WELL I DO BITE U ARE AS GUILTY FOR LETTING THEM WALK OUT WHERE DID THIS HAPPEN ON MARS ? NO ANTI CRUELTY ?

WTH?

Maybe u should blog less and treat more-You didn't even give an antibiotic shot? worst mouth ever .I say worst vet ever. You should be reported to Fl. Bd. I just can't believe you posted this malpractice for the public to view.
No treatment coupled w/ no commonsense...and a ton of judgment.

I suspect you missed the last sentence of the first paragraph: And the owner declined to treat.

The doctor can't treat without the owner's permission regardless of how badly the animal needs it.

The owner declined dental treatment-not an antibiotic shot. And per your blog, accepted and I assume pd. for pills.

Do you think the older lady was in total denial or actually making excuses because she couldn't afford treatment? Sounds like the granddaughter wasn't any help, but likely instigated the visit.

It must be terribly frustrating for you to have your hands tied and there's the woman obviously had her mind made up. (Will the dog even be given the antibiotics?)

My heart breaks for the little dog who had unimaginable pain.

Maybe what needs to be put in place is a system like the one that allows doctors to report suspected child abuse. Is there nothing like that in the vet business? File reports with animal humane or something?? 'Tis a shame to have to witness such flagrant abuse and feel so impotent.

You report the woman to the authorities, who promptly remove what is probably her only companion, take the animal to the shelter and have it put to sleep because the shelter can't afford the treatment necessary to repair the dog's mouth.
I have seen horrible mouths in some older dogs, owned by older people who, more often than not, simply cannot afford the expensive treatment. My parents have a 13 year old schnauzer whose teeth were in fairly bad shape (tartar wise)3 or 4 years ago, and my mom took him to their vet, where the bill ended up being $1500 for two removals and a cleaning. Now that they're both retired and living on social security, finding $1500 for a dental might be impossible.
So we bought the tooth stuff, a brush and a couple of other items that probably won't do any good, but makes my mom feel like she's being proactive (and I got her to change his diet, which has also helped).
It's easy to condemn people for situations like this, the solution is not so easy. Vets can't offer their services for free to everyone who complains they don't have the money for treatment, ACOs can't be running around taking obese animals from owners because their neighbor thought the dog was being abused by being overfed, so what is the solution?
Rather than condemn people, like the first poster above, come up with solutions.

Your parents did the absolute best thing they could! Brushing their dogs teeth will save him unnecessary pain and suffering. It is the absolute best thing they can do to prevent dental disease and it WILL work. That and regular prophys. A simple dental cleaning done yearly (or even every other year) will be much less expensive. I love clients like you and your parents- they recognize that their dog has a problem, they know they will not be able to afford much in the way of future care. So they are DOING something about it!

If it's one thing I can't stand it's clients that whine about the cost of dentistry, but refuse to brush.

Thanks, Meghan. I don't have a lot of faith in the dental stuff, but along with the diet change, his teeth are staying fairly clean.

I have faith in brushing. It is the cheapest and best preventative dental care. At the very least owners are looking in their pets mouths regularly and will notice early signs of disease. Diets and some of the chews can also help.

Thank you for this sensible comment. We took in a street dog. He was malnourished and his collar was embedded in his neck. He has nightmares still and wakes up howling for no apparent reason. But he is a total love!! Put an ad in the paper but nobody claimed him so now he is ours. Unfortunately we could not and cannot afford to take him to the vet. Basic shots from a clinic, lots of love, excellent food, Frontline and grooming is what we have been able to give him. He has horrible teeth and I am certain it is effecting his health. His breath got better for about 6 months and now it is worse again. The poor little fellow. I wonder if we can pull his infected teeth ourselves. After reading your post I will definitely start brushing his teeth. I wish I could get him some antibiotics too. Is Motrin ok to give to dogs for their pain? His teeth are green and his mouth literally smells like a stagnant swamp. He eats ok (we do buy IAMS) which seems to keep him healthy as he can be but he is thirsty all the time and when he drinks water too fast he throws up. I am sad to know that this is effecting his health. I wish our love could heal him but it cannot. Please any tips other than euthanize him. Certainly he is very loved and well taken care of. We simply cannot afford a veterinarian. We have one other dog who we rescued from the shelter prior to this dog coming to our home. They are buddies and she is always sniffing his mouth and licking it like she is trying to help him feel better.

828.02. Definitions

In this chapter, and in every law of the state relating to or in any way affecting animals, the word "animal" shall be held to include every living dumb creature; the words "torture," "torment," and "cruelty" shall be held to include every act, omission, or neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, except when done in the interest of medical science, permitted, or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief; and the words "owner" and "person" shall be held to include corporations, and the knowledge and acts of agents and employees of corporations in regard to animals transported, owned, employed by or in the custody of a corporation, shall be held to be the knowledge and act of such corporation.

This is a Florida statute. Seems to me allowing a animal to languish in horrible agony with a rotten mouth is by definition neglect even if she denies it is suffering. I recently adopted a senior beagle with the same type of mouth. What teeth she had left had to be pulled and how she ever ate we will never know. It must be a difficult position to be in but I'd rather error on the side of the animal and try to get someone to step in and help it. It's no way for it to live. Btw my beagle could care less if she has teeth she just loves her special dinners.

BINGO. Report her. NOW.

..."Though this Canadian veterinarian has been much criticized for throwing his client under a bus, somehow I can't find it in myself to disagree with his actions. Of course I see the obvious ramifications of a world in which pet owners might forgo vet care altogether should vets stick to their guns on welfare, but still."...

These kinds of posts just make me utterly sad and displays the "double-edge sword in the veterinary profession.

After all the previous posts about Drs. Incahoots & sub-care and greed care and fraudulent care, known by ethical and moral colleagues to be perpetrated upon animals....yet never gets reported and the few who do--- a slap on the wrist.

But gee, condemn the pet-owner who allows the same type of suffering, whether good or bad reason, and throw them to jail forever.

I don't condone either, but it is hypocritical to take one stance and not the other.

So may I ask how much it costs to have a small dogs teeth extracted?

When I worked for vets, there were some people whose cat or dog hadn't been to a vet "in a few years" which often meant never. After years with no vet attention, they'd get hostile about fees to treat the severely neglected animal.

That's why I hate to use the word "Owner." We are adoptive parents, guardians, stewards of loving, vulnerable creatures. We are their lifeline. A living creature suffers if we don't attend to its health. Others should be empowered to intervene when an innocent creature is obviously suffering.

Sorry, I own my dogs. Actually, my business owns my dogs. Period.

This is what society is coming to. We are not guardians of animals, we are owners.

People like you are going to allow PETA, HSUS to destroy the right to breed and own animals.

You may have the right to breed and own dogs but your dogs have some rights too.
They have the right to adequate food, clean water, and appropriate shelter. They also have the right to be kept free of pain and suffering and access to appropriate medical care.
Animals are sentient beings. They are not toasters.

Who says my dogs don't get adequate food/water/shelter/vet care?

You? Have you ever met my dogs? My dogs cost more to feed per month, than I do(which, since I barely eat, really doesn't mean much)

That being said, yes, they are senient, but they are still property. A

And, as such, if I need to euthanize one, I should be allowed to do so any way that I choose.

I should be allowed to keep my dogs intact, and not have to pay the government more money, because they can't enforce the already existing leash laws, etc.

No one should have the right to tell me how many dogs I am allowed to own, what breed I can or cannot have, or whether or not I have to feed XYZ dog food.

If some would have their way, People would not be allowed to feed raw, you would be required to overvaccinate your dogs, and you would be forced to have your dogs undergo dangerous surgery---like spaying/neutering/dentals.

No one, and I repeat: NO ONE should have the right to force their beliefs on other people.

Next thing you know, you'll be wanting to ban my pickup truck because you don't like the gas mileage it gets. If I choose to pay for the gas, then it's my business, not yours.

I never said your dogs were denied any of those things.

But, by your reasoning, your neighbor could have 50 dogs, all intact, breeding indiscriminately. He could leave all 50 outside 24/7 living in 12 inches of feces with no food or water. They could be emaciated, fighting, and running around with untreated injuries. Maybe he starts shooting some of them because there are too many. Your neighbor could throw all the dead dogs in a pile in the corner of his yard. Maybe he misses sometimes and there are dogs running around with half their face blown off. He would drown the puppies of course. Maybe right outside your window. He could do all of this because, by your reasoning, it is his right.

Yeah, sure, he might get fined for some health code violations, depending on the bylaws in your area. Someone might make him get rid of the pile of dead dogs or clean up some of the feces.

So watch some Animal Planet eh? Animal Cops Detroit is pretty brutal. Then you can see what some of your fellow Americans consider reasonable animal care.

It is all clear to me now. I can drive a 100mph and give the bird to the cops because hey I don't want anyone telling "ME" what to do. Hey then again maybe I'll swill back a six pack and take a tool down the road. But alas there are laws because everyday idiots are doing just that. People chain there dog on a five foot chain,no dog house in a brutal winter and are we supposed to turn a blind eye? I don't think so...no more than I would let a drunk driver cruise by swerving down the road.

you can see what your fellow Canadians do with dogs.. just look a that kill rate in Ontario.. and I agree with dog trainer.. keep your mitts and your "laws" off of my pets..as far as it being a law to have "access to medical care" that's rich.. most HUMANS don't have that..

I really don't see how the "kill rate" (whatever that means) in Ontario really has to do with anything. Animal are euthanized (or killed if you prefer that term) in shelters all over North America. It is not an exclusively Canadian problem by any means. I would much rather see animals killed humanely than suffer from abuse and neglect for years.

And as for my "access to veterinary care comment" and your response I have this to say:

I am CANADIAN and I have medical care. We all do. That is one of the great things about being Canadian. And I think that when you take on the responsibility of owning a pet (or having a child) you need to prepare to care for their every need. Comes with the territory. As a veterinary professional I know that when you take care of the routine, predictable expenses of preventative medicine, you can avoid a lot the big bills. Serious dental disease can be prevented.

I have pets and kids and I will go without to make sure that they get whatever they need. I have additional medical insurance (on top of my government medical plan) and I take care of the routine stuff.

Hmmm you say when "you take on the responsibility" of a pet. What if you rescued a dog who had possibly two weeks to live. See now I don't think the dog would choose to go to get euthanize just because we cannot afford a doggie doctor. since you are comparing children to animals. Lets go ask a third world country child if they would rather be adopted and loved with what little the adoptive family has or be left on the street to die>! Before dental care was available I believe an infected tooth was simply pulled out. Bite the bullet.

Actually, our kill rate in Canada is coming down. Additionally, the comparison of Canada to the US is an unfair one, given that much more of our population is rural in nature and spread out through the entire country.

Also, reporting is spotty at best, just as it is in the US, and I doubt that either number is representative of the true number in either country.

And yes, I love my government run health care. :O)

TheDogTrainer said, "And, as such, if I need to euthanize one, I should be allowed to do so any way that I choose."

If you did this in IL you'd be charged with a felony. Just because your dog is your property doesn't you you can throw it off a balcony, stab, or shoot the dog if that's how you chose to euthanize your dog.

While I understand that dogs are property, there are quiet a few laws that dictated how you treat your dog. Basic owner's duties, as stated in IL law, are quality and quantity of wholesome food and water, adequate shelter, and veterinary care when needed. In this particular case you may argue that owner's duties has risen to a neglect, but you'd have to stock pile a lot of evidence and be willing to follow through.

Way to go Illinois!

I'll be looking deeper into the laws there, we're always looking for great examples to hold up to show just how inadequate our own Animal Welfare laws are.

Thanks for the info.

All that you mention here are "no brainers" my pets get all of the above except "access to medical care" It is a fine line... should I not be a bet "guardian" then because I take my animals to the shot clinic to keep them up to date with vaccines and that is the extent of the medical care they get. I am pretty sure that if they could choose, they would choose to stay right where they are because of all the love, walks, talks petting and companionship they get from my 3 boys, husband and myself. Just saying

HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, SPCA,etcetera are all organizations working for the welfare of animals. They do good and necessary work. If you insist that you are the "owner" of your dogs, just remember that "One can transfer or lose ownership of property by having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure or taking." and that if you do not provide care, if you neglect or abuse your animals, some of these organizations have the right to seize or take your animals. Call yourself what you will...you are responsible for the care of living, breathing, feeling, sentient creatures who cannot speak for themselves, which is why these organizations were established in the first place..to speak for the animals.
As our society evolves, we are coming to realize that "ownership" of a human or other living creature is not morally right, and that chattel should not include anything other than inanimate objects. You, my friend, appear not to be evolving at all.

First, the fact that you claim that PeTA is an organization "working for the welfare of animals. They do good and necessary work" shows me IMMEDIATELY that you don't know a shelter from a slaughterhouse. HSUS spends more money on fundraising than on animals, and is now insisting that Michael Vick be allowed to own dogs, so this is the level of common sense you're showing me.

Secondly, there are about a million legal reasons to continue calling myself my pet's "owner." Use "guardian" or "pet parent" all you like, but as a parent or guardian, there are still many things you can do that perhaps YOU feel is right that the state disagrees with - and can take your "child" from you for doing so.

Normally this is the point where I would include several links backing up my position, but if you can still defend PeTA for cryin' out loud (whose "shelter" kills over 95% of the animals it intakes - once taking them from shelters by van, killing them in transit and then dumping their lifeless bodies in the dumpster of a convenience store) I highly doubt you're interested in things like... say... the facts.

So for now I'm taking my energy elsewhere. If perhaps you choose to educate yourself on the *factual* background of what you are arguing instead of being heat-seeking focused on the emotional bits, you're welcome back, but I only play nice with people who have done their homework.

HSUS is an advocacy and lobbying organization that operates no shelters, contributes to the operating costs of no shelters, and spends only a vanishingly tiny amount of its budget directly on animals--and those animals are not dogs and cats. They've only recently changed their position which previously advocated the killing of all animals seized in dogfighting raids, including puppies born in foster care after the seizure. They have only recently retreated, somewhat, minimally, from their previous advocacy of mandatory spay/neuter laws which increase shelter killing everywhere they're implemented, and endanger the breeding of working police dogs, SAR dogs, working cattle dogs, and assistance animals for the blind.

PETA is an animal RIGHTS organization, not an animal welfare organization. The two are not the same. PETA advocates zero contact between humans and animals, the end of all breeding, the mandatory sterilization of all domestic animals, and their ultimate extinction.

ASPCA, although I don't agree with all their policies and positions, actually operates a major shelter and a major animal hospital in NYC. They do an awful lot of good. They are not PETA, and they are not HSUS.

SPCA--not a single organaization. Every "SPCA" in each area is a separate organization, with its own practices, policies, philosophy and goals. The same with every "Humane Society", btw; they're each separate organizations and get no funding and are not governed by HSUS.

And ownership allows us to make decisions for our own animals' welfare, and not to be ruled by the anti-pet extremists at PETA.

Whether you agree that HSUS or PETA are animal welfare organizations or even whether they are good at what they do...is not really the point. They are not organizations I support, but they do at least make people talk and think about things like wearing fur etc. and as such, work for the welfare of animals. As for the SPCA being various organizations, you are correct...there are SPCAs all over the world and they, the ones I have dealt with, do work for the welfare of animals every day, with little in the way of resources, as they are funded by donations...Their programs and services include:
Cruelty Investigations
Sheltering and Adoptions
Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Government and Industry Advocacy
Humane Education
Reducing Pet Overpopulation
Emergency Rescue and Treatment
Reuniting Lost Pets with their Owners
Family Violence Assistance Program (helping care for the pets of women in women's shelters)
Youth and Animal Project (dog training program that matches hard-to-adopt dogs with troubled youth, who act as trainers)
My local shelter (an OSPCA branch) are a group of hard working dedicated staff plus volunteers who try everyday to make the right decisions for the animals in their care and to educate peole in our area about their services and how to treat and respect animals. I don't give a damn about your lack of respect for my emotional involvement with the subject or with the mention of PETA and other organizations you don't like...as far as I am concerned anyone who gets people to stop and think about how we treat animals has at least that in their favour, even if i don't agree with all their policies...the ones I work for and support, however are the ones who truly do help. At least as far as I am concerned. Sorry if you do not agree...but I spay and neuter my companions, I look after them to the best of my ability and I spend time trying to look after the ones other people don't want, discard, or produce indiscriminately by not spaying and neutering. I do not "own" my animals...They are my family. If you think that is too emotional...tough.

You spay and neuter your companions. What if someone came and told you you HAD to? What if studies said (as studies do clearly) that more animals will die because of this, and despite what proponents of MSN say, there is no "light at the end of the tunnel"

Here's a question for you, did you discuss the pros and cons of neutering with your vet? Bet not. Did they tell you that by neutering your male at the age you likely did, you actually increased his likelihood of cancer and decreased his expected lifespan?

Are you also suggesting that those of us who choose not to put our animals through a perfectly unnecessary surgery at a time when their bodies are not fully developed (would you remove your eight year old's testicles if you found you couldn't handle his habit of let's say... touching himself in public?) I'm not trying to be ridiculous here, ask any parent of a kid who's gone through a tough "exploratory" stage, male or female... it's not enjoyable. But I'll bet the idea of neutering him repulsed you, didn't it?

First, let me say that I agree 100% that the majority of pet owners should probably choose to have their pets spayed or neutered. However, this neutered=responsible argument is so full of holes if I tried to wash potatoes with it, the potatoes would fall out.

Want more proof? Here's the study: http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

Subsequently, all three of my girls are intact. My oldest is about five and a half, and not a single one will be bred. They will all be altered at some point, but we certainly were not going to do it when their little bodies were still growing, and to call ME irresponsible for making an informed decision, well dear, the claws may come out if that continues.

With new information about over vaccination and my current ability to choose my own vaccination schedule, I refuse to give up the title of "owner."

With new information about potential cancer risks with microchips and counties loving to suddenly impose mandatory chips (I've had almost half a dozen either stop working or move on me in 12 years, that alone worries me enough), I refuse to give up the title of "owner."

With the information I provided and my desire to protect my dogs and have them live as long as is naturally possible, I don't need the government telling me that I need to alter my dogs - who are hurting no one else by simply existing as they came into this world. I refuse to give up the title of "owner."

So, did your vet give you that information? And information like this has been available for a long, long time. In fact, a quick search of Google Scholar found that a study in 1987 showed an increase in post operative spay incontinence. Something else that's well known (with at LEAST 4% of spayed bitches suffering from it) and yet after a year in a vet clinic many, many years ago hadn't heard a single vet warn about this issue as a possible side effect.

So yes, I will proudly call myself an "owner" although I also refer to myself as "mom" and certainly don't ever call me irresponsible. How much research about the surgery did you do before going ahead with it? What information did your vet give you about the potential negatives?

How you can suggest that I did not discuss the implications and riskes with my vet is beyond me. And in such a holier than thou way too. I do not do anything to my animals without researching it and discussing it with my vet..spay, neuter, shots, defleaing, deworming, treatment for dental issues, feeding, all are researched and discussed. All my animals are spayed and neutered when it is right for them, and some came to me already done, as I tend to adopt/rescue older animals. One of my girls is not spayed as she has medical problems. I have boys and girls living together and do not want any babies...ever. Some of my companions are micro chipped, some are tattooed, some wear collars. Some I did, some came that way. Considering the rate of return on lost pets...it is more important to me to have some form of ID than not. I take it that your attitude to me stems from my mentioning that I think Peta does some good work...and I do. I am also cognizant of their lousy record on many things and in many areas. But, their anti fur campaign has been somewhat successful and I like their info on anti cruelty shopping....many people I know use their lists as one way to avoid animal tested products. I am not a staunch supporter, but even with their dire problems...some of what they do works for me. Sorry about that. I also assume I am assumed to be somewhat of an idiot and uninformed because I supprt spay/neuter. I do not necessarily support mandatory spay/neuter laws, but I do believe it is the best and only option for most people and their pets. How many foster mums do you think I had this year? 1? 2? How about 6 mums producing 30 kittens. (One of them pregnant at her first heat as she was way too young and too small). Along with an abandoned 6 week old kitten and 3 adults. And I am only one of the foster families for my local shelter and I live in a small town and the shelter is always full to bursting. What are the options to combat this? What do You do about the ad that says "free 10 week old kittens to good home...must go this week as their mum is about to have another litter"? What about the folks down the street who will have another litter soon? And then again. More kittens to be found homes for or kicked out young to fend for themselves and join the evergrowing population of ferals here. An awful and short life...with disease, privation, predation(we have dogs, coyotes, hawks and fishers around here) and long cold winters. How many millions of homeless, abandoned and unwanted dogs and cats are enough? if you have options...please let me know...I would welcome your comments...even if you do not welcome mine. By the way, fosters Billy, Joy, KaiKai,Julia,Cain,Abel,Lilith,Libby,Youko and Bib all say hi...they are my new fosters...making a bigger total for 2010.

Oh and by the way...when did I ever call you irresonsible?

Wow I'm getting really tired of this timeout - can we just get rid of it??

In the meantime, to the poster - your Ingrid Newkirk wants the extinction of all pet animals. In fact, one could argue she wants the near extinction of the human race, but that's an argument for another day. She admits they kill adoptable, healthy pets. They fight the no-kill movement EVERY chance they get, and LOUDLY. They drove around to shelters giving them the idea they were "easing their burden" and loaded perfectly healthy adoptable dogs into a cargo van. The next time those dogs exited that van it was to enter a dumpster behind a convenience store.

PeTA CLEARLY funds eco-terrorist groups that blow up medical research labs. We're not talking rub the perfume in the bunny's eyes labs, we're talking medical research. Interesting, considering the second in command at PeTA is diabetic and takes insulin every day - a product that was developed thanks to research done on DOGS. Do you have a friend or a family member dying from a degenerative disease? Cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, MS... PeTA says too bad, so sad, and funds the explosions that blow up years of research. You know - terrorism? Pretty sure that was a big deal these days, one of those things you didn't have to explain the negatives of, regardless of the issue.

So don't you DARE say what "good" PeTA has done, because for every "good" message they've promoted I can give you a thousand ways they could have promoted it better (I literally have friends who keep fur strips on their keychains as an anti-PeTA stance - the strips come from rabbits butchered for our dogs, not from the fur industry, but either way it gets the point across). They have created militant followers and the rest simply choose not to look at the man behind the curtain.

And then there was this :

"but I spay and neuter my companions, I look after them to the best of my ability and I spend time trying to look after the ones other people don't want, discard, or produce indiscriminately by not spaying and neutering."

I've run a private rescue for special needs (medical and behavioural) for many years now, and about 75% of the dogs who come in are unaltered and take about 30-90 days minimum before they are physically and emotionally ready for sterilization. I also have three dogs of my own, all female, the oldest five. Somehow, beyond all possibilities, we haven't had any puppies. Care to explain? Allow me!

Because dogs don't "produce indiscriminately by not spaying and neutering."

People produce dogs indiscriminately by either not keeping their male dog supervised properly or failing to keep their female dog properly supervised for 14 days out of the entire year. It's not rocket science.

You also never answered the question. DID your vet discuss with you the potential negatives of this surgery at all? Did you read the NAIA piece?

It's clear from both your statement above as well as your PeTA comments that you want the best for your dogs - you just have some research to do. And if it doesn't change the way you make decisions to treat them, then that is your decision as the dog's owner, and I won't judge you for it. The important thing to me is that you were informed before you made the decision, and let's face it, you were not. You're like millions of other pet owners whose vets simply look at them and ask when they would like the surgery scheduled and possibly hand them a list of "extras" like pain meds and fluids, monitoring, etc.

One last PeTA thought. You can't just pick and choose. You can't say "it's horrible what the mob did to that poor boy down the corner" and at the same time keep your mouth shut because at least now you don't worry about being mugged by people walking down your neighbourhood. There is no grey area here. PeTA wants animal extinction. They kill healthy pets. They provide funds to bomb medical facilities while benefiting from the results of those facilities. But they put a happy vegan smile on it and recommend some body lotion and you're ok ignoring the rest?

I think that says enough.

I did not "disrespect" your emotional involvement with the subject.

You referred to PETA as doing good work, when in fact they are working for an end which would deprive you of your companions. They are working for the extinction of all domestic animals and the end of all contact between humans and animals. It is PETA that disrespects your emotional involvement--even as they exploit it.

It is ownership that gives you the legal right to decide that your pets are better off spayed or neutered. And it is ownership that gave me the right to spay my current dog at fourteen months rather than six, and my friends with giant breed dogs the right to hold off on spaying or neutering until their dogs have reached full physical maturity, to minimize the risks of spay/neuter while still gaining the benefits.

And while I call myself the owner of my dog and cat, I also call myself their mom, and refer to them as my girls, my babies, my sweeties, my baby-dolls. Because emotional involvement isn't dependent on believing the tripe PETA dishes out.

none of these "organizations" have ANY right to take your pets.. NOT ONE OF THEM.. they have NO authority to take anyones property.. NONE.. that is a HUGE mistake that many people make... none of these animal rights groups are anything more than fake charities But they set themselves up as people who do have the right.. NO WARRANT.. NO ENTRY.. HSUS is NOT a government organization.. and they CANNOT take your dogs, cats or any other piece of your property.. please try to remember that..

lalaland indeed

Certain SPCA and Humane Societies have employees that have been trained in law and given special authority to uphold local animal cruelty laws. In some areas it may be up to local police or animal control authorities.

If laws are broken- someone will have the right to seize your animal. How well the laws are written and enforced are another matter.

SPCAs in many situations have the rights to seize your animal. State to state it will differ regarding who will have the right to do so and what is required to do so, but here in Canada an animal in immediate distress or a warrant is required. The dog Dr. Khuly described "could" fall under immediate distress (this was set up more for abandoned dogs, dogs in falling temperatures, starving dogs, places overrun with animals, etc.

Not only do they have the right to enter your home, they have the right to take your animals without a warrant - in fact, they have greater powers than the OPP. This bill IS being challenged (Bill 50). Interestingly, it is this same bill that makes it a REQUIREMENT for veterinarians to report suspected abuse. There are lots of other excellent measures in the bill, the feeling is that it just got rushed through without a proper understanding of what was really on the paper (I'm sure even my US friends can sympathize with this... lol).

As I mentioned, law varies by province and by state, so check with your local government and find out. The best way? ASK google. Just type in "In *insert state here* can my pet be removed from my property?" and poke around a bit. You never know what you might find.

REALLY? Did you know that the HSUS recently recieved a donation from the Philedelphia Eagles for $50,000.00 so that they would say, in public that Micheal Vick would be a great dog owner?

Not kidding. KNow who you are supporting.

http://humanewatch.org/images/uploads/2010-12-19_HSUS_Vick_NYT.pdf

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/steve-dale-pet-world/2010/12/hsus-says-vick-is-almost-ready-to-have-a-dog.html#ixzz18eXuzZci

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/12/michael-vick-pet.html

It would be wonderful if someone would "intervene" for my little guy. Gee, wonder what intervention could be taken?

really, all I want to know is what kind of medicine I can give him, what to brush his teeth with and if I can pull his teeth on my own... never mind I know the answer to the third question.

Practicing on the human side of healthcare, it seems to me that you have an exagerated notion of how effective adult and children protection agencies are in confronting neglect.

I have been extremely frustrated in caring for elderly humans who are clearly neglected, either by family or selves. I have never successfully gotten protective services involved in a timely manner, even when life was in jeopardy. When they do show up, I get feedback that 'this is a lifestyle choice' or some such nonesense. Same with little people (the biggest reason I did not pursue pediatrics).

I'm sure you're right. My mother once worked as a guardian ad litem And the craziness involved in getting one drug-addled mother separated from her severely neglected, developmentally disabled brood of eight children was impressive. I couldn't work in peds, either.

While they vary greatly from province to province, most of them do contain provisions that state that if an animal requires health care you are BY LAW required to provide it or to turn it over to an appropriate shelter, rescue or capable person who will in turn get the animal to a veterinarian, pronto.

And believe me, folks here are not unwilling to rat on their neighbours - and since here it's the OSPCA who enforces these matters (although on all other fronts I disagree with this arrangements for a variety of reasons) we have trained individuals deciding what's ok and what's not.

Do our care laws go far enough? No, they still allow you to tie your short coated doberman out in the winter 24/7 as long as he has some kind of shelter, food and water - and that water isn't frozen when the inspector is there, along with numerous other things, including punishments that are so mild you'd swear they'd just nailed someone for spitting, not starving his dog to death.

However, here in Ontario that dog WOULD be removed from its owner, who WOULD be charged with abuse/neglect (likely probation and a fine). Regardless, the dog would never enter that house again. How can providing medical care not be in your laws, and yet you're living in an area that's overstepped and has breed bans? Wow, now THAT's some backward-ass legislating.

babysweet, I can only speculate that we have a lot of extremists in this country that don’t want mandatory anything whether it be in our laws or policies being sought by animal welfare organizations (the real ones of course). The extremists tend to be experts in animal welfare, breeding, pet nutrition, etc. and are NOT the typical pet owner that would benefit from, including their pets, such laws and policies. They only have their own self-serving interests at stake and won’t step outside of their bubbles to understand, or even begin to relate to, what the typical pet owner should be guided by.

And a few extremists certainly can and do make a lot of noise for their self-serving interests on their blogs and forums. The Internet has a captive audience for these bloggers as they push their own personal agendas on unsuspecting pet owners.

RealityCheck - but if the government can insist you provide food, water and shelter, than surely they can insist you provide appropriate medical care, to be decided upon between themselves and a veterinarian of their very own choice.

Now, our SPCA is so overwhelmed with calls (they handle all abuse complaints) that they only go to those with merit. That big fat border collie in the UK who was actually frozen to ground would be a great example. We've gotten visits while fostering dogs who had large fatty tumors that were not removed under a vet's recommendation (the dogs were generally under hospice care and receiving veterinary attention), and as soon as they saw a vet bill dated in the last 30 days and were able to confirm it, off they went with apologies. I also make a point of stopping at my neighbours before hitting home after we've picked up any animal to show her the condition of the animal - this gives me several witnesses that the animal came to me either in that condition or in a condition slightly worse than what they are now looking at.

Allowing a football sized tumor to grow on a dog and either not taking it to the vet or simply refusing treatment just doesn't fly up here. I can't count the number of times while I worked as a vet tech/receptionist I was called outside an exam room to get the plate numbers of every car in the parking lot so that we could make sure we watched which car the offending individual got in to so the SPCA had up to date data in case we didn't (frequent occurrence). Sometimes it was to call the SPCA right away, sometimes we would wait a week, or 30 days and make a VERY nice phone call to the owner checking up on Buffy to see how she was doing and wondering if she had been treated. This was generally followed by me offering the surgery at basically cost - which meant we all took a hit, but when the choices are leave Buffy in pain or rip her from her home, we don't want to do either.

If the owner is an ass, or continues to deny treatment and our vet is convinced that failure to provide treatment is a)causing discomfort and b)going to make the dog's condition worse, the authorities are brought in. Of course, other options ARE offered as a stop-gap measure until we can find a way to really deal with it. We offer information about groups who provide partial funding, credit services, rescue groups who can help fundraise...

If "a few extremists" believe that it's their own personal right to allow their Jack Russel to run around with a gaping open wound for a week that has now attracted maggots and still it's their right to refuse treatment, I think "a few extremists" might need a rap on the knuckles (although if you ask me, they deserve jail time) and to lose their dog to say... someone who gives a damn.

That's the problem in the US. Everyone's always so terrified about what "a few extremists" might think. The only response I can give you to that and still be totally honest, RC, is who gives a damn what they think.

Common sense, which it turns out is very rare indeed, needs to be used in these situations. Your dog breaks its leg, you need to do something about it. YOU NEED TO SEE A VET, or you need to surrender your dog. Common sense.

"That's the problem in the US". You're right, babysweet, and thanks for your thoughtful response. It's certainly not our only problem either. Have you seen the way our congress is fighting like cats and dogs?

Actually, I'm going to recall my last comment. Not only is it off topic, but dogs and cats don't fight nearly as much as our politicians do.

Hey, speak for yourself, my dogs and cats get along just fine, thanks. How about... rats and terriers? ;O)

I stand corrected....

Living where I do...i have found lack of information about animal care, preventive care and pet responsibility to be the biggest problem. Animal welfare groups do a wonderful job with limited resources...but educating people is not going well..at least here. People who do not understand about identifying their pets, spaying and neutering, when medical attention is needed, where to get help when you simply cannot afford that vet visit. We need to get people educated from an early age about the responsiblities of pet care and we need to get the message out that the OSPCA and other organizations do more than just take in strays and euthanize them...which is a common misconception around here...as is the idea that shelters charge too much for their adoptees. There are too many people who think that dropping off their unwanted cat or dog outside someones house or in a nearby village solves the problem. There are too many people who believe going to a shelter means certain death for their pet or stray. There are too many uneducated people when it comes to what shelters or animal welfare groups actually do. How do you combat this??

OR you could put a splint on it depending on the break. If the dog is cut one could clean it up and stitch it themselves. It is not a requirement for a dog to see a vet to heal. Gads, think if we all ran to the doctor for every little thing..... oh wait, that is what is happening in the emergency rooms... Who pays for that. Thank goodness we cannot do that with our pets. Because humans DO take advantage of the system. We are capable of providing a loving environment and taking care of many ills that strike our loved ones. Pets or humans.

Much like my mother who lost her ability to drive like she had all her faculties, this woman needs her Granddaughter or some family member to step in and tell her she's not thinking clearly and the dog is suffering. We had to do an "intervention" after the third time my mother hit the fence in the parking lot at the grocery store. The manager at the store actually called us and told us that he thought mom was having problems that we should look into. It took a third party to wake us up to the problems, Dr Kuhly, you could be that third party.

Ummm, yeah, like where's the grandkid's PARENT?

Ok, so I have a question for you Dr. Khuly, regarding dental disease and it's details. Perhaps it will warrant a future full post?

There are obviously different kinds of buildup on teeth. There is the yellow junk that can sometimes be scraped off but not without a lot of pressure and generally goes under the gumline - leave it to the pros, people!

There is a black type of buildup that is... well... let's just say a pain in my rear end that I've always struggled removing with home means (I have my own set of procedures that I use before we consider dentals, and so far - we're dental free, and that includes the hundreds of rescues). I do NOT use dental tools, I use a combination of effective chews and OTC products. It's the combination, really.

Anyways, my third and most intriguing question is that GREEN crap. This green type of buildup can not only grow to cover the entire tooth, it STINKS like no other type of buildup. We rescued a Pom once and called her Gretchen Green Teeth. Left her in the car to grab some groceries (in the fall in Canada at night before anyone worries) and literally had to drive home with the windows down because just her BREATH had stunk the car up so badly I couldn't breathe. Recently I saw a Papillon with the worst teeth I had ever seen - not one of mine, thankfully - the green buildup had literally turned each side of the upper teeth into separate pieces. Separate green pieces. You could barely see teeth. I've never seen anything like it. I was STUNNED.

So - what are they? What causes each of them? What are they composed of? What are their physical properties and their individual effect on the body? Why do some dogs suffer more from one form than another?

Our latest foster is currently green-free after just three weeks. My vet always laughs at me, says I'm going to put him out of business. Having difficulty with a bit of the black which I think if I'm not mistaken is there to stay, but I think it would make a great post for those of info-philes. ;O)

And for the record, Dr. Khuly - could you even fix a mouth like the one you described? I don't mean YOU personally, I just mean isn't that dog now subject to future growths and tumors and discomfort to say the least... once the bone softens like that? Forgive me for the questions, but dental disease in dogs has always been a curiosity of mine.

I can take a stab at this...

The black stuff you are referring to might just be staining. Sometimes dark stains appear in small grooves in the enamel of teeth. These are really hard to remove even with dental instruments. As long as they are only on the crown of the tooth and away from the gum line, they are cosmetic and I don't worry about them.

If there are black spots on fractured or worn teeth they should be evaluated by a vet as they may be open pulp cavity.

Yellow stuff that can be easily scraped off with a fingernail is probably plaque. This is the first stage of dental disease. Plaque should be removed daily with brushing.

If plaque is allowed to remain on the teeth, over time it calcifies and turns into tartar. This is very difficult to remove without a professional scaling. Tartar not only covers the crown of the tooth but works its way below the gum line trapping all kinds of bad bacteria underneath. Left unchecked this bacteria festers and causes infection in the gingival sulcus.

Tartar may eventually turn green in colour. IME by the time tartar looks green there is pretty serious dental disease going on. The combination of lots of tartar and infection around the teeth, below the gum line, will cause the teeth to become loose and abscesses to form at the roots.

The smell you describe in your foster dog was likely infection related to periodontal disease. Once a pet is at this stage the only humane thing to so is a professional cleaning and dental xrays (with extractions likely). Pets will need antibiotics and pain control.

Some breeds of dogs and cats are more prone to dental disease than others. Genetics, diet and facial structure play a role. Yorkies, Schnauzers, Poodles, Chihuahuas, Greyhounds, Persians, and Siamese are at the top of my list and I try to educate owners of these breeds about dental care at the time of spay/neuter. Few listen :(

Thank you, honestly, for this extremely well written explanation of what I'm looking at.

When our current foster dog arrived, the green tartar hadn't actually started growing together from tooth to tooth, but I would say that about 3/4 to 4/5 of each tooth starting with the first tooth in front of the canine and all the way back was covered from gum down.

Sometimes you can take a thumbnail and get an idea of how hard it is, and I couldn't get a tiny chip off.

There are no signs of gum disease whatsoever. A miracle, I know. All teeth are nicely anchored with no signs of movement. The dog is a chihuahua, kept outdoors in a breeding situation, came in starved and chronically dehydrated (which likely didn't help the dental issue).

After three weeks of a grain free diet, small smoked knuckles, small sections of raw marrow bone, braided bullies and a treatment of Leba III every few days or so (which basically consisted of my husband spraying it on his thumb and then rubbing his fingers together and rubbing her teeth) and free access to water, we have... a darn-near tartar free mouth.

Put it this way. Judging only her mouth to guess age, I would have guessed 9-11 when she came in. Now I would guess 5-8.

Wish I had taken photos of her nasty mouth when she came in. Is her breath perfect yet? No, she has dog breath. She has a tiny bit of tartar on a few little bits of her back teeth, but those bits are barely hanging on and I'll be they're gone by next week.

But we went from witchy-green teeth dragon breath to clean teeth minus the black lines that go down the sides of either side of some of the teeth (thank you for identifying them) in three weeks. She goes in for full blood work on Saturday so we'll see if the natural removal of the tartar had any negative effects (honestly, even I didn't expect it to come off that fast or I would have put her on an antibiotic throughout just in case).

Now, I agree, when there are loose teeth, bones involved, etc, a veterinarian is the ONLY appropriate answer. But I think too many vets are too quick to knock out a pet for a dental when there are lots of other options that work naturally and almost as well without the risk.

The problem is, way back when, aside from the Leba these are the methods used when a dog had a "bad mouth". Meaty raw or smoked bones. Eventually, the loose teeth come out on their own, and usually the body fights off the infection on its own - unless there's a giant abscess, which rarely happens (most loose teeth aren't even noticed, they're just swallowed) no one even bothered - and I've watched a farmer slice open an abscess on his own dog, clean it out with water and start him on antibiotics which they have on hand and just adjust the dose.

Of course, back then, farm dogs didn't have that many teeth shoved in that teenie tiny mouth so unnaturally either. They don't understand. But that doesn't mean the dog should suffer.

Dr. Khuly, this is animal abuse, elderly owner or not and needs to be reported. No responder is going to think that this is ok if it's nearly as bad as you've reported.

"But I think too many vets are too quick to knock out a pet for a dental when there are lots of other options that work naturally and almost as well without the risk."

A possible flaw in this approach is that, while removing huge chunks of tartar is certainly an improvement, it's just not on par w/careful scaling and polishing underneath the gum line, probing for and treating periodontal pockets, etc. Cosmetically the improvement is vast, but where it counts it may still be lacking.

I do think this approach would be awesome for reducing the amount of time spent under anesthesia for professional dentistry, and of course the procedure would then be that much safer.

daphne, I love this comment:

"I do think this approach would be awesome for reducing the amount of time spent under anesthesia for professional dentistry, and of course the procedure would then be that much safer."

I should also point out that when we do have a dog that present like this and who has a massive loss of tartar while here always has a thorough dental exam during their spay or neuter to ensure that there are no ongoing issues. Those that don't already require surgery are checked out by my vet manually and I've only had one that required a sedative because the amount of tartar that had come off was so severe and we had lost a few teeth along the way although all remaining teeth were firmly anchored.

There are also a hundred of other things to consider, such as ensuring that the water is changed as frequently as possible, inspecting the teeth and gums daily for any signs of redness or abscess, etc, etc, that your vet should explain to you.

But quite honestly that was the most measured response I've received in response to my more natural treatment of dental issues (please note - we do not treat abscesses or infections of any kind, and if we think the dog is going to be losing a large amount of tartar we do work with our vet to use antibiotics and keep an eye on things). I love it!

There is a small amount of yellow tartar buildup still left on her teeth, you can email me at jaspers rescue at g mail dot com (remove the spaces) and I'll send you the photos of how she's doing after three weeks of treatment if you'd like. Unfortunately, I didn't get green photos (convenient, I know, I know, but who expected it to peel off in less than a few weeks - not this person, that's for sure) but I'll see if I can find something that approximates the original state. If you're interested. The only reason I am is the sheer speed at which this particular case worked.

Anyways, I am in FULL agreement with you, but I would add an extra - I agree that this treatment should be applied prior to a dental cleaning, and that the necessity of cleaning should then be reassessed at a later date to see if further work is required. Particularly for these people who are having yearly dental work done - this I just don't understand. I do have a dog whose teeth will always attract tartar naturally, and her teeth will always be naturally yellow. With her, it's genetic. However, with a tiny bit of extra effort (she's the only one in the house who gets the Leba on a regular basis due to the cost) not a single one of my dogs or cats - neither my own or my rescues - has ever required a dental aside from treatment for abscess upon arrival.

Now, having a genetically predisposed dog, and having owned tiny dogs in my life, a genetically predisposed and tiny dog may certainly require the maximum level of upkeep, including frequent cleanings. I just don't think they're required at the levels they're being dished out.

And to answer your last question:

These dogs can be fixed....sort of.

There is no way to reverse dental disease.

Some teeth might be able to be saved by a veterinary dentist with root canals.

Usually in these tiny dogs with severe disease there is not much jaw bone to work with and the teeth are basically being held in with tartar. In this case we usually end up pulling everything (unless we can see on xray that there is no abscess or major bone loss). The dog goes on a major course of antibiotics to stop the bone infection and lots of pain meds. Usually they will heal, though they may need soft food for the rest of their lives and their tongues hang out 24/7 and the front of the mandible is likely permanently soft and floppy.

There is no other choice though. I have seen dental disease kill. I once saw a sheltie present in septic shock. All of his teeth were loose- you could literally hear them rattle when he moved his mouth. We saved him with fluids and antibiotics but his owners never came back for the dental so he presented in shock again a couple of weeks after the antibiotics ran out. They euthanized.

Meghan

How about when kidney disease is so advanced as to cause bone loss and severe recession. Not much can solve that problem, right?

This might be a question for Dr. Khuly

I've never known Kidney disease to cause bone loss and gingival recession.

Severe dental disease can seed infection in important organs like the kidneys leading to eventual failure. I have seen that before.

In cases where there is serious kidney disease and dental disease we usually start a course of antibiotics then recheck bloods. Hopefully the kidney values have improved. If we decide to proceed with the dentistry then we admit renal patients to the hospital the day before the dental and deliver IV fluids for 12-24 hours prior to the procedure.

Sometimes these animals are presented for "not eating" and it is very hard to determine if it is the renal disease or sewer mouth causing the problem. We do our best and take lead from the owners.

Sometimes we do the dental and the owners get a new pet back- eating drinking and bouncing around like a puppy/kitten again.

Sometimes the patient ends up getting euthanized a week later because it never improved.

I was referring to this progression:

"Renal osteodystrophy is characterized by an increased osteoclastic resorption of bone in an
attempt to maintain circulating calcium levels, and its replacement with fibrous tissue. Its effects
are most marked in the bones of the skull, giving rise to soft “rubber” jaws, loosening of teeth,
and in the young animal, facial hyperostosis. Mobilization of calcium and phosphate from bone
in renal osteodystrophy may promote soft tissue calcification by raising serum concentrations of
ionized calcium and inorganic phosphate."

Forgot to add that sometimes we treat the animal with palliative care (pain control and antibiotics) until the owners are ready for euthanasia.

It's very disheartening that there are people who just don't care for pets beyond the basics of food, water, and shelter...and I've seen cases of minimal shelter at that.
It's difficult to prosecute with current laws. And in most towns, there's not enough law enforcement/animal control personnel to handle additional cases....and no money to pay for them either.

But really, aren't we talking about personal responsibility?! How can you love a pet and not care for him/her? There's all kinds of abuse in our society...and we're supposed to be the more intelligent and caring species. HA!

And if you think some dogs receive little care, it can be worse with cats.

Shame on these types of owners!

an owner turned in by a vet? I do think that posts like this will do the opposite for many people.. instead of taking their dog to the vet with problem.. they will keep the dog at home.. why.. because they do not want the dog taken from them..by "do gooders" who think the dog may be better of dead.. or the fact that they cannot AFFORD to do whatever it takes it have their dogs teeth cleaned.or treated with the latest and greatest.. ..It is difficult to actually say that "have your dogs teeth cleaned" is common because until very recently it was something that no one even considered doing
A ninety year old woman would have NO idea that dogs need a "toothbrush"..nor would an old woman who was used to the smell of her dog even notice.. think of some domestic HUMANS who live with each other.some of them stink. YUK but they seem to get along..
I fear your determination to strip pets from their owners because of something you don;t like.. like a benign tumor.. or tartar on a dogs teeth will keep people from going to vet rather than encouraging them to go.. and I KNOW it will discourage people if they think their dog will be killed by the vet or that they will be reported....
I see some of you work at a vet// ever think of holding a clinic to clean dogs teeth at a senior home? and leaving a few doggie toothbrushes behind?
Just an idea..

alice, I've had vets recommend annual dental cleanings for 30+ years, from a small town in the Midwest to a big city in California, so I don't think this is *new*.

My vet has always recommended teeth cleaning when needed. Not always every year but on a as needed basis. Nothing new..

I talk about tooth brushing, give demos and handout toothbrushes and toothpaste daily. I try really hard to get the puppies before there is significant disease and discuss brushing every time I discharge a dentistry patient.

Nobody has said to strip the dog from little old lady but a little intervention from say a Humane Officer wouldn't hurt. Sometimes people walk around with blinders on and never see what's right in front of them. I always chuckle when people believe that all animal lovers just want to impose their standard of care on others. I for one do not. I know my Humane Society spends more time educating and trying to work with people to improve the animals standard of care. Btw maybe grandma(minpin owner) isn't running on all six cylinders???

Neglect is a passive form of abuse and should not be tolerated any more than any other form. One of the biggest problems facing vets, spca officers, pet guardians and anyone involved in the care and protection of animals is the terrible lack of clarity and cohesiveness in the laws governing animals in both Canada and the U.S.. The laws that exist in many places do not even make it clear as to whether animals are property or not. If we could get that cleared up it might pave the way for better, stronger, more enforceable laws to protect animals and keep them from abuse, neglect, suffering and distress. The laws that exist now are weak and many judges, because of the lack of clarity are loathe to impose the maximum sentences, even when those are not very bad. We have to figure out our attitude towards animals...are they property or not?? Then come up with laws that reflect the moral and ethical choices that go with our decision. Then maybe pet "owners" would understand their responsibilites when it comes to the care of the animal they live with, breed or farm. In the case of the lady with the badly neglected minpin, she should have the dog removed from her care, if she can afford treatment and does nothing, or be found the help she needs to provide the care the dog needs if she truly cannot afford the treatment. There has to be some help provided for responsible owners who simply have little in the way of funds for expensive vet care. But as a responsible owner, the dog should have seen the vet long before its mouth got into that condition...so really she is at fault and the dog should probably be reported to the authorities. Tough call...but the welfare of the animal should come first. Just a suggestion, as it comes up a lot in my volunteer work...low cost spay/neuter clinics are beginning to crop up for people who cannot afford the normal fees for the procedure...rabies clinics at low cost are appearing as well...why do we not start to have clinics for low income families for other medical issues for their pets...many people are good companions to their animals, providing love, food, shelter, shots, affection...but if the animal gets really sick, are unable to afford expensive care. How does that make them not good "owners"?? Financial difficulties plague many of us...one of my foster kittens suffered trauma and cost me over two thousand dollars in emergency care bills...I was simply lucky to be able to beg, borrow and finance the bill and keep her alive instead of choosing the cheaper option of euthanasia. And if it happened again it would break me financially. Even the regular shots, spaying/neutering, defleaing and deworming is incredibly expensive. Preventive care is always best...but bad things do happen. Euthanasia is a cheaper option..but is it a good one? Can we not find ways to help those good people with the ever rising costs of veterinary care? And can we not come up with some good way of helping the animals?

Yup, you said it completely: "Neglect is a passive form of abuse and should not be tolerated any more than any other form. One of the biggest problems facing vets, spca officers, pet guardians and anyone involved in the care and protection of animals is the terrible lack of clarity and cohesiveness in the laws governing animals in both Canada and the U.S.. The laws that exist in many places do not even make it clear as to whether animals are property or not. If we could get that cleared up it might pave the way for better, stronger, more enforceable laws to protect animals and keep them from abuse, neglect, suffering and distress. The laws that exist now are weak and many judges, because of the lack of clarity are loathe to impose the maximum sentences, even when those are not very bad. We have to figure out our attitude towards animals...are they property or not??"

They derserve and have protection as sentient beings , but when all goes badly ...sometimes due to the "almighty $$$" , they become inanimate nothings to abuse and use as seen "fit" and throw away.

This topic reminds me of, unfortunately, how many pet owners I've watched over the years who keep their animals alive when everyone around them can see that "it's time"

Yes, we've asked the owner about health updates, vet comments, etc. And had discussions amongst ourselves about the owner we know, who just won't see it.

It makes me sad every time I witness an animal that is, clearly, at the end but owned by someone who can't find the courage to think about the animal first. Appropriate hints get dropped or outright comments made but, denial is a powerful thing.

I have worked in the veterinary and dog trainng fields for 16 years and this is exactly the kind of thing that has made me want to quit my job on more than one occasion. Then along comes the client that finds a stray dog by the side of the road, hit by a car and left to die, that shells out $1500.00 to treat it. The truth is we can't save them all no matter how much we may want to. All we can do is try as hard as we can to educate people as to the proper care pets need to be happy and healthy and hope they listen.

I think that you and I would have some stories to share, animlrn. I've spent 12 years training, and throughout I've been in and out of the veterinary field, pet supply, and I've run a rescue for almost six years now.

And you just described my week to a T.

Even in this economy, we had a group of just amazing people come together to make not only the rescue but the REAL rescue (full complete bloodwork and any and all followup) we love to do possible for one very special little dog. There was nothing particularly special about her (by that I mean we've had puppies with club feet, dogs with happy tail so bad who were in desperate need of surgery, dogs who came in a matted lump filled with feces so bad the hair prevented them from opening their eyes) she was just a tiny little old dog - who it seems may not be as old as we thought! - that we had grave concerns about. She had been starved and dehydrated for a long time, and something about her and just a single photo where you couldn't even see her face or her bony body brought in enough donations that we can proceed without any reasonable amount of money being an issue. All from various donors who felt the same pull towards this tiny dog who just needed a little help.

And every time a donation comes in, even if it's $5, I can feel that generosity and the spirit of love that comes with it wash away my desire to track down and choke to death the individual who used her in this fashion (she was a breeding dog). Karma came back to her, and someday it will come back to him too.

Hang on to those wonderfully great people and remember what my friends keep telling me - there are more wonderful people than horrible people in the world, and the rest are just ignorant of the need, or simply haven't had the life lessons necessary to learn why it's ALL of our responsibility to fill that need.

Ok, off the soapbox.

And now - a BRAVO to you for continuing. I know what the burnout is like - I can only handle veterinary for about two or three years at a time and I have to get out and do something else for a while, discount be damned.

I wanted to pull this paragraph out:
"Hang on to those wonderfully great people and remember what my friends keep telling me - there are more wonderful people than horrible people in the world, and the rest are just ignorant of the need, or simply haven't had the life lessons necessary to learn why it's ALL of our responsibility to fill that need."

Very well said, babysweet!

And...tip of the hat...to all of you rescue people. I started volunteering at one recently and have met scads of people dedicated to helping these sweet creatures get adopted and, in some cases, healed...then adopted.

There are some gross aspects to the work but, it's very rewarding. The animals don't hold back their appreciation. I highly recommend it.

Agreed & Bravo!

Thank you, truly.

And yes, AnimalsRule, "gross and rewarding" is a GREAT" way to describe it. ;O)

Thanks for the reply and words of encouragement!!

actually I am a trained humane officer.. no warrant.. no entry.. no "private humane society" has the right to
1. enter your home without a warrant signed by a judge and then mostly not even then.

2. seize your animals

there are some laws that allow for other people to enter your home.. such as a burning building.. or gas leak .. but not to just "see" what is going on..
We still have rights to privacy in this country.. and that includes our house and home..but I see that many here would gladly give up those rights to "save an animal" or even to force someone to kill their animal. see a couple of posts above this one..

funny how someone can say they wood "choke to DEATH" a person who "used a dog for breeding".. cruelty .. yes that is to be prosecuted.. but DEATH hardly.. and why bring "breeding" into it?

most "busts" by HSUS occur when the police are called in.. HSUS takes the "credit" ( and the donations) and then dumps the animals on the local shelter to deal with.. how do they get the animals?? by coercion and threats.

I suggest ( this is off topic here) that everyone look up and read.. What to do when Animal Control Comes Knocking..

I agree with Alice - be familiar with your state's regulations. Be VERY familiar, because they can be incredibly confusing - and they are written to be that way.

Bone up on your rights, but also understand that lots of these laws are fuzzy and allow for interpretation.

ALSO - once again let me stress that these regulations vary from state to state, province to province.

With all due respect, Alice, I would suggest that you post as many details that you can about the rights of the pet owner, the animal control office and the police in your state as you know them.

In many provinces in Canada, the SPCA has full rights to enter your property and seize your animals, period. Yes, they do require particular circumstances, which vary from province to province. In some provinces, such as Ontario, local City Councils are actually given the ability to give certain controls to their own ACCs and to write their own cruelty and care standards (better and better, right?).

Entering premises is actually trickier than taking your pet, believe it or not (one of the reasons I cling to word "owner") but once their in, depending on where you live your pets can be taken from you for literally nothing - and that's just the beginning of your torture. Abuse of power stories are all over the news, one only needs to look.

In short, I agree with Alice - keep boned up on your laws. Keep a PRINTED copy of ALL laws that affect you and REQUIRE any animal control or other official to actively show them the laws in question. This can come in handy.

Also, highlight any passages that are "fuzzy" or open to interpretation and find an animal attorney in your area and get their number in that same file. Research any fuzzy bits you can and see if you can find where they've drawn the line in the past on both ends.

At the same time, if Alice or any other Humane Officer shows up at your door because you have an honest-to-goodness issue, admit the issue. Co-operate with the officer, and they will co-operate with you. They may be able to help you out and leave you better off than you were BEFORE they showed up. They are not always the enemy, and they're not just their to punish bad guys.

Also, if you have an animal that is suffering, please do the right thing - even if that means a shelter or a humane death.

Let me know when the kill rate for "pit bulls" comes down..

First of all, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but since it's patently ridiculous...

Sure, show me actual "kill rates for pit bulls" numbers from previous years and I'll let you know when they go down.

Kill rates are not documented by breed, hell, they're barely documented at alll. And frankly, the number of Pit Bulls killed in Ontario I doubt rivals that in MANY states in the US if they were actually documented.

Contrary to popular belief, they're not actually that common a dog here, at least not like I see when I travel through some of the US (Florida I found extremely populated with Pit Bulls). Most of our dogs tend to be labs, beagles, shepherds, collies, goldens, rottweilers and mixes thereof, and of course the little dogs - chihuahuas, poodles, shih tzus, lhasas, schnauzers, bichons, pugs, and mixes thereof). The larger ones tend to end up in shelters.

I live in the "hood" end of my city - one of the most poverty stricken cities in Ontario. Exactly the type of demographic where these dogs are supposed to exist at the highest level. Do you know what the people in my neighbourhood own? Mutts, mostly. Almost half little dogs. About 1/4 "macho" breeds, mostly shepherds and rottweilers. This was the same before AND after DOLA was enacted. The only difference I see is that the few Pibbles who do live around here now walk around with a muzzle, as do several other dogs with owners who understand how flexible the law is and take extra precautions by muzzling their dogs because they do look like PBs or PB mixes.

My husband is a cable installer, and it's a rare occasion, perhaps twice a year, that he encounters one (over 2/3 of his stops have pets in the home). Again, this is before AND after DOLA, in the same neighbourhood. So either all pit bull owners are crazy and they just constantly breed and dump dogs at Ontario shelters, or you're trying to point a finger at an invisible number that never existed.

Sorry Alice, I can usually agree with you at some point but on this one you need to take this argument back into lala land.

In IL this woman could have been charged with Owner's Duties and the dog would have gotten the treatment that it so badly needed.

Poor pup!

DR K,

you goofed. Report abuse and neglect always. End of story.

On the topic about declining to euthanize, specifically about the guy in Canada, I don't get the idea he was offered much in the way of middle ground...basically extensive treatment (meaning what, I don't know, but when I hear extensive treatment, heroics comes to mind, which the owner may not have wanted to put his dog through) or euthanasia. Actually, the last couple paragraphs of the article comes to mind:

"Tyndale said while he appreciated Russell's wish to keep his dog with him, he should have done something to make his last days less painful.

"It is a shame ... that you didn't seek some method to ease this dog's passing or ease his last days," Tyndale said."

I have to wonder what the vet offered in the way of pain management, if anything. Granted, if I was offered extensive treatment vs. euthanasia for one of my pets, and I was not prepared to do either at the time, I would have asked about pain management. Granted there are some instances where there isn't much in the way of "middle ground" but I would think in that situation the dog wouldn't have been stable enough to be taken home to say goodbye as indicated in the article.

Sure, if the owner was not prepared to do extensive treatment or euthanasia, he should have asked about pain meds. But at the same time, it's something the vet should have offered. If the vet did not offer it, then I would say that he is at least partly responsible for the dog's painful demise.

I just want to note that simply because pain meds are not mentioned here don't mean they weren't offered and accepted or denied.

That being said the onus is clear here - it is the vet's requirement to recommend pain medication. Period. That's why you go to the vet, for their recommendations and expertise. If the vet failed to recommend pain medication that could definitely be an issue.

I'm pretty vet savvy (we're weeklies) but I can't count how many times we've had to turn around and go back for something extra that I forgot to request. In this case, pain medication is not "extra." It is minimal treatment.

Let me just add something else, and I am pretty sure that the veterinarians who peruse the board may have an opinion on this. NO vet wants to turn in a client for cruelty. No vet gets angry because an individual refuses to euthanize and "sics" the SPCA on them without making every effort to prevent such a thing. Why? Because of this conversation right here. No vet wants this kind of publicity, even if it is for doing the right thing.

During my time in the veterinary field, we made calls to the SPCA. The most memorable was a year old pit bull dying from Parvo. He was far too gone, and we offered to euthanize him for half price (basically almost nothing) simply to contain any further spreading of the disease. She declined, said she'd "get a second opinion." Our DVM gave her four hours to call with a vets name. No phone call.

We called the SPCA, and luckily their database ties in with Animal Control's - they found him barely breathing on the side of the highway, he died in the van. We had to identify his body. She could have saved her dog with a $7 shot at a clinic outside of town when he was a puppy. Or she could have ended his life peacefully for less than $30. Instead, he was dumped like garbage. I should note that I argued FOR this woman while she was in our clinic. She wanted to try treatment, and we denied her a loan - loans were against policy, but happened for good clients or clients who could show collateral, etc. I truly believed she loved that dog.

Even if she had said to us, I don't have a penny - we would have euthanized the dog for free.

This law exists for a reason, and it's only used in EXTREME cases when there is an animals welfare imminently at stake. Personally, I can't believe that he was not offered pain meds by his veterinarian, but without a copy of the record, who knows. I'm sure the details will come out soon enough.

I just felt the need to respond to whose responsibility it was to ask for pain medication, which I believe rests SOLELY on the shoulders of the veterinarian.

Any vets have an opinion on this? Feel free to disagree, I'm just curious. :O)

babysweet:

...I just felt the need to respond to whose responsibility it was to ask for pain medication, which I believe rests SOLELY on the shoulders of the veterinarian."...

I'm not a vet nor in the vet care field, but you better believe it that pain management can only be suggested & prescribed by the Vet. You shouldn't HAVE to suggest, cajole, or beg for it, either. Even if simple "aspirin" is prescribed, as in decades ago. Many still forgo pain management in the worst and most painful of cases, even in light of terminal illness.

I'm glad you brought up this important point. Thanks.

It's just that if you haven't been on the other side of the counter, you can't understand.

In human medicine, it's frequently necessary for us to have to ask for pain relief - even for our own children.

The difference is, both us and our children can say "ow! this hurts!" and get offered pain meds. If we have migraines or chronic pain of any kind, WE go for pain medications, and WE ask for them.

DVMs, however, are trained not only to recognize signs of pains in animals, but also to include pain management as much a part of treatment as a peek in the ears is part of a physical.

Are there vets out there who don't do their proper duty when it comes down to pain meds? Yes, and if I recall correctly, Dr. Khuly has written on the subject. However, I don't get that feeling here, and those vets are rare.

I not only stand beside this vet, I applaud what he did and wish more vets would act with such courage at the risk of damaging his reputation, his practice, and his life as he knows it.

And thanks, BarbaraA. Most of these misunderstandings come simply from never having been on the other side. :O)

The other day was mention of no water additives being any good and to suggest to pet owners to look for the VOHC. I use the Biotene Veterinarian Drinking Water Additive which my Vet recommends and it works amazing to prevent and remove plaque. It has no xyltiol or chemicals. Many times these seals are merely about marketing. For example, the Veterinarian Biotene started on the human side at least 20 years ago and is owned by GlaxoSmithKlein...an impressive company. (my fiance had cancer and was prescribe for his mouth sores, etc)hospitals use sold in every drug store..and guess what they do not have the ADA seal, yet a MUCH better product than other products with the ADA seal! Sometimes for companies is simply a matter of having the money to get the seal.for marketing. I personally never rely on such seals...but research ingredients on my own and if I know harmless, I see myself how effective. Most all of the Vet offices sell CET, which doesn't have the VOHC seal....but does contain xylitol in their drinking water additive!!I confirm all my facts before I ever write anything.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the same dog?

Water additives are for preventative measures or for dogs with small amounts of plaque - if you can find one that works, which you claim you have, the decision to use one may arise when faced with a MILD case.

Tartar preventing water additives, however, do not restore bone, remove infection, treat abscesses or do ANY good in a mouth that's literally eating itself.

"I confirm all my facts before I ever write anything."

Ummm... yeah, try again better next time - it's like accusing Dr. Khuly of failing to recommend a band aid when an owner refuses treatment on an 8" gash.

If you believe that this product works and would like to use your experience to convince others, that's one thing, but to suggest that an over the counter product would have helped this dog is ridiculous. This dog needed one of two things - 1) serious, intense treatment that by the sounds of it would have been nothing short of miraculous, or 2) a dignified death.

I have no doubt that this dog was offered any treatments in between as well, knowing Dr. Khuly's well documented willingness to compromise and at the very least struggle for the minimal care necessary to keep the pet alive and comfortable. However, I'll bet my left leg that didn't include water additives. Again, for comparison's sake, that's like prescribing polysporin for someone who has developed a flesh eating bacteria. Does polysporin work? Sure, it does exactly what it says it's going to do.

But polysporin isn't going stop flesh eating bacteria any sooner than dental water additives will stop the bones in a mouth from becoming soup due to neglect.