Time 4 Dogs Blog

Do Pet Store Dogs Fill Shelters?

I've long suspected that people who pay a pretty penny for their pet are not likely to allow it to end up in an animal shelter. And, it turns out, there is a study that confirms this theory. A Las Vegas shelter collects data on their intakes. Here is an excerpt from an article written on the subject:

'Officials should focus on finding the origin of the animals that rescue groups, shelters and animal control agencies come in contact with, said Harold Vosko, co-founder of Las Vegas-based Heaven Can Wait Animal Sanctuary. Without accurate information on the source of the crisis, addressing it is impossible, he said.'

'Statistics collected over the past two years at Heaven Can Wait showed more than 85 percent of the animals came from a neighbor or friend’s litter, Vosko said. Fewer than 5 percent were from pet stores and no more than 1 percent or 2 percent were from professional breeders.'

Wow. Pretty sobering statistics.

'The Lied Animal Foundation, which operates the regional shelter, recently started asking people how they obtained their pets, said Jason Smith, who took over as director of operations about six weeks ago. The data will help Lied shape how it educates the community about responsible pet ownership.'

Wonderful! Actual problem-solving in action!

And, there are further thoughtful comments about mandated spay and neuter:

'The AKC has no problem with spaying and neutering pets, Sondej said, the concern is requiring it by a certain age. Some breeds are still growing into their second year, and early sterilization can lead to adverse physical effects, he said.'

'Michael Maddox, director of legislative affairs for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C., said requiring animals to be sterilized before sale isn’t reasonable or in the animal’s best interest. Nor does it address the underlying problem. The “overwhelming majority” of pets in shelters come from sources other than pet stores, Maddox said.'

Good to know that there are some people out there who are interested enough to investigate and find out the truth about owner-surrendered animals and where they originate.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/apr/06/animal-breeders-activists-clash-over-bills/

Here's another study. 3.9% of the shelter intakes originated at pet stores. Check out Table 2.

http://www.petpopulation.org/characteristicsofshelter.pdf

But then, that's not surprising, is it? Pet store puppies are just a small percentage of the market in the US.Posted byStarbreezeat6:04 PM

The Global Stray Dog Population Crisis and Humane Relocation

By NAIA founder and chairwoman, Patti Strand

http://www.naiaonline.org/Library/understanding_animals/global_stray_dog_population_crisis.html

  The scope of the stray dog problem in many parts of the world is unimaginable by American standards. Street and village dogs have always been part of the developing world’s landscape, but exploding populations, increasing attacks on citizens,1 and spiraling rabies epidemics have transformed this issue from a third world problem to a global public health priority.

   The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are more than 200 million stray dogs worldwide and that every year, 55,000 people die from rabies, while another 15 million receive post exposure treatment to avert the deadly disease. 95% of these cases occur in Asia and Africa, and 99% of the fatalities are caused by dogs.2

   In Bali alone, the number of stray dogs is estimated at 500,000 and a rabies epidemic underway since 2008 has already killed 78 people. Despite culling somewhere between 120,000 and 200,000 dogs, and vaccinating an estimated 262,000 dogs, the epidemic rages on. In the face of the continuing epidemic and shortages of human anti-rabies vaccines, the government has banned dogs from the streets altogether -- perhaps the first at-large law imposed in this part of the world.3 4

   The stray dog-driven rabies crisis in Bali is hardly unique: India culls as many as 100,000 strays at a time,5 while attacks by marauding packs of dogs in Baghdad have led to a reinstitution of the same eradication program that was operated under Saddam Hussein. Its goal: the culling of over one million stray dogs.6 7 8

   In Bangkok9 and many other Asian and African locales,10 11 living with strays and rabies is just an accepted fact of life. An estimated 200 dogs per square kilometer occupy Bangkok, fouling sidewalks and streets, causing traffic accidents and serving as vectors for rabies and other diseases.12 A nip on the ankle by a stray dog in any of these developing countries quickly jolts Western tourists into the life and death reality of the situation.13

   Thankfully the stray dog overpopulation crisis has earned the attention of Western humanitarians, animal welfare organizations and businesses, and they’re rallying to the cause. The World Health Organization is working aggressively, often partnering with Non Government Organizations (NGO’s), to assure that the production and distribution of rabies vaccines and post-exposure treatment keeps up with demand.

   One of the most effective NGO’s working on the stray dog issue in the developing world is a group of veterinarians and volunteers called Veterinarians Without Borders.14 They can be found in many of the poorest countries of the world helping impoverished communities develop safe and healthy food supplies and eliminating some of the most dangerous diseases. Neutering and vaccinating stray dogs against rabies is an important part of their work today.

   At the same time, animal shelters and dog rescue groups are springing up throughout Asia, Eurasia, the Middle East, parts of Latin America and the Caribbean. Some jurisdictions, notably Shanghai and Singapore15 have built pounds to hold strays, while in other locales, private citizens have formed humane societies and loose-knit groups of volunteers to care for rescued dogs.

   These are all good signs. But when Western activists contemplate solutions for the stray dog crisis in the developing world, they need to keep in mind the differences between third world problems and the ones we’ve experienced here. Pet ownership is less common in developing countries; third world strays are seldom dogs that simply wandered off an owner’s property. Instead, they are often semi-feral dogs living at the outskirts of human communities, eking out an existence by feeding on human garbage.

   So vast are the differences between the developing world and the US today, one must reach back to images of American cities in the 1800’s for comparison: an age when horses were still the primary mode of transportation, when domestic animals of all species often ran free, and garbage collection hadn’t yet begun.

   The eradication measures employed by third world countries -- poisoning and shooting strays -- spark sensational headlines and searing criticism in the West, but where people are still struggling to provide food and shelter for their families; where canine rabies is an epidemic, and where there are shortages of rabies vaccine and post exposure treatment, animal control is still a matter of human survival. 16

Bringing the Problem Home

   Starting with many of the same eradication measures currently being employed in third world countries, it took the US nearly a century and a half to get its surplus dog problem under control; indeed, it has only been during the last 10 years that the demand for dogs has become equal to or greater than the supply in many parts of the country. In fact, what the US has today is a dog distribution problem, not a dog overpopulation problem -- a situation that has led to a practice labeled humane relocation.17

   In some parts of the USA today, demand for dogs so far outstrips supply that the public -- bolstered by state-of-the-art advertising campaigns for rescued dogs -- are willing, even anxious, to adopt dogs with severe behavioral and medical problems. Where healthy, well-tempered, adoptable dogs were once euthanized by the millions for lack of shelter space, Americans today are lining up to pay large sums of money to adopt problem dogs; ones that are blind, deaf, missing limbs or suffer from serious behavioral issues or chronic diseases. Organizations that began their work when there was still a serious surplus dog problem in the US are now bringing in dogs from any place they can find them and asking their kind-hearted donors to fund costly surgeries to correct heart defects and other problems so that the dogs they’ve rescued can be saved.18

   Other groups import maimed dogs for adoption into the US from great distances, even foreign countries where street dogs are plentiful.19

   A recent shipment of 222 dogs from Puerto Rico illustrates how multi-faceted, ill-conceived and widespread the practice of importing street dogs into mainland USA has become.20 Although dogs are regularly shipped into the Northeastern states from Puerto Rico, this particular shipment, arranged by the Puerto Rico Animal Welfare Society, was motivated by the opportunity to win a $100,000 grant. The ASPCA offered the prize to the organization with the largest adoption participation in an event called Second Chance for Love adopt-a-thon. The dogs involved in this venture were headed to one of the many participating pet supply stores that use rescue dogs as a loss leader to attract shoppers. After being airlifted to Florida for a layover, though, more than 100 of the dogs broke with parvovirus and distemper, 107 of them eventually dying. As it turned out, many of the dogs in the shipment were infested with hook worms, round worms and coccidia, and although the dogs were supposed to be 4 months old and healthy to participate in the contest, some were only 4 weeks old and shockingly, had already been altered. None of these dogs ever made it out of Florida. Instead, they remained there and received veterinary treatments valued at $185,000 and were adopted out through local shelters.

   Canine strain rabies in indigenous US dogs was officially pronounced eradicated in 2006 by the Centers for Disease Control, but since then a number of rabid dogs have been imported, nearly all rescue dogs from countries with ongoing rabies epidemics. These dogs have come from a variety of locales including Puerto Rico, Thailand, India, and others described in official CDC publications.21

   The rescue programs engaged in this practice have very appealing names that sound like they were created by advertising professionals, Operation Baghdad Pups for example. Perhaps the positive image confuses the issue and blunts the outrage these totally irresponsible practice should evoke. Indeed, this group has continued shipping dogs to the United States and following the shipment after issuing a press releases saying that they hope the rabid puppy doesn’t tarnish its image22

   Pretending that rescuing dogs from developing countries with ongoing rabies epidemics is helping solve problems is not only short-sighted, it’s dangerous. At best it represents a shallow form of sentimentality, not true kindness. At worst, importing street dogs is a cynical form of old fashioned greed on the part of the organizations and businesses that are trading in them. Judging by their IRS 990 forms, the shelters importing these dogs are making a handsome profit on them, retaining their traditional image as shelters and marketing their product as unregulated pet stores.

   To actually improve animal welfare, NAIA recommends that rescuers put their resources into developing low cost spay-neuter and vaccination programs at the source of the problems instead of rescuing and sending street dogs to the US. If advertisements on the websites of Puerto Rican rescue groups aren’t stretching the truth, they’re spending as much as $1,800 to rehabilitate one street dog, more money than the average Puerto Rican household makes in one month.23 There’s something wrong with this picture.

   Additionally, one of the reasons that the import problem is mushrooming in the US is because our federal laws governing the import of dogs are out of date. NAIA continues to urge our lawmakers and administrators to strengthen these laws immediately.24 Otherwise a preventable tragedy will occur. The incubation period for rabies is variable and can be quite lengthy, and the laws and quarantine requirements are not sufficient to prevent exposure. With large numbers of imported dogs from rabies endemic areas entering the US pet trade, weak federal import laws, and state and local laws that specifically exempt the traffickers from regulation because they are supposed to be operating as humane shelters, the public Is vulnerable to this irresponsible activity.

   Finally, it is sad that stray dogs ever have to be killed, but to attempt to apply American no-kill philosophy to parts of the world where dogs are suffering as well as threatening human life is unrealistic and harmful. We recommend to the reader, the words of Mahatma Ghandi on the subject:

“A roving dog without an owner is a danger to society and a swarm of them is a menace to its very existence... If we want to keep dogs in towns or villages in a decent manner no dog should be suffered to wander. There should be no stray dogs even as we have no stray cattle... But can we take individual charge of these roving dogs? Can we have a pinjrapole for them? If both these things are impossible then there seems to me no alternative except to kill them... it is an insult to the starving dog to throw a crumb at him. Roving dogs do not indicate compassion and civilization in society; they betray instead the ignorance and lethargy of its members... that means we should keep them and treat them with respect as we do our companions and not allow them to roam about.” -- quoted from www.Karmayog.com

Table 1: A short list of foreign organizations that export rescue dogs and US Shelters and Rescues

The All Sato Rescue, www.allsatorescue.org and blog http://streetdogblog.com Puerto Rican Street dog rescue. Scroll to the video on blog about the Puerto Rican dog rescue; Humane Society of Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a shelter that accepts dogs for adoption from Puerto Rico;

Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles Rescue, http://www.grcglarescue.org, a US rescue that imports dogs from Taiwan for adoption in the US.

Danbury Animal Welfare Society (DAWS), www.daws.org, Danbury, CT, a US shelter that accepts dogs for adoption from Puerto Rico;

Thailand's Soi Cats and Dogs Bangkok, http://www.scadbangkok.org/adoption/

adoption-faqs.php Thailand dog and cat rescue that ships dogs to the US.

Pet Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), www.pawsct.org/index.php, Norwalk, CT, a US shelter that accepts dogs for adoption from Puerto Rico.

Independent Labrador Retriever Rescue of Socal, California, http://www.indilabrescue.org, a California Labrador Retriever Rescue that rescues and places dogs imported from Taiwan.

Northeast Animal Shelter , www.northeastanimalshelter.org

Salem, Massachusetts, a US shelter that accepts dogs for adoption from Puerto Rico.

Tail Tails Beagle Rescue and Blog http://thebark.com/print/2909?page=show

Falmouth, Maine , a rescue that imports dogs from Puerto Rico.

Sterling Animal Shelter, www.sterlingshelter.org ,

Sterling, Massachusetts, a US shelter that accepts dogs for adoption from Puerto Rico;

[1] http://blogs.forbes.com/michaelnoer/2011/01/25/reporter-dodges-packs-of-feral-dogs-while-testing-computer-equipment/

[2] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs099/en/index.html

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/02/world/main6736299.shtml

[4] http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/stray-dogs-to-become-pariahs-in-rabies-war/391101

[5] http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0306killingdogs06-on.html?&wired

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/10/AR2010071002235.html

[7] http://feraljundi.com/2010/06/12/iraq-baghdad-to-cull-a-million-stray-dogs/

[8] http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/07/12/ml_iraq_stray_dogs

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stray_dogs_in_Bangkok

[10] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080306-AP-kashmir-kil.html

[11] http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/12/angola.rabies/index.html

[12] http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273918

[13] http://stophavingaboringlife.com/dog-bite-in-bangkok-and-rabies-vaccines/

[14] http://www.vetswithoutbordersus.org/

[15] http://jaagruti.org/2010/08/30/rabies-and-street-dog-population-control-in-india-in-2010-problems-and-solutions/

[16] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080306-AP-kashmir-kil.html

[17] http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/humane_insane.htm

[18] http://www.animalleague.org/support/support-rescue-medical-programs/help-me-heal/animals/reese.html?autologin=true

[19] http://thebark.com/print/2909?page=show

[20] http://www.prdailysun.com/?page=news.article&id=1286246678

[21] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5739a3.htm

[22] http://www.petfinder.com/pet-news/us-rabies-warning-linked-to-baghdad-pups.html

[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

[24] http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/proposedrulemaking-final4.pdf

SSK has posted before the prevalence of Mini’s to havevaccine sensitivity. Up until recently, as a breeder I simply cautioned andeducated new Mini owners on over vaccination and the possible side effects; simpleinjection site reaction, immune mediated issues to full anaphylaxis. As a VetTech, I have witnessed in the general dog population serious vaccine reactionand one very traumatic death of a Llasa Apso puppy. Last year, a dear friend ofmine lost her Mini within 6 weeks of being vaccinated to auto-immune mediatedanemia; again the result of being over vaccinated. 

As I said above, I have cautioned people on vaccinatingtheir new Mini’s and this past year really began using caution with regards tovaccinating my own dogs. I have simplified my own personal vaccine regime tofollow that of Jean Dodd DVM and have postponed giving Rabies vaccines until aminimum of 6 months, if not older and I never give Rabies in combination withany other vaccine. Even with all my experience, I have never been on thevaccine reaction end, that is, until now. My 10month old Mini Schnauzer wasvaccinated for her Rabies last week. Within 60 seconds she was spinning andsnapping at the injection site. 2-3 minutes into it she was frantically rubbingthe injection site on anything she could as she was unable to reach the sitewith her mouth. At 4-5 minutes she lay down, salivating and snapping her mouthopen and closed in general distress. A quick dose of intramuscular Benadryl(anti-histamine) and she began to feel better.

This puppy girl, prior to that day, had not one issue with herroutine vaccines. On that day, she had a mild to moderate injection sitereaction. Will it be safe to revaccinate her? We plan on a repeat 3 yearsRabies at 1 year. However for safety, she will be pre-medicated withanti-histamines and that will be her final Rabies. Her Veterinarian agreed, ayear booster should give her immunity for life but the risks of any furtherRabies vaccine would outweigh the benefit. With my girls annual vaccineslooming for Distemper, we sure know that her risk of reaction is now higher,and again, this will be her final vaccine for Distemper.

Hopefully, by now, you have heard the risks of overvaccination. And hopefully you understand the “Vet-anomics” of pushing forannual vaccinations. This is the average vet clinics meal ticket to keeping inbusiness and getting people to return to clinic annually for health checks.Without this bread and butter many clinics would go under financially.

I still recommend vaccinating pets, but minimally and withgreat care. I also recommend annual health checks with your Veterinarian, butbeing an owner who feels comfortable saying NO when pushed to vaccinateannually.  And lastly, knowing it can affectyou and your pet adversely, understand and watch for side effects associatedwith vaccinating your dog and take action immediately if you see a problem.

SSK has posted before the prevalence of Mini’s to havevaccine sensitivity. Up until recently, as a breeder I simply cautioned andeducated new Mini owners on over vaccination and the possible side effects; simpleinjection site reaction, immune mediated issues to full anaphylaxis. As a VetTech, I have witnessed in the general dog population serious vaccine reactionand one very traumatic death of a Llasa Apso puppy. Last year, a dear friend ofmine lost her Mini within 6 weeks of being vaccinated to auto-immune mediatedanemia; again the result of being over vaccinated. 

As I said above, I have cautioned people on vaccinatingtheir new Mini’s and this past year really began using caution with regards tovaccinating my own dogs. I have simplified my own personal vaccine regime tofollow that of Jean Dodd DVM and have postponed giving Rabies vaccines until aminimum of 6 months, if not older and I never give Rabies in combination withany other vaccine. Even with all my experience, I have never been on thevaccine reaction end, that is, until now. My 10month old Mini Schnauzer wasvaccinated for her Rabies last week. Within 60 seconds she was spinning andsnapping at the injection site. 2-3 minutes into it she was frantically rubbingthe injection site on anything she could as she was unable to reach the sitewith her mouth. At 4-5 minutes she lay down, salivating and snapping her mouthopen and closed in general distress. A quick dose of intramuscular Benadryl(anti-histamine) and she began to feel better.

This puppy girl, prior to that day, had not one issue with herroutine vaccines. On that day, she had a mild to moderate injection sitereaction. Will it be safe to revaccinate her? We plan on a repeat 3 yearsRabies at 1 year. However for safety, she will be pre-medicated withanti-histamines and that will be her final Rabies. Her Veterinarian agreed, ayear booster should give her immunity for life but the risks of any furtherRabies vaccine would outweigh the benefit. With my girls annual vaccineslooming for Distemper, we sure know that her risk of reaction is now higher,and again, this will be her final vaccine for Distemper.

Hopefully, by now, you have heard the risks of overvaccination. And hopefully you understand the “Vet-anomics” of pushing forannual vaccinations. This is the average vet clinics meal ticket to keeping inbusiness and getting people to return to clinic annually for health checks.Without this bread and butter many clinics would go under financially.

I still recommend vaccinating pets, but minimally and withgreat care. I also recommend annual health checks with your Veterinarian, butbeing an owner who feels comfortable saying NO when pushed to vaccinateannually.  And lastly, knowing it can affectyou and your pet adversely, understand and watch for side effects associatedwith vaccinating your dog and take action immediately if you see a problem.

SSK has posted before the prevalence of Mini’s to havevaccine sensitivity. Up until recently, as a breeder I simply cautioned andeducated new Mini owners on over vaccination and the possible side effects; simpleinjection site reaction, immune mediated issues to full anaphylaxis. As a VetTech, I have witnessed in the general dog population serious vaccine reactionand one very traumatic death of a Llasa Apso puppy. Last year, a dear friend ofmine lost her Mini within 6 weeks of being vaccinated to auto-immune mediatedanemia; again the result of being over vaccinated. 

As I said above, I have cautioned people on vaccinatingtheir new Mini’s and this past year really began using caution with regards tovaccinating my own dogs. I have simplified my own personal vaccine regime tofollow that of Jean Dodd DVM and have postponed giving Rabies vaccines until aminimum of 6 months, if not older and I never give Rabies in combination withany other vaccine. Even with all my experience, I have never been on thevaccine reaction end, that is, until now. My 10month old Mini Schnauzer wasvaccinated for her Rabies last week. Within 60 seconds she was spinning andsnapping at the injection site. 2-3 minutes into it she was frantically rubbingthe injection site on anything she could as she was unable to reach the sitewith her mouth. At 4-5 minutes she lay down, salivating and snapping her mouthopen and closed in general distress. A quick dose of intramuscular Benadryl(anti-histamine) and she began to feel better.

This puppy girl, prior to that day, had not one issue with herroutine vaccines. On that day, she had a mild to moderate injection sitereaction. Will it be safe to revaccinate her? We plan on a repeat 3 yearsRabies at 1 year. However for safety, she will be pre-medicated withanti-histamines and that will be her final Rabies. Her Veterinarian agreed, ayear booster should give her immunity for life but the risks of any furtherRabies vaccine would outweigh the benefit. With my girls annual vaccineslooming for Distemper, we sure know that her risk of reaction is now higher,and again, this will be her final vaccine for Distemper.

Hopefully, by now, you have heard the risks of overvaccination. And hopefully you understand the “Vet-anomics” of pushing forannual vaccinations. This is the average vet clinics meal ticket to keeping inbusiness and getting people to return to clinic annually for health checks.Without this bread and butter many clinics would go under financially.

I still recommend vaccinating pets, but minimally and withgreat care. I also recommend annual health checks with your Veterinarian, butbeing an owner who feels comfortable saying NO when pushed to vaccinateannually.  And lastly, knowing it can affectyou and your pet adversely, understand and watch for side effects associatedwith vaccinating your dog and take action immediately if you see a problem.

W. Jean Dodds, DVM 938 Stanford Street Santa Monica, CA 90403?; FAX (310) 828-8251

Note: vaccination administration information can be found in my links section. As Miniature Schnauzers are a breed effected by vaccine related issues, we require every one purchasing a puppy or dog from us to prescribe to Jean Dodd's vaccine protocols.

  The challenge to produce effective and safe vaccines for the prevalent infectious diseases of humans and animals has become increasingly difficult. In veterinary medicine, evidence implicating vaccines in triggering immune-mediated and other chronic disorders (vaccinosis) is compelling. While some of these problems have been traced to contaminated or poorly attenuated batches of vaccine that revert to virulence, others apparently reflect the host’s genetic predisposition to react adversely upon receiving the single (monovalent) or multiple antigen “combo” (polyvalent) products given routinely to animals. Animals of certain susceptible breeds or families appear to be at increased risk for severe and lingering adverse reactions to vaccines.

  The onset of adverse reactions to conventional vaccinations (or other inciting drugs, chemicals, or infectious agents) can be an immediate hypersensitivity or anaphylactic reaction, or can occur acutely (24-48 hours afterwards), or later on (10-45 days) in a delayed type immune response often caused by immune-complex formation. Typical signs of adverse immune reactions include fever, stiffness, sore joints and abdominal tenderness, susceptibility to infections, central and peripheral nervous system disorders or inflammation, collapse with autoagglutinated red blood cells and jaundice, or generalized pinpoint hemorrhages or bruises. Liver enzymes may be markedly elevated, and liver or kidney failure may accompany bone marrow suppression. Furthermore, recent vaccination of genetically susceptible breeds has been associated with transient seizures in puppies and adult dogs, as well as a variety of autoimmune diseases including those affecting the blood, endocrine organs, joints, skin and mucosa, central nervous system, eyes, muscles, liver, kidneys, and bowel. It is postulated that an underlying genetic predisposition to these conditions places other littermates and close relatives at increased risk. Vaccination of pet and research dogs with polyvalent vaccines containing rabies virus or rabies vaccine alone was recently shown to induce production of antithyroglobulin autoantibodies, a provocative and important finding with implications for the subsequent development of hypothyroidism (Scott-Moncrieff et al, 2002).

  Vaccination also can overwhelm the immunocompromised or even healthy host that is repeatedly challenged with other environmental stimuli and is genetically predisposed to react adversely upon viral exposure. The recently weaned young puppy or kitten entering a new environment is at greater risk here, as its relatively immature immune system can be temporarily or more permanently harmed. Consequences in later life may be the increased susceptibility to chronic debilitating diseases.

  As combination vaccines contain antigens other than those of the clinically important infectious disease agents, some may be unnecessary; and their use may increase the risk of adverse reactions. With the exception of a recently introduced mutivalent Leptospira spp. vaccine, the other leptospirosis vaccines afford little protection against the clinically important fields strains of leptospirosis, and the antibodies they elicit typically last only a few months. Other vaccines, such as for Lyme disease, may not be needed, because the disease is limited to certain geographical areas. Annual revaccination for rabies is required by some states even though there are USDA licensed rabies vaccine with a 3-year duration. Thus, the overall risk-benefit ratio of using certain vaccines or multiple antigen vaccines given simultaneously and repeatedly should be reexamined. It must be recognized, however, that we have the luxury of asking such questions today only because the risk of disease has been effectively reduced by the widespread use of vaccination programs.

  Given this troublesome situation, what are the experts saying about these issues? In 1995, a landmark review commentary focused the attention of the veterinary profession on the advisability of current vaccine practices. Are we overvaccinating companion animals, and if so, what is the appropriate periodicity of booster vaccines ? Discussion of this provocative topic has generally lead to other questions about the duration of immunity conferred by the currently licensed vaccine components.

  In response to questions posed in the first part of this article, veterinary vaccinologists have recommended new protocols for dogs and cats. These include: 1) giving the puppy or kitten vaccine series followed by a booster at one year of age; 2) administering further boosters in a combination vaccine every three years or as split components alternating every other year until; 3) the pet reaches geriatric age, at which time booster vaccination is likely to be unnecessary and may be unadvisable for those with aging or immunologic disorders. In the intervening years between booster vaccinations, and in the case of geriatric pets, circulating humoral immunity can be evaluated by measuring serum vaccine antibody titers as an indication of the presence of immune memory. Titers do not distinguish between immunity generated by vaccination and/or exposure to the disease, although the magnitude of immunity produced just by vaccination is usually lower (see Tables).

  Except where vaccination is required by law, all animals, but especially those dogs or close relatives that previously experienced an adverse reaction to vaccination can have serum antibody titers measured annually instead of revaccination. If adequate titers are found, the animal should not need revaccination until some future date. Rechecking antibody titers can be performed annually, thereafter, or can be offered as an alternative to pet owners who prefer not to follow the conventional practice of annual boosters. Reliable serologic vaccine titering is available from several university and commercial laboratories and the cost is reasonable (Twark and Dodds, 2000; Lappin et al, 2002; Paul et al, 2003; Moore and Glickman, 2004).

  Relatively little has been published about the duration of immunity following vaccination, although new data are beginning to appear for both dogs and cats.

  Our recent study (Twark and Dodds, 2000), evaluated 1441 dogs for CPV antibody titer and 1379 dogs for CDV antibody titer. Of these, 95.1 % were judged to have adequate CPV titers, and nearly all (97.6 %) had adequate CDV titers. Vaccine histories were available for 444 dogs (CPV) and 433 dogs (CDV). Only 43 dogs had been vaccinated within the previous year, with the majority of dogs (268 or 60%) having received a booster vaccination 1-2 years beforehand. On the basis of our data, we concluded that annual revaccination is unnecessary. Similar findings and conclusions have been published recently for dogs in New Zealand (Kyle et al, 2002), and cats (Scott and Geissinger, 1999; Lappin et al, 2002). Comprehensive studies of the duration of serologic response to five viral vaccine antigens in dogs and three viral vaccine antigens in cats were recently published by researchers at Pfizer Animal Health ( Mouzin et al, 2004).

   When an adequate immune memory has already been established, there is little reason to introduce unnecessary antigen, adjuvant, and preservatives by administering booster vaccines. By titering annually, one can assess whether a given animal’s humoral immune response has fallen below levels of adequate immune memory. In that event, an appropriate vaccine booster can be administered.

by Sharon Vanderlip, DVM

Recently a reporter from a major newspaper interviewed me about bark softening. During the interview, I told him about the innumerable cases of dogs I saw abandoned at the animal shelter because of barking problems. I shared my professional opinion that canine bark softening can be life-saving for many dogs if performed correctly and for the right reasons, such as to prevent an animal from being separated from its owner or from being abandoned or euthanized. After the article appeared in the newspaper, people submitted questions for me to answer on the newspaper's website. The questions revealed how and why people were so confused and concerned about bark softening. To give readers a better understanding of what bark softening is, and to put it into perspective, I will describe the bark softening procedures and compare them to two of the most commonly performed elective pet surgeries, "spay and neuter".

Canine bark softening is a veterinary procedure that has been performed for decades. Although it is not commonly performed, it has gained considerable public interest this year, following recent media exposure.

Canine bark softening techniques are described in detail in veterinary surgical text books, yet few veterinarians have been trained how to do the procedure. Today, more emphasis is placed on behavioral modification, environmental management, and pharmacotherapy (behavioral medication), rather than medical procedures, to correct problem barking.

The American Veterinary Medical Association's position statement for canine bark softening is:

"Canine devocalization should only be performed by qualified, licensed veterinarians as a final alternative after behavioral modification efforts to correct excessive vocalization have failed."

http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal _welfare/devocalization.asp

Most people are unaware that there is a bark softening procedure, so they have not watched it be performed and have no firsthand experience with it. Understandably, when they learn of the procedure for the first time, they are confused by the term used for the procedure: devocalization. Devocalization is a misnomer because bark softening does not render the dog voiceless, muted, or silent. When correctly performed, there is about a 50 percent reduction in volume and a lower pitch to the bark. To add to the confusion, the misnomer, devocalization, is used for two very different bark softening methods: the oral technique and the laryngotomy technique.

The oral technique is the procedure most commonly performed in veterinary practices because it is non-invasive and the procedure and recovery time are very short.

In my professional opinion, the laryngotomy technique, should not be performed. The laryngotomy technique can have serious post-operative complications, including seroma formation, delayed healing, tissue damage, and excessive scarring. Scarring can be so extensive that the dog can have difficulty breathing for the rest of its life.

1. Oral technique

This bark softening procedure is non-invasive and takes one to two minutes to perform, using a short acting injectable anesthetic. No anesthesia, whether gas or injectable, is without risk. An injectable anesthetic is used because the surgical approach is directly through the mouth and it would be very difficult to access the vocal folds if an endotracheal tube (used for gas anesthesia) was in the area where the procedure is being performed.

In the oral technique, the dog's mouth is opened and one or two very small pieces of tissue are taken from one or both vocal folds using a slender biopsy instrument. The procedure usually takes less than two minutes. When correctly done, there is little to no bleeding or discomfort. Pain killers (analgesia) should always be given, however, as a precaution. Recovery from anesthesia takes a few minutes. Because there is no change in the dog's behavior or attitude and because the dog can and will continue to bark, sedatives are sometimes given to keep the animal calm and quiet for a few days to reduce vocal fold scarring while healing takes place.

Results of the oral technique bark softening procedure vary among individual dogs. There is no way to predict or control the volume of the bark and the bark may have a raspy sound. Results are usually permanent, although in some cases dogs may eventually regain full volume of their bark.

2. Laryngotomy technique

In the laryngotomy technique, the dog is maintained on gas anesthesia through an endotracheal tube. A two inch incision is made through the skin, on the ventral surface of the neck, above the dog's larynx. The muscles are separated, blood vessels are cauterized, the larynx is entered and most or all of the dog's vocal fold tissues are removed. The incisions are then sutured back together. This technique is invasive, painful, requires several minutes of surgical time, and has a prolonged recovery time, during which time sedatives are required to keep the dog calm and quiet. Excessive scarring can result from this technique and cause permanent breathing difficulties.

Pet owners are naturally concerned about whether their dogs would be unhappy or psychologically changed in any way as a result of a bark softening procedure. To my knowledge, there have not been any peer-reviewed, published scientific studies that objectively measure changes in dogs' moods, before or after any medical or surgical procedure. However, people who own dogs that have had the bark softening procedure by oral technique assert that their dogs show no change from their previous behaviors, personalities, and attitudes. The dogs also continue to bark as much as they did previously and their owners can still hear them.

Dogs bark for many reasons, including excitement, playfulness, warning, fear, separation anxiety, and loneliness. Many barking problems can be prevented or corrected with training, social enrichment, environmental management, and behavior modification techniques. In cases of separation anxiety, pharmacotherapy (behavior medications) may be helpful. These methods require time, effort, and dedication. Because every case is different, the success or failure of behavior modification techniques varies among individual animals, trainers, counselors, veterinary behavioral specialists, and owners. Dog owners can find help through veterinary behavior specialists (www.dacvb.org).

People who object to bark softening say that animals should not be subjected to an elective procedure strictly for the pet owner's convenience. The fact is, people have been subjecting their pets to elective procedures of convenience for many years, the most common being "spaying and neutering". Spay and neuter surgical procedures are widely promoted as something responsible pet owners should do to help reduce the pet population. In reality, most pet owners do not want to breed their pets. They spay and neuter their pets primarily for their own convenience,because they do not want to deal with the problems associated with owning an intact animal: behavioral changes, which may include aggression; mounting; attempts to escape and roam; excessive, frequent urination and territorial marking; unpleasant odors; and bloody vaginal discharge during estrus that stains carpet and furniture.

"Spay and neuter" is upheld in our country as "the right thing to do", to the extent that mandatory spay and neuter is now being legislated in many parts of the United States. Yet, in some countries, these procedures are considered inhumane and unnecessary. Before we perform any procedure on our pets, we should know what the procedures entail, what their long-term effects may be, and what the alternatives are. Decisions about medical and surgical procedures for any pet should be made by the animal's owner and veterinarian. Veterinary medical and surgical procedures should not be forced, mandated, banned, or legislated by politicians.

Of special note is Dr. Waters recent research on canine ovariohysterectomy and longevity. Dr. Waters' findings indicate that dogs that keep their ovaries live longer than dogs that have had their ovaries removed. (Please see Dr. Waters study and references http://www.gpmcf.org/respectovaries.html for details). This very important study deserves serious consideration. During my 31 year veterinary career, I have recommended and performed thousands of canine ovariohysterectomies. My colleagues and I must now look at ovariohysterectomies with a different perspective, in light of these new, significant findings. We must now ask ourselves if removing a dog's ovaries and possibly shortening her life span could be considered inhumane treatment if the procedure isn't deemed medically necessary in the animal's case? And if it is indeed inhumane, how can such a procedure be mandated by state or local authorities?

Below is a comparison of the differences between the most commonly performed elective procedures of convenience—the widely accepted and highly promoted practice of spaying and neutering—and the seldom performed, but often criticized, practice of bark softening:

Spaying and neutering

Spaying and neutering are invasive procedures that involve removing reproductive organs (gonadectomy). In the female, the procedure is considered "major surgery" because the abdomen is opened to remove the uterus and ovaries. The procedure, nicknamed a "spay", is correctly termed an ovariohysterectomy. In the male, the testicles are removed. Tissues and blood vessels are cut, ligated, cauterized, and stitched. The procedure is nicknamed a "neuter", but the correct term is castration. Ovariohysterecomies and castrations take from ten to thirty (sometimes more) minutes to perform, so intravenous catheters and fluids may be required. The procedures are painful, so they require a general gas anesthesia and analgesia (pain killers). Antibiotics may also be necessary. Although problems rarely occur when the procedures are correctly performed on healthy animals, these surgeries carry the risks associated with longer anesthesia time and surgical complications, such as infection, hemorrhage, cardiac or respiratory arrest, and death. Ovariohysterectomies and castrations may have long-term side-effects later in life, such as urinary incontinence, hormonal imbalances, and, as previously mentioned for females, a shorter lifespan.

Bark softening

Bark softening (by oral technique) is non-invasive and takes about two minutes to perform. A short acting injectable anesthetic is used that lasts about five to seven minutes. When correctly performed, there is little to no bleeding or discomfort. The dog is given pain medication as a precaution and sedatives are prescribed to keep the animal quiet for several days to reduce scarring of the vocal folds. If done correctly, bark softening has no side effects except that the dog has a quieter bark. In some cases, the voice can return to full volume over time. 

  Websites have made shopping for pets as easy as "Buy Me" buttons. You browse adds and see pictures of puppies and as easy as a click of the button have become a pet owner. These wholesale pet sites, similar to Schnauzerlover.com, claim to sell quality pets, yet pay no heed to breed standard and take no care in selecting ideal homes for their dogs. I find many of these sits also contain incorrect breed facts as a guise to sell more puppies..... such as .... "hypoallergenic" claims, claims Schnuazers don't dig and don't wander, etc. Let's get a few things straights... there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog (it's a term coined to sell puppies to people with allergies), Schnauzers will wander like any dog and they dig... Schnuazers are terriers... Of course they dig! Or did some one forget that terriers are considered Earth Dogs?

  Other websites are set up as breeder directories where you can select a breed and then look through breeders own adds or wesbites. In these cases, you are looking at individual breeders representing their own animals for sale. I have seen some "Buy Now" buttons and others you need to speak to the breeder first. You never know what you will find on these sites with regards to general information. Some are flowery and show you "Nursery Pictures". Some show all the breeding parents, some just the puppies.... some give you Customer Testimonials.... Few tell you why they breed and most advertise individual animals for sale.

  Now I am not apposed to people selling animals. Nor am I apposed to the idea that profiting off the sale of your animals is a bad thing.... what I am apposed to is putting profit before the quality of dog you breed and before the consideration of selecting the best possible homes for your puppies.

  Some one recently pointed out to me (having been apposed to back yard breeding and wholesalers in general) that there are several types of breeders..... those that breed en mass and sell wholesale or retail. Most of these facilities are liscensed and inspected. However, liscening and inspections do not guarantee quality and these facilites are a profit based business and run them as such. Then there are what I call "Back Yard Breeders" or small scale breeders who generally sell directly to the public, usually only have a few breeds and again, who breed for profit.  Most of those, keep their dogs as pets, although some are kennel reared. Again, for many it's a profit based home business. Standards of care and quality will varry widely with these breeders. Lastly, you have what I consider the creme of the crop breeders, what I would consider true Hobbyists or Fanciers. These breeders are most concerned with the quality and care of their dogs and breed to a set standard following more stringent guidelines; usually set by their particular breeds national parent club. The pups they produce are carefuly placed into screened homes, on spay or neuter contracts and there is more concern placed on the dogs themselves than money. I would say most of these breeders show their dogs in some capacity, including breeding for therapy animals, but not all do.

  What you need to know as a potential buyer......

1) Websites don't make a person reputable.

2) Customer Testimonials don't make a person reputable.

3) Offer of a guarantee or AKC papers does not make a dog good quality.

4) Shopping by price alone is NEVER a good idea. Just like with car shopping, you get what you pay for. Don't expect to spend a little and get a lot!

5) Before buying a dog or puppy or accepting what a breeder says at face value, do your homework on the breed of dog. Visit the AKC or national breed club site. And do your homework on the breeder.  If they have a lot of dogs, ask if they have a kennel liscense and check to see if they have violations, check with local rescues to see if they have taken in their dogs before, etc.....

6) If you can't see where your puppy came from.... use extreme caution. Puppy Mills have nothing to do with the number of dogs a facility or person has, but the care those dogs receive and the conditions in which they live. And a cute picture of a puppy will not tell you if the person offering that dog is a Puppy Mill or not.

  What you should look for in a reputable web site....

1) Breed facts that mesh with AKC and parent club facts.

2) A commitment to their breed of dog with concern over quality and care versus money.

3) People who carefully screen new homes and sell companions on spay or neuter contracts. And also welcome you into their home to meet the puppies, see where they are reared, etc.

4) People that employ heath testing that is breed appropriate. See OFA and Chic. Random health testing is almost as bad as NO health testing. Breeders should know what health issues plague their breed, what lines are known to carry them, how these diseases are inherited, etc. If they can't tell you about those issues, then they truly are not breed knowledable.

5) People who aren't  offering to sell dogs with "Full Papers" for more money. Not every dog should be bred just because it has papers.

6) A breeder who  has references that aren't just testimonials... ie do they belong to their repsective breed clubs? Breed clubs monitor quality and will ban people who fail to follow set code of ethics and breeding standards.

  People purchase pets with the hopes of spending a lifetime with them. So do your homework, understand the industry and the breed you hope to buy and make a wise selection. Hastey decisions based on ease or purchase or cute website pictures is NEVER a good decision. Purchasing a dog should take effort and patience and may mean waiting to purchase a quality dog from a good source.

  Always remember BUYER BEWARE.

Responsible Breeding

I’m working on a column for Bark magazine, in which I’m going to talk about one way to decrease the number of dogs needing adoption from shelters and rescues. Right now the two primary efforts to decrease the number of dogs killed in shelters are 1) encourage spay/neuter & discourage breeding and 2) encourage adoptions of dogs from shelters and rescue groups. I say Here! Here! in general to both of those, and it is heartening how successful both of those efforts have been.

However, there is one important aspect of this issue that is missing, and that is encouraging responsible breeding. Ah, some would say, responsible breeding?! Isn’t that an oxymoron? Breeding is a dirty word in some circles. After all, aren’t there too many dogs out there already? How could anyone justify breeding a litter when so many dogs in shelters and rescues need homes? But if you look at the data, the picture becomes a tad less black and white. Based on the extensive research of Gary Patronek & Andrew Rowan, there are about 7.3 million dogs acquired by households in the U.S. each year and about 6.2 million puppies produced every year by breeders, amateurs and puppy mills. Hmmmm…. Interesting math here, yes? So where do those 1.8 to 2.1 million dogs killed in shelters every year come from?  They estimate that about 4 + million dogs enter shelters every year, 400,000 from amateur breeders who don’t find a home for the litter, 2,2 million strays (.6 million are reclaimed) and 1.8 million owner surrenders.

There is no controversy about the fact that most dogs end up in shelters because of behavioral problems. And that is why, I would argue, we need a third leg of prevention efforts to keep dogs from dying in shelters, which is based on keeping dogs out of shelters in the first place. And that’s where responsible breeders come in. I don’t think we have a good communal idea of what responsible breeding means, and I think we need one as a country.

Many members of the general public have no idea what a responsible breeder would look like. I can’t tell you how many clients I’ve had who said things like: “Oh, I can’t tell you about the behavior of the father, because we couldn’t get anywhere near him.” (Oh my, this is a dog who was bred?) I’ve had clients who competed in Conformation who wanted me to help get them a title on a dog who was insecure, shy, or behaviorally unstable ever since youth. They wanted the title so that they could breed the dog.

If I was queen, we would have a universal understanding of what a responsible breeder is, and reinforce them for their good work. As someone who bred BCs years ago (Lassie had 2 litters), I can tell you that doing it right is very, very hard work. If you carefully select a mating based on genetics, physical and behavioral health, care for the dam and the litter as they should be cared for, provide an enriched environment for the maturing pups, sell only to the best of homes and act as a resource (and possible home) for the rest of the dog’s life… well, that’s a huge commitment. And yet, when doing all that years ago, I’ve had people treat me as if I was a social pariah.  Breeders, even the really good ones, tend to be castigated in this country, and yet, shouldn’t we be reinforcing responsible ones?  A truly responsible breeder maintains responsibility for every pup he or she raises, which means that the number of dogs going into rescues or shelters would drop so significantly that they would have to redefine their job. (And wouldn’t that be great!)

I’d love to hear what you think about all this. It’s true that I’m not completely objective, having bred litters from 4 females in the past, and am considering getting another BC from a breeder sometime in the future. (Criteria = “bomb proof” thank you very much. One Willie is enough!) But it saddens me that truly responsible breeders are so often castigated (while the irresponsible ones don’t care), and that so many dogs enter shelters and rescues because no one was there to help the owners solve what are often minor behavioral problems, or direct them to the right dog in the first place.

These two terms are often confused or interchanged, but they are very different. It's important for people to understand these two terms and how it relates to breeding dogs.

Genetic Defect: A genetic or hereditary defect is one that is caused by a gene, either dominant or recessive that will cause a dog to either actively have a certain defect or be a carrier for a defect. A dog who carries for a gene known to cause a defect will pass that gene to further generations. Those future generations could either actively have the defect or continue to pass it long as carriers.

Congenital Defect: Often refered to as hereditary by many innacurate sources, a congenital defect is one that was created en-utuero for an unknown reason. This type of defect is not the resulting fault of either breeding parents or likely the breeder (unless there was inadequate pre-natal care of the pregant female). While it's not wise to breed a dog with a congenital defect, their is no risk in the defect being passed to future offspring as it is not caused by genetics.

As a breeder I have control (to some extent) over genetic defects. A reputable breeder who understands genetics, genetic defects known to effect their breed, utilizes genetic testing that is available and applicable as well the pedigrees of the breed(s) of dogs they breed can reduce or mostly eliminate genetic defects in their puppies. Unfortunately, there is not currently a test for every known genetic defect so understanding how the defect is passed allows breeders who have a dog or puppy be effected by a defect determine how to remove that issue from their breeding pool. Some reputable kennels have eliminated entire lines of Champion dogs who were proven to be carriers for a known defect. Breeders active in showing and their breed know which lines not to breed or which lines to breed carefully. Many back yard breeders don't know what lines carry those defects and are largely concerned with breeding "Champion Lines dogs." This makes selecting a reputable breeder active in their breed club an important part in obtaing a new pet.

I think it's debateable if a breeder should be held responsible for congenital defects. The biggest reason being that it is not the fault of the breeder and generally not preventable. If a breeder thoroughly vet's a puppy prior it going to a new home and is healthy, in good weight and coat, approrpriate size, etc there should be minimal chance the puppy is effected by a congenital defect. Puppies with congenital defects are generally not healthy puppies and it should be apparent to a reputable breeder that the puppy is abnormal to begin with. As such can be plaved or cared for appropriately. Second to that, if a breeder is carefully vetting all their puppies, any potential congenital defect should be picked up by the vet at the time of the exam. Following the breeder having their pups examined, once a puppy goes home, the new owner should immediately examine the puppy to verify that the puppy came to them in good health and establish a baseline for the new vet to provide continued care for the pet and continued education for its new owner.

With few exceptions, a dog who carries a major defect will generally become symptomatic within most breeders warranty period. Likewise, a breeder, in my opinion, cannot be held responsible for factors well out of their control on a dog who bacame sick later in life as a potential result of innapropriate care, over vaccination, etc. If a dog should become sick, the burden of prooving the causation of that defect falls to the dogs owner. Not the breeder.