends) are working hard and effectively. But no one is going to give provide the dog world with a utopian system for encouraging good practice and cutting back on outright cruelty. It's hard, endless, work to improve the bloody system that has come down to us. Companion animal legislation is every bit as hard as dealing with race, sexual orientation, or drugs . . . and governance systems may be equally as f@$#'ed up. But our budgets are in the hundreds of millions instead of the multi-to-hundreds of billions scale. So it's hard to get attention. Personally, I don\'t think the RSPCA are the bad guys. Not sure 'bad guys' is the problem. It's the lack of a sensible framework for management of a complex problem.

If it's not teething or attention seeking / bored behaviour, you may have to do fencing, or replace the gravel with something less attractive to chew (eg concrete). In my experience, rock eating is hard to train out, and may lead to high vet bills.

Police have these powers, but that doesn't guarantee that they are willing to exercise the powers they have. I think it's in the 'too hard' basket for a lot of police, and they'd much rather shunt responsibility off to the RSPCA or . . . in our area . . . the Rangers. Domestic disputes and child welfare give many police enough headaches without taking on animal welfare.

I've been reading -- and doing the devil's advocate thing -- on some dominantly anti-RSPCA threads in the last weeks. It strikes me that breeders relate to the RSPCA like hippies did to cops in my youth. Back then, I was on the hippy side. We all said awful things about cops (ie, 'pigs') and tended to rude, crude anarchist condenation. Looking back over a few decades, I'd say there were some bad cops and some good cops . . . and some hippies who were doing bad things and deserved the hand of the law. I have a lot of problems with a lot of laws, but I've seen too much to think that anarchy would be a better solution. Good enforcement isn't easy to set up and maintain. The RSPCA has been put in the position (or taken on the role) of dog cops. Some segments of the RSPCA in some regions will take on the role vigorously and some think ill of pedigree dog breeders. Sometimes there will be harsh and unjust application of the law . . . in effect police brutality. Sometimes there will be lax enforcement, or outright corruption. But in my experience, some breeders are pretty cruel, and I think there need to be someone attempting to enforce minimum standards on the breeder community. No argument here, the same standards need to be applied to X-breeds and puppy mills as to registered breeders. I don't think the situation would be much different if it were left to Rangers or normal police agencies to implement animal cruelty laws. There has to be someone out there doing enforcement. The outcome will be a mixed bag.

Watch like a hawk. A friend of mine ended out with a mysterious and difficult to diagnose obstruction that nearly killed the dog (Labrador); it didn't show up on X-rays, and eventually went away without treatment (but a huge vet bill) . . . they think it was from eating a meat tray thingy.

I had a Lab end up looking like a Shar-pei after a bee sting. Antihistimines (human kind) work. But better to google 'antihistimine dog' or some such to get suggestions about dosage . . . or speak with a vet.

I bought a great scooter for $20 at swap meet. What I'd look for . . . the kind with a platform nearly as big as a skateboard, tires about the size of those on a kiddy bicycle, and BRAKES. Handlebars also need to be where you can reach them . . . but the big kind with brakes almost always have higher handlebars.

I have six Labs, including two pups. Haven't trained any of them to use the doggy door. They just figure it out. It's just a heavy blanket flap door, but high enough to challenge a young pup. They rise to the challenge and clamber over, following the bigger dogs. What takes a little more doing is teaching them to go through the door, as opposed to, say, the closet in the back bedroom, when they need to wee.

Patience. If she's 8 wks she's only been away from the litter for a couple days. Maybe 5:30 is when the puppys all woke up and got fed at the breeder's place. Very likely she is unused to being alone, and waking up and finding herself alone is upsetting.

Healthy puppy behaviour, I'd say. If you can't build an adequate fence, don't expect to have a pup and save your garden. You should be able to train 'out of the garden' or 'leave it' or some such when the pup is older, but pups are much harder to train, and harsh training methods tend to leave mental scars when applied to pups. [You could probably find a trainer who can teach your pup without damage, but expect many hours training, spread out over a few months . . . can be done, but requires skill and patience]. Appreciate the crazy puppy stage when you've got it. Mature dogs are both less trouble and less fun/crazy/cute.

I was badly bitten by an Irish Setter (required several stitches) . .. in the face . . . when I was four. No doubt I did something that offended a high strung animal, like pulling hair or whatever. I was accompanying my father, a doctor, on a housecall. Adults were present in the room, but paying no attention. No one did anything radical, other than patch up my face. So far as I know, the dog continued life as usual. It did me no long term damage. Dogs that act in a predatory manner toward children are very dangerous and, fortunately, very rare. Those who protect themselves against a child's unwanted attention . . . simply badly handled. If no big fuss is made, the child will handle without physical or mental scars. Hopefully, the adults will come through it a bit wiser. In my book, this is a SH*T Happens case. I love seeing dogs in shops . .. yes, accidents will happen. But I don't think it's reason to ban dogs in shops, or declare the dog in question DANGEROUS.

The cause of seizures can be difficult to diagnose, and many people go into denial re epilepsy, which is probably the most common cause. Also, there is great misunderstanding about manifestations of epilepsy. Not all epileptic seizures develop into the full terrifying grand mal type. The language for partial or atypical seizures is all over the place . .. . but at least in my breed (Labradors), partial/atypical light seizures are more common than the classic heavy duty kind. What were the seizures like? If Osca is epileptic, no amount of changing flea treatments will make the condition go away. I wouldn't go for expensive diagnoses . . . which are often inconclusive for epilepsy . . . and I would let things go for a few months on a treatment and then change to a chemically unrelated treatment before pointing the finger at the flea treatment.

To my knowledge, there is no test for epilepsy in ANY breed, least of all Labradors. The above quote is contradictory. The above isn't contradictory, it's nonsense and clearly a typo. 'There is are test'. ??? There is work in progress on K9 epilepsy. Here's a less technical article . . . that has been posted before on DOL http://www.bsdaofgb.co.uk/idiopathic_epilepsy.htm a paragraph from the above Towards a DNA test for carriers of epilepsy in the Tervueren Progress from now on should be quite rapid. Anita Oberbauer at Davis, University of California has now been awarded a new grant from the Canine Health Foundation to develop genetic markers for idiopathic epilepsy in the Tervueren. What does this actually mean? Although we know this major gene now exists, we don't know what it is, neither do we know where it is on one of those 38 different autosomes. Using the newly developed genetic map of the dog, Anita Oberbauer hopes to be able to localise the gene to one small region of one of those chromosomes. The genetic map of the dog is made up of a series of special DNA markers, each marker uniquely identifying just one region of one of the chromosomes. The map contains 100s of different markers ensuring that each chromosome is evenly decorated with DNA markers. What Oberbauer is trying to find out is which of these markers is always co-inherited with the mutant version of the gene. DNA regions that are always co-inherited are physically close to one another on a chromosome. Markers that are co-inherited with the mutant version of the gene are said to be linked to the gene. The identification of markers linked to the mutant gene will immediately locate the mutant gene to one small region of one of those 38 chromosomes