kudzu

Yep, we've had some here. Little mixed breed foster dog, my Staghound & a couple others. Usually sort of an opportunistic infection. Most often it is easily cleared up however, it frequently recurs if you do not find & treat the root problem. Sometimes though it just shows up with no clear reason. Pam gave good advice. We usually tackle it with Malaseb & oral anti-b's.

My first MiniMite lasted 10 years before the battery finally got to the point of only working for a one dog trim. I bought a one up the line from that & now wish I had gone back to the MiniMite. It runs at the right speed, is small, & rather quiet. While this doesn't matter with Greys, my other joy with the MiniMite applies to long haired dogs. It isn't too powerful. If you make the mistake of getting long hair caught in it it stops turning. Um... not that I would ever do that. Nah, not me. Dremeling is the only way for me.

First, if you purchase one that can also shock do not use it as a shock collar even once & be careful to disable the metal prongs so a shock cannot happen accidentally. Now, if you are referring to using a tone/vibration only collar or one that has had the shock portion disabled, then yes I have considered it for my senior who is getting deafer with each passing month. The idea would be as another poster mentioned, to teach the dog to turn to look for me when he feels the vibration though in our case I want him to do a recall not just turn. For a dog with good hearing it is possible it would help with recall if a Grey was say up wind from you & your voice would not carry to them though few of us have safe off-leash areas that are large enough for that. Or if you have a dog that is more sensitive to touch rather than sound. My Staghound is like that. Am looking at my younger Grey girl & thinking of how she would run herself into the ground on a lure coursing field even with an injury & must conclude that a tone or vibration is unlikely to deter her from her prey if she were in chase mode no matter how heavily reinforced a recall on tone or vibration was. I would never use a shock collar on my dogs and in the case of my girl, she is definitely one of the ones likely to take off at a blind run out of fear & not pay heed to any dangers in her path. For the cost of the experiment, I think the suggestions for whistle training are the best. Also, the predator calls are very helpful as another poster suggested. If you try this, let us know how it turns out.

In a word, yes. Hope things improve quickly.

This isn't normal, not in my experience, what I have heard from others nor what I've read. Could be her reaction to nausea as Batmom says. Also, the human references sometimes list dry mouth as a side effect. Could be possible for dogs, also. Would mention it to the vet if it continues. My girl lost her appetite but otherwise was fine. My male should no adverse reactions at all.

Schedule? What's that? Never used one.

If this is just a routine vet visit or new dog wellness check then personally I would just go with the Snap 4. If you wanted to get a baseline for possible TBD treatment in the future then it doesn't hurt to run the Protatek tests but know that the results may end up initially confusing you more than helping you. Well, that is if you are blood work numbers obsessed as I am. I think ehrlichia may be an exception here. Would you not want to treat for a positive ehrlichia from the tick panel even if it had been negative on the Snap4? Not sure about anaplasma but the Lyme & babesia I do agree on. Also, aren't the current Snap3 & Snap4 tests sensitive enough that they do not show false positive for dogs who had a Lyme vaccine? Or perhaps I should say, isn't that the manufacturers claim? Testing for & treatment of TBDs in an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic dog is not straightforward. Here is my limited experience in my usual long winded way. Both my Greys were negative on the Snap tests, Snap3 for the first dog when Snap4 wasn't out yet & Snap4 for the second. For both, we later sent out for tick panels & in both cases I chose to treat with doxy. We had sent out for the tick panel because they were symptomatic, though in different ways. For my girl, Lyme was the only positive result & it was equivocal. My boy came back similar for Lyme though slightly lower. Babesia was not included in his. Cannot remember why but likely because it wasn't sent to Protatek because of his different circumstances. We ran it later, allowing the vet to send to their usual source. The results though did come back from Protatek. Treatment turned out to be the correct choice for my girl's equivocal Lyme results. Her symptoms resolved & she was like a new dog. Because her symptoms were vague, she was a new adoption with no medical history from racing & I had never had Greys before I really had no idea whether she was "normal" or not. (I adopted my boy a year after her.) Her bloodwork was normal. It was her symptoms, mild, lameness in a wrist that later seemed to shift to the other leg, that caused us to test further. The surprise was the change in her attitude, energy & activity level after treatment. Clearly there had been more going on than we realized. For my boy's positive babesia results I thought long & hard before choosing treatment. His bloodwork, still out of wack after Lyme treatment, was the biggest reason we ran the panel. His other symptoms were vague & would have been presumed to be from age without the messed up bloodwork. The symptoms did not improve with doxy. The reason it was a hard choice is that his CBC & blood chem was not pointing clearly to babesia. There were other possibilities more likely possibilities. A couple were easy rule outs though & the last at that time required a bone marrow sample, a test I was not willing to subject him to. We did treat him with imidocarb. He handled it quite well except for the pain of the actual injection. He breezed through treatment. In the end, we found he has a form of leukemia, CLL. (That's a whole other long, vet med story.) I do not regret treating for both Lyme then babesia. We, the vet & I, made the best decisions we could with the info we had at the time. Hopefully we will never know if treating for babesia was correct or not. It may have been considering his CLL status. If my girl had tested positive for babesia I would have waited until after treating for Lyme to see how/if she improved before considering treating for babesia. Will add that there are different babesia tests. They can look for the parasite in a blood smear. I doubt anyone would choose this test if the dog were asymptomatic. There is little chance of false positive. Testing negative on the blood smear doesn't rule out babesiosis though. At the same time testing positive on a Protatek panel for the antibodies doesn't prove babesiosis either since their test looks for antibodies not the actual parasite. Treating for babesia does not guaranty anything. As I understand it, it isn't like you treat & it is gone from the dog completely for life even without reinfection. If the dog is not currently sick, most vets would not encourage & may flat out refuse to treat. Treatment is expensive, painful for the dog especially if extra care is not taken & can be risky. Won't go into my dad's story of HGE except to say it blessedly had a happy ending & treatment was similar to canine ehrlichia. Ditto on my BFs Lyme disease & my critter sitters RMSF. Thank heavens we have yet to deal with anaplasmosis. Rest assured, we do not take TBDs lightly around here yet we do not rush to treat just because of positive antibodies.

Ditto!

You didn't over react. It is a disturbing thing that should not happen. However, it is highly unlikely Miles associated not being let on the couch with having growled at you earlier. It is also not likely showing a leadership role for one day will have much effect. Guess it depends on the dog & the person. It didn't hurt though. And trying to think of this from Miles perspective for him it could be more like, "I tried to warn her to leave my bullystick alone. Not only did she not leave it alone, she stole it & wouldn't give it back. Next time I better up the ante if I want to keep my bully stick." Do you practice trading up with Miles? If not, you may want to so he knows that he has no need to defend his stuff from you.

Meloxicam (Metacam) is a $4 generic at Walmart & Kroger, likely other places as well. Tramadol is a $4 generic also. And so is gabapentin, used for nerve pain from LS. As a result Luke's triple combo is just $12/mo. Meloxicam is a good drug. In the trials it had less adverse reactions as far as kidney & liver over the older NSAIDs like Rimadyl & Deramaxx, though it has a lower GI tolerance level. Despite that we have had several dogs on it over the years without GI issues. It is worth a try.

Forgot to add that though it healed well, without complications, it did not heal back together. It healed looking like those toes had never been "webbed" together. Ditto on the epsom salts soaks, thorough drying, & baby socks. Also, protecting this injury is how I found out about PAWZ. They are so easy & effective. When possible I left her foot uncovered in the house but when we were not there I taped a sock onto it.

My girl did this. I chose not to have it stitched. It healed well, without infection. I will stress that it took a LONG time to heal. Think weeks of on-leash walking only. No running, no jumping, no acting the fool. It was a PITA but she had never had another problem with her. As for whether you need to head to the vet or not, I will lean to the side of caution and say that you should. However, we did at home only care for my girl. Am quick to cart mine to the vet for many things but this time I felt confident.

I most definitely was not implying you would. Was just saying that you or any owner/trainer can use whatever terms you want as long as the dogs are treated appropriately. Your posts give every indication that you are & then some. -- I really hate to write something so long but I am not good at being succinct. And besides... You asked for it. Just know in advance that I am not trying to argue with you about this. The basic premise of the articles are that dogs need structure & training to live a happy, safe life in our homes. I don't think anyone would argue with that. I just believe we have better articles to point people to. The original poster asked "What do you think of these articles?" and "Are they *too* out-of-date?" So I gave my point of view. Just to be clear. The "above words" you quote are from "The Importance of Being Alpha" article. My quote that you use was directed at the "Alpha Boot Camp" article. Since you are asking about specific items from the Being Alpha article I will say again, the article needs a rewrite. It is outdated & the terms & descriptions could head people off on a search for more "Alpha" & "Dominance" related articles that can lead to serious problems. As written it still has the old, your dog is going to take over the house if you let them. IME, most dogs won't but they do need structure & training. This article recommends methods that should be gentle but does have info that can be easily misinterpreted leading to an approach that produces fear & intimidation without someone intentionally doing so. If you are having no problems with the dog but it is just a new hound learning about life outside the racing kennels then basic training is what is needed. This would include training to keep the hound safe, like responding to his name, not bolting out of doors but instead waiting at doorways until released, recall training, stay, plus manners like waiting to be released to eat or waiting for an invitation before getting on the sofa & learning to leave the sofa when asked. Some of what I consider basic training is part of the article. These are just the basics of life & in the process the human is controlling the resources so you've got leadership built in. For most of the dogs those Never this & Always that are not needed. As for the need to implement a regimented NILF program, it depends on the dog, the humans & the situation. Are we going on the assumption someone is already having problems with a dog like resource guarding or some such? Then implementing NILF is a great approach. In that case though, I would bypass the two articles that are the subject of this thread & instead point someone to something like "Leading the Dance" from Sue Ailsby's "Training Levels" site. It's NILF but I far prefer the way this is written. Sue's site with the Training Levels system is a fantastic train at home program that I would recommend to anyone. "Leading the Dance" is available on Shirley Chong's wonderful site which I also recommend. But you seemed to ask for specifics so here they are. The first paragraph of your quote is attributed to Job Michael Evans & there are a couple things I have a problem with. 1) You do not always need to be the first through a doorway. I do want dogs to wait at doorways that lead outside but often it matters not who goes through first. I am the one controlling the door. I train the dogs to wait until I release them. I do it without corrections, speaking or any intentional body language. They learn if they don't wait the door closes. My door, my choice on when, who & in what order folks go in & out. 2) Why use the growly voice? It looks like it is intended as a human trying to talk dog. We don't speak dog well & often do not understand the dogs motives or emotional state at the time. (If the target audience of this article could read canine body language & communicate well in canine speak then they wouldn't need this article.) So the growly voice is a correction & I do not like correcting dogs for communicating. It takes away one of their avenues of communicating with us. The growly voice is our imitation of a canine threat. Why would you want to threaten violence on a dog you are worried may become violent. 3) Some of the Alpha body language can be very intimidating to some dogs & antagonizing to others. Body language speaks volumes to dogs. That is unfortunately how some dogs are scared into biting when someone leans over them. The second paragraph is attributed to Terry Ryan. I wonder if it is a direct quote or paraphrasing. It needs rephrasing & elaboration. My problem here is 1) The "dog moves out of the way instead of stepping over him" statement needs to be rephrased to walking around the dog. If we are talking dominance, which I am regretfully doing, stepping over the dog would be a dominant action. So you are being more assertive by stepping over the dog. Giving up leadership would be walking around the dog. Now I am not advising stepping over the dog. That's an accident waiting to happen. It could be very intimidating to the dog provoking a bad response. Also for someone as short as me living with tall dogs you could end up riding your own dog. So, yeah, get the dog to move but understand how & why because otherwise you could frighten, intimidate or provoke an unfortunate response from the dog. 2) Without more elaboration this part could indeed be dangerous, "Practice dominance interaction with your dog regularly including gentle handling, belly rubs, and muzzle control." Those needing this article likely are not able to read dog body language well. Some dogs in need of NILF are not going to take kindly to someone rolling them over for a belly rub, even if done gently. And you know some poor soul is going to try to do just that. Say the dog has already threatened to bite when someone has reached for the face, do you want to give people the impression that they must handle that muzzle daily? These are some reasons I think the article needs a rewrite. If you really want me to address the reason for my statement you quoted in reference to the second article I will but my bet is you are by now sick of hearing from me on this subject. She was specifically quoted in one of the articles which is the subject of this thread. At least you can catch yours. Even after editing, mine will still be full of errors.

Look very carefully over the entire paw for a puncture wound. They can close up quickly or just be small enough & in odd enough places that you may miss them even if you've looked a time or two. The concern would be an infection.

I think part of our concern is using the A word, "Alpha". Over the years it has built up an association with the dominance based end of the training spectrum. Dominance theory, where the dog is supposedly so desperate for leadership that if you let your guard down the dog with feel the need to step in & take over, has been debunked. Plus, the methods suggested to maintain or reclaim your Alpha status were not only sometimes inappropriate or even dangerous but also far less effective than other reward based methods. Dominance theory, which many associate with being alpha has confused, frightened & frustrated many dogs. It can & does tip both timid & assertive dog into aggression at times. These days it only takes once to cost a dog it's life or at the least it's home. The articles listed appear to be older. Patricia Gail Burnham in particular was, I think, one of the pioneers in reward based training. Though some of her methods would not be considered "positive" by today's standards they seemed revolutionary to many at the time she wrote about play training. Much of her approach is as valid today as it was then. The reasons why they worked may be different than the old Alpha theory though. Meaning no offense to Ms. Burnham, I think the article is in need of a rewrite. Same is true of The Alpha Boot Camp article plus it contains some ideas I think have absolutely been debunked & some things I find inaccurate & even counterproductive. This is not to say it doesn't have good ideas but I would not be pointing people to it. There are much better articles out there that do not include the inaccurate & less than effective sections that could really derail success. If you can keep yourself & your hounds happy, safe & healthy by using methods that are not painful, intimidating or fear based then I do not care if you use the terms Alpha, pack order or even cumquat theory. Dogs do not care about semantics. They care about actions. It's just that I am not going to send people off with the idea they they should learn more about "being alpha" & "pack order" because the terms are so often used with methods that set people & dogs up for failure & frustration. And I think there are now better articles than those that are the subject of this thread that do a better job of heading people down a path that leads to success with a lot better fun:frustration ratio.

Yes, absolutely. Recall training is done with every dog I have & it continues throughout their lifetime. My training ability is far from stellar & my level of success varies with the dog but I continue this training with every dog I have, always striving for improvement. Is this because I let them off leash in unfenced areas? No. I do this because sh!t happens. It matters not whether you faithfully observe the "on leash or in a secured area" rule 100% of the time. We cannot control every variable. Are you perfect? I most certainly am not. I realize that despite my best efforts sometime, somewhere, something will happen & I will have a loose hound if only for a few seconds. At this point, a reliable recall can prevent disaster. Even if you only have reliable recall within 6-8 feet of you, meaning the distance of the average leash plus your arm's length, you could save your dog's life if the leash is dropped, pulled for your hand or the clasp fails. And that short recall training could translate to a longer distance recall for that one time when the unthinkable happens. Every dog regardless of breed, age, health status or living conditions needs to learn a recall. If you teach your dog nothing, please teach them recall. Their lives could depend on it. Though of course the ultimate goal is near 100% reliabilty, do not worry about whether you think you can achieve that. A 50% reliable recall has the potential to get your dog back 1 out of 2 times. That is huge compared to no recall at all. Just get started on training & work on continued improvement over time. Don't have a big area? Don't worry about that either. Multiple short distance recalls, even just 1-2 feet away, repeated several times a day over the course of weeks adds up to a conditioned response that will amaze you. Trust me on this. Haven't convinced you yet? Well, just give it a try. You've nothing to loose but a few treats down a happy hound's gullet. Though a reliable recall is seriously needed, the training is fun & rewarding for both hound & human. Here are a few sites to get your started: Kathy Sdao's Reliable recall articles: First steps http://www.kathysdao.com/articles/The_First_Steps_to_Teaching_a_Reliable_Recall.html More advanced http://www.kathysdao.com/articles/More_on_the_Reliable_Recall.html (My most recent trainer said this is the method, both articles, she has had the most success with.) Here is one trainer's short cut version of Pam Dennison's "Really Reliable Recall" http://dogdaysusa.com/comeherenow.html (Initially I even used a short cut of this short cut & got a rather decent recall but went back & did the original short cut version to solidify things. Never did Pam's full version. Just not that disciplined.) Here is an article from Pam Dennison herself http://www.positivedogs.com/articles/fido_come_home.html Here is Shirly Chong's "Recall Redux", part of her "Shirley's Six Lessons" http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/Lesson6.html Happy recalling!! And stay safe out there.

Next time, missy. Consider yourself warned.

So on a whim I just took a pic of my girl's nails. These are as long as they get for her. Shorter would be better IMO but I am not that disciplined. Just wanted to give an example of my own dog:

Never seen a nail bed infection before but that would be my first guess from looking at the picture. Hopefully the treatment will get things back to normal quickly. Glad it doesn't seem to be bothering Haka.

My preference is for short nails. You should not hear your dog's nails click. These are better than many but still too long. (Not my dog, btw, but similar to my senior's nails.) No. It seems that approach can contribute to a greater likelyhood of injury. Per Dr. Gillette at Auburn University: "On soft surfaces the paw spreads out allowing the webbing to help provide traction.The negative side of long nails far outweighs any potential benefit. The longer nail acts like a fulcrum, which increases detrimental forces placed upon the bone and ligamentous structures of the paw (Figure 3). Longer nails predispose the digits to fractures, dislocations and nail injuries." He was the evening speaker at the 2008 ASFA Greyhound Specialty. This subject actually came up. He basically dismissed the idea of using a dogs nails as cleats for traction. Humans may use cleats successfully but the shoes are not permanently affixed to our feet. They can slip & come off. Dogs do not have this ability. Instead of the shoes giving, it is the tissues in the dog's toes, feet, legs that must give. Not good. - Edited because I think faster than I can type. -

We have only done 3-year here for the last decade. Vet says it is the same vaccine just labeled differently. The pup got a 1 year vacc. & will get her 3 yr next time. All the adult dogs get 3 yr with no problems at all. Neither of our two Greys have had a problem & one was 10 yo when he got it.

Just wanted to say thanks for the replies. I can see no evidence of lenticular (or is it nuclear?) sclerosis in Venus' eyes. My 13 yo does have that. It is normal for the oldies but goodies. That would not appear to be the case for Venus. The appt with the vet ophthalmologist is later this month so we will see then. It's my idea, not the vet's. Venus is with me a lot & in a huge variety of circumstances. It is important to know if her vision is still good. May be overkill, hopefully so, but I would rather be safe than sorry. ckruzan - Thanks for all the info & the pics. That is very interesting. I for sure would not have looked at that & thought "thyroid". Must admit that I catch a glimpse of something on the edge of Venus right eye but it is hard to tell. Probably nothing but my imagination. Good wishes for Carl.

Venus had her annual appointment recently. We included thyroid testing because she has had some changes that could indicate hypothyroid. (Or premature aging or who knows what) I stated that she seemed to be looking older. (The dog not the vet.) Added that others were noticing it & also she seems more sedentary, astounding for a dog who already slept 16+ hours a day. During exam vet commented, "Her lens are getting cloudy." I asked if it was effecting her vision. Vet said, "Well, they are cloudy," then a hmmmm then a "Yes, I think we need to test thyroid." She proceeded to point out a few of the things I was going to mention. Venus' coat is thinning on the inside of her thighs, down her back legs & down her tail. Her skin is flaky though her coat still shines. She's gained 2 lbs & lost muscle, etc., etc. So the thyroid came back low, though not very low for a Greyhound. Still considering she appears symptomatic we started her on Soloxine. (Same vet looked at my other Grey's thyroid panel with lower T4 & proclaimed him normal since he wasn't symptomatic so I have some trust in her opinion on this.) So anyway, I am scheduling an appt with a vet ophthalmologist but am wondering if the hypothyroid could be related to the clouding of the lenses. I do not notice this & no one else has commented. Only the vet sees it. This is not that bluish tint old dogs can get & it doesn't look cataract-ish to me. Vet did not speculate on cause. Felt it beared watching. Later I realized I had not asked the vet if she thought this was the beginning of cataracts but I think she would have stated that specifically if she thought so. I know in humans hypothyroid is sometimes connected to cataracts. Is it the same with dogs? Any other connection?

Ditto.

He will get through the dental splendidly & the limp will fade to nothing, because it is basically nothing. I insist it be so. Sending positive thoughts for your boy.