Rescue organizations keep puppy mills in business--open vent/rant

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8219735]
How do you know what type of breeder I supported? How do you know that my puppy didn’t come with a health guarantee?[/QUOTE]

Well, you bought the puppy from a broker that bathed, dewormed and vaccinated the puppy for the breeder…which makes it very hard for me to believe that the breeder conducted any heath testing on the parents. (Who can’t bathe their own puppies?)

You may have gotten a health guarantee but it probably wouldn’t be the kind of “guarantee” I would be talking about. (Actually, to be honest, there really are no guarantees, even in very well-bred animals. But many good breeders will take back, treat, and/or offer you a future puppy if your puppy ends up with a congenital defect.) A “guaranteed for 2 months” sort of deal is not what I mean.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=S1969;8219804]
Well, you bought the puppy from a broker that bathed, dewormed and vaccinated the puppy for the breeder…which makes it very hard for me to believe that the breeder conducted any heath testing on the parents. (Who can’t bathe their own puppies?)

You may have gotten a health guarantee but it probably wouldn’t be the kind of “guarantee” I would be talking about. (Actually, to be honest, there really are no guarantees, even in very well-bred animals. But many good breeders will take back, treat, and/or offer you a future puppy if your puppy ends up with a congenital defect.) A “guaranteed for 2 months” sort of deal is not what I mean.[/QUOTE]

Most vets won’t accept those “breeder” or “broker” vaccinations as legitimate either, without a vet record to assure they’ve actually been done. So the vaccines are repeated.

[Sswor]

And how do you know what sort of health guarantee I got, S1969? You are trying to make my puppy purchase fit the horrific stereotype you see in your head by inventing the details, and then getting outraged at me about it. That’s nuts.

[supaflyskye]

I really don’t see the problem w/ buying a mixed breed from a slightly less than responsible breeder as long as you are not a slightly less than responsible dog owner. JMO.
EDIT: as long as they are not BLATANTLY irresponsible.

[Sswor]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;8219845]
Most vets won’t accept those “breeder” or “broker” vaccinations as legitimate either, without a vet record to assure they’ve actually been done. So the vaccines are repeated.[/QUOTE]

Do you think most vets would repeat the puppy’s vacc if the new owner witnessed it’s administration?

[rugbygirl]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;8219845]
Most vets won’t accept those “breeder” or “broker” vaccinations as legitimate either, without a vet record to assure they’ve actually been done. So the vaccines are repeated.[/QUOTE]

Not IME. Even kennels and obedience/puppy schools had no problems accepting my vaccines, all I needed was the little sticker from the bottle. We do our own (besides rabies, the vet has to do that one here) and no one had any issue with the vaccines the breeder did either. They wanted to know what product was used, that was all.

My vet had better accept previous vaccinations, repeating them for the heck of it sounds like a cash grab tactic. It is SUPER common here for people in the country to administer their own vaccines, and that includes breeders of almost every stripe.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8219883]
Do you think most vets would repeat the puppy’s vacc if the new owner witnessed it’s administration?[/QUOTE]

I doubt it, but I would have to ask to be sure. They have no idea if the vaccines had the proper handling to assure they were effective. Just my experience. I guess the do it yourselfers choose other vets than the ones I use.

[rugbygirl]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;8219962]
Not my vet here or the vets I used in MD. They have no idea if the vaccines had the proper handling to assure they were effective. Just my experience. I guess the do it yourselfers choose other vets than the ones I use.[/QUOTE]

Yep. We use those awful backstreet vets you hear about on the news. Because administering vaccines properly is incredibly difficult and requires years of training. The average, university educated pet owning adult could never be trusted to read and follow some basic GD directions, so there’s a big conspiracy of crummy vets out there that we have to use in order to keep doing this.

Brother.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=rugbygirl;8219974]
Yep. We use those awful backstreet vets you hear about on the news. Because administering vaccines properly is incredibly difficult and requires years of training. The average, university educated pet owning adult could never be trusted to read and follow some basic GD directions, so there’s a big conspiracy of crummy vets out there that we have to use in order to keep doing this.

Brother.[/QUOTE]

No, that’s not it at all. If you have your pet vaccinated by the vet, you’re pretty assured the vaccine has had proper handling…something you’re not sure of if you buy it from a farm supply store or over the internet. That’s all.

"Owners Giving Vaccines
Controversial subject? We’ll see.

Most vets don’t recognize vaccines given by breeders or owners and most boarding facilities I know of also will only accept vet-given immunizations. This can cause some disgruntled people as they have to get vaccines done again through a vet if they want to board or groom their pet. Some vets may also not allow unvaccinated pets to stay in the hospital for simple things like spays and neuters without proper vaccinations. I’ve known a lot of owners and breeders who have gotten upset in circumstances like this and I’ve had to try and explain it to them. There really are very valid reasons, and it’s not about the vets trying to squeeze more money out of people.

I will be the first to admit that giving a vaccine isn’t rocket science and I can train someone to give injections just as well as I can. It’s also common for most people with horses, cows, goats, and other livestock to give their own vaccinations rather than going through a vet. In most states of the US the rabies vaccine must by law be given by a vet, but other vaccines are not legally mandated. So yes, legally an owner can give their own vaccines (other than rabies) without breaking the law. You can easily purchase distemper and parvo vaccines at feed stores or online, so they are available to clients.

With this in mind, what is the problem with owners giving vaccines? Why bring it up now?

Yesterday I had an 11 month old Yorkshire terrier come in and within an hour die from parvo virus infection. A few days prior to that a littermate died at home from parvo. We managed to treat and save one of the dogs in the litter. This is a good bit older than most dogs are when they succumb to parvo. And the owner was the one giving the vaccines. In fact, the only adult dogs I’ve seen who have come down with parvo had their vaccines given by the owner.

If vaccines are so available and so easy to give, why are breeder- and owner-given vaccines not effective? Usually it comes down to inappropriate administration. Vaccines must be started at a certain age and boostered at proper intervals in order to stimulate long-term immunity. Vaccines must also be mixed properly and stored at the proper temperature in order to be effective. Mix them wrong, store them for too long at too high of a temperature, or otherwise mishandle them and the vaccine will not work. Also, not all vaccines are equally effective, and owners usually don’t have the information available to make those decisions between manufacturers.

I routinely see breeders starting vaccines at four or five weeks old, when the minimum age should be six weeks (this is due to proper immunology). I have seen pet stores giving vaccines weekly, when a duration shorter than two weeks doesn’t do anything to booster immunity. I’ve had clients who give one vaccine and think the pet is protected. One time I had a client bring in the bottles of the vaccine given by the breeder, where the breeder had used the diluent liquid and the dry powder from two different company’s vaccines. Anyone who is in the veterinary field knows exactly what I’m talking about. For anyone who hasn’t worked in veterinary medicine, please believe me that these sorts of things happen much more commonly than you realize.

When we see a vaccine record from a breeder or an owner, we honestly have little to no idea if the vaccines were administered and handled properly. Many of them might be, and I’ve known breeders who give the same vaccines I use and do so in a very medically appropriate way. But based on some paper or labels we have no idea whether or not that is the case. It is in the best interest of the pet and ensures the best health for a veterinarian to be the one to give the vaccines. Can vets mess things up? Sure, we’re only human and as prone to failings and lies as much as the next person. But you are much less likely to have improper vaccination through a vet than through an owner. Vets simply have more knowledge and training than the huge majority of pet owners and breeders, as well as have their licenses and careers on the line when it comes to medicine and record-keeping.

I know that money is tight for people, and many give vaccines to help their budget. But you are potentially leaving your pet open to infection, as well as preventing them from getting full exams to look for other issues. It’s simply in your pet’s best interests to let a veterinary medical professional be the one to do vaccinations. Chris Bern, DVM"

http://avetsguidetolife.blogspot.com/2012/01/owners-giving-vaccines.html

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8219866]
And how do you know what sort of health guarantee I got, S1969? You are trying to make my puppy purchase fit the horrific stereotype you see in your head by inventing the details, and then getting outraged at me about it. That’s nuts.[/QUOTE]

Everything you have described about your breeder, broker, and puppy suggests that you will not have a health guarantee. But maybe you do. It doesn’t really change anything in my opinion, though, because without pre-breeding health testing a guarantee is meaningless anyway. I’m sure most puppy mills would give you another puppy if this one died. That isn’t exactly any guarantee of health.

I’m not outraged. I have an opinion, and I believe strongly in it. I don’t think your breeder would meet my definition of “good breeder” but it is true that I don’t know for sure. The use of a broker, however, is pretty good indication.

[Marshfield]

[QUOTE=supaflyskye;8219868]
I really don’t see the problem w/ buying a mixed breed from a slightly less than responsible breeder as long as you are not a slightly less than responsible dog owner. JMO.
EDIT: as long as they are not BLATANTLY irresponsible.[/QUOTE]

Lack of health testing of the parents is blatantly irresponsible, though

[Sswor]

Yawn. You guys really need to reevaluate your indignation. I am giving a puppy that I bought a responsible, loving, educated, forever home. Why don’t you guys go tar and feather the people who abuse and/or neglect their dogs rather then me. Seriously, your energy is wasted here. If you care so much about the plight of the world’s dogs, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Go worry about a dog who isn’t being loved and nurtured and cared for and stop trying to paint me as the villain in your fantasies. Jiminey Christmas.

[Sswor]

@S1969;8219994

I’m sure most puppy mills would give you another puppy if this one died. That isn’t exactly any guarantee of health.

What exactly do you think your perfect world breeder is going to do to “guarantee” a live animal’s health?

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8220228]
What exactly do you think your perfect world breeder is going to do to “guarantee” a live animal’s health?[/QUOTE]

I’ve already said that there is nothing you can do to “guarantee” health - but making sure your breeding pair doesn’t have congenital defects like hip dysplasia, eye disorders or a heart defect is a big step in the right direction, especially when congenital defects are known to be often present in a breed.

And you can test for these 3 defects for probably less than $500/dog. So…what reason is there not to?

A breeder that doesn’t test for known defects doesn’t care if your puppy has crippling hip dysplasia or goes blind.

[Arizona_DQ]

[QUOTE=Countrywood;8216087]
IF breeding was controlled, people could buy puppies no problem because ALL breeders would be (forced) to be responsible…such as limit the number of litters to keep pace with demand, provide good care for the breeding animals etc.
QUOTE]

That is about the dumbest thing I have yet to read on this thread! The last thing we need is somebody telling us what is best for our dogs or our breeding program! There are plenty of laws already on the books covering high volume breeders, we sure as heck do not need MORE LAWS written by people who are clueless about genetics, and animal welfare. Look at some of the proposed legislature on dog breeding! Written by animal rights people who do not know anything about animal husbandry!!! Heck, look at the idiots who are trying to shut down the carriage horse trade!!! They are just as clueless!!

I am always amazed at some of the ignorant comments made on this horse forum !!! (I am not apologizing for my rant… I usually keep quiet, but have had enough…)

[Countrywood]

Where did I say anything about genetics or what dogs are the best to breed to? I wrote about limiting the number of litters and providing good care by breeders of their animals. Read what you quoted from me, I did not mention anything about laws deciding which animals to breed or genetics.

speaking of dumb, you assumed something I did not even write. What is it about this tread that is making people so snippy? I am getting that way myself lol

[Sswor]

[QUOTE=S1969;8220312]
I’ve already said that there is nothing you can do to “guarantee” health - but making sure your breeding pair doesn’t have congenital defects like hip dysplasia, eye disorders or a heart defect is a big step in the right direction, especially when congenital defects are known to be often present in a breed.

And you can test for these 3 defects for probably less than $500/dog. So…what reason is there not to?

A breeder that doesn’t test for known defects doesn’t care if your puppy has crippling hip dysplasia or goes blind.[/QUOTE]

Or is Amish and doesn’t know. Or doesn’t have access to a vet that can perform the required testing. Or doesn’t agree with you that it is necessary/worth it. Or the puppy was an accident. There’s room in the real world for all sorts of other explanations besides yours.

Are you not in the least bit happy that this puppy, from such a high risk situation, now has a fantastic home and is at least one less dog out there that will darken your rescuing doorstep in the future?

[Arizona_DQ]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;8219993]
No, that’s not it at all. If you have your pet vaccinated by the vet, you’re pretty assured the vaccine has had proper handling…something you’re not sure of if you buy it from a farm supply store or over the internet. That’s all.

"Owners Giving Vaccines
Controversial subject? We’ll see.

Most vets don’t recognize vaccines given by breeders or owners and most boarding facilities I know of also will only accept vet-given immunizations. This can cause some disgruntled people as they have to get vaccines done again through a vet if they want to board or groom their pet. Some vets may also not allow unvaccinated pets to stay in the hospital for simple things like spays and neuters without proper vaccinations. I’ve known a lot of owners and breeders who have gotten upset in circumstances like this and I’ve had to try and explain it to them. There really are very valid reasons, and it’s not about the vets trying to squeeze more money out of people.

I will be the first to admit that giving a vaccine isn’t rocket science and I can train someone to give injections just as well as I can. It’s also common for most people with horses, cows, goats, and other livestock to give their own vaccinations rather than going through a vet. In most states of the US the rabies vaccine must by law be given by a vet, but other vaccines are not legally mandated. So yes, legally an owner can give their own vaccines (other than rabies) without breaking the law. You can easily purchase distemper and parvo vaccines at feed stores or online, so they are available to clients.

With this in mind, what is the problem with owners giving vaccines? Why bring it up now?

Yesterday I had an 11 month old Yorkshire terrier come in and within an hour die from parvo virus infection. A few days prior to that a littermate died at home from parvo. We managed to treat and save one of the dogs in the litter. This is a good bit older than most dogs are when they succumb to parvo. And the owner was the one giving the vaccines. In fact, the only adult dogs I’ve seen who have come down with parvo had their vaccines given by the owner.

If vaccines are so available and so easy to give, why are breeder- and owner-given vaccines not effective? Usually it comes down to inappropriate administration. Vaccines must be started at a certain age and boostered at proper intervals in order to stimulate long-term immunity. Vaccines must also be mixed properly and stored at the proper temperature in order to be effective. Mix them wrong, store them for too long at too high of a temperature, or otherwise mishandle them and the vaccine will not work. Also, not all vaccines are equally effective, and owners usually don’t have the information available to make those decisions between manufacturers.

I routinely see breeders starting vaccines at four or five weeks old, when the minimum age should be six weeks (this is due to proper immunology). I have seen pet stores giving vaccines weekly, when a duration shorter than two weeks doesn’t do anything to booster immunity. I’ve had clients who give one vaccine and think the pet is protected. One time I had a client bring in the bottles of the vaccine given by the breeder, where the breeder had used the diluent liquid and the dry powder from two different company’s vaccines. Anyone who is in the veterinary field knows exactly what I’m talking about. For anyone who hasn’t worked in veterinary medicine, please believe me that these sorts of things happen much more commonly than you realize.

When we see a vaccine record from a breeder or an owner, we honestly have little to no idea if the vaccines were administered and handled properly. Many of them might be, and I’ve known breeders who give the same vaccines I use and do so in a very medically appropriate way. But based on some paper or labels we have no idea whether or not that is the case. It is in the best interest of the pet and ensures the best health for a veterinarian to be the one to give the vaccines. Can vets mess things up? Sure, we’re only human and as prone to failings and lies as much as the next person. But you are much less likely to have improper vaccination through a vet than through an owner. Vets simply have more knowledge and training than the huge majority of pet owners and breeders, as well as have their licenses and careers on the line when it comes to medicine and record-keeping.

I know that money is tight for people, and many give vaccines to help their budget. But you are potentially leaving your pet open to infection, as well as preventing them from getting full exams to look for other issues. It’s simply in your pet’s best interests to let a veterinary medical professional be the one to do vaccinations. Chris Bern, DVM"

http://avetsguidetolife.blogspot.com/2012/01/owners-giving-vaccines.html[/QUOTE]

Oh good grief! This sounds like one of the many vets who have been brainwashed to think ALL breeders are bad! First of all, a good breeder will establish a good working and professional relationship with their vet…I have worked with my vet for over 10 years. She and I discuss the vaccine protocols and also other health issues both general and breed specific to my dogs. She has always taken my word on my vaccination schedule (which follows the AVMA protocol).
We also have a local vet who would NOT take my records of my shots and wanted to revaccinate my dog! I left to never return and made sure my other dog people knew about this! A good vet will work with a breeder, not trash them unless warranted…

[MsM]

The problem is that you have “proved” to the breeder that breeding dogs in this “high risk situation” is profitable. And worth doing again. And again.

I am not a snob about dog breeders. My purebred’s parents were not show ring champions. But the breeder did do the health testing! (And some performance) And even those purposely breeding crossbreds have the responsibility to do what they can to ensure healthy, predictable puppies. Not dogs much more likely to suffer or even die from congenital issues. Some of us object putting money into the pockets of those whose actions show they are indifferent to the dogs’ fates

[Arizona_DQ]

[QUOTE=Countrywood;8220381]
Where did I say anything about genetics or what dogs are the best to breed to? I wrote about limiting the number of litters and providing good care by breeders of their animals. Read what you quoted from me, I did not mention anything about laws deciding which animals to breed or genetics.

speaking of dumb, you assumed something I did not even write. What is it about this tread that is making people so snippy? I am getting that way myself lol[/QUOTE]

Because you are pushing for limited breeding… Who will make that determination? Who is to say I can only breed two litters per year or four litters per year? They would be the same people who today are trying to get laws passed telling breeders where the puppies should be raised, how much exercise they need and how to socialize them!!! ALL of this is interelated… ANY law that would limit dog breeding will be determined by what expert???

Before pushing for breeding limits you need to educate yourself on what is going on nation wide with respect to current dog legislation.