Crisovar

I am interested in what reasons the vet gives for being so keen? What is the real advantage to this yearly injection besides convenience? Mine was keen also but I think it was more convenience and maybe if it is more expensive they get more in the end.. Although mine said it was a cheaper option.. Who knows I am disappointed in the 2 vets I have been to thus far.. I didn't think finding a vet I trust and doesn't come across wanting me to keep putting my hand in my pocket would be so hard... I feel like I have to have a degree and worldly product knowledge of everything vet related. lol.. Yep - I haven't found one I am totally happy with either. For instance I would like to be given some ideas about why he may be having skin problems instead of just treating with an injection which in hindsight I don't think was warranted. As for the annual heartworm injection I find it hard to understand why people can't just get a cheap calendar and keep it on their kitchen bench - it only takes a couple of minutes to mark the same day each month with the necessary treatments. Maybe people don't have calendars and diaries any more Why have a calendar and have to give monthly treatments when you can get it cheaper in an annnual dose? My vet didn't push me to get the injection for my dog, I asked her about it, and she didn't mention any potential side effects, nor see any problem administering it, other than suggesting she gets tested for heartworm first. For me another reason to do it, other than me forgetting a lot of the monthly doses, is that my dog doesn't happy swallow the tablets. She doesn't like them and will spit it out if mixed with food, so that means forcing them down her throat every month. I don't see why you'd give a monthly dose when you can give an annual dose? There is the potential for side effects with any treatment, but a few horror stories doesn't mean that the potential for harm is greater than the good effects (no missed doses, fewer dogs with heartworm). If they were that dangerous, the vets would refuse to give the injection, or at the very least warn people of how dangerous they are. My vet does advise against it, and in the USA you cannot have it administered unless you sign the consent form. Personally I think there should be more of that here in Australia.

What were the repercussions for these people caught out, has it been acted upon?

It is a complete food, but yes you should still feed RMBs if you want a clean healthy mouth, and I believe dogs still need to be able chew and give their digestive system a work out the way it is designed.

The chip number belongs to a pup the OP sold doesn't it

In all honesty if they are doing the testing and raising healthy sound pups that are typical of their breed,from happy healthy well cared for dogs and screening their homes then I say let them go for it. If they are not doing all the right things by the dogs and by the buyers then that is a different kettle of fish. Most people are not going to sit around for years waiting for a Breeder to throw them a crumb which is the story if we were to all stick to the breed litter only when we need a new show/work/sporting prospect scenario. As it stands the bybs and those grubs that are churning out oodles and such are filling a need that could be quite possibly be satisfied with healthy well bred pups from Reg Breeders. Unless of course we just want to keep the magic and joy of owning them to ourselves.

I think we all knew that was going to happen, copy & paste is a wonderful tool. Seriously how do they think this law is going to deter grubs

The majority of dogs bred end up as companion dogs, or beloved household pets, if you are not breeding specifically for sporting dogs or working dogs and you have pups that are not of show quality where do they go?? I would think Pet Homes would be the answer wouldn't it?

Any lump that comes up quickly should be investigated, most turn out to be harmless, but there is only one way to find out :)

A pair of doggy PJ's maybe?

I don't agree that adding dry is better than completely raw for anal glands, however if you want her to eat the Dry food then you will just have to ride it out with her, as Ams says be tough with her. What was her normal evening meal prior to introducing dry?

I have personally seen the results of having advertisements for reg Breeders in amongst the bybs on pet classies on FB, it does get noticed, some people start to ask questions, and that is how change happens slowly slowly. I cannot believe now how many people on the FB pages will ask someone if their pups are Vacc, are they chipped, have the parents been health tested. Yet a while back there was nothing like this being asked. Often you see people asking who has pups for sale, sure they get bombed with bybs flogging their wares but pop a link to the likes of the Breed pages here and it can surely do more good than harm. If people don't see adds for reg Breeders, if they don't know where to look we have to go to them. Of course the papers and non interactive sites are different but there is still room there for Breeder adds, Breed Club adds to open peoples choices and their minds.

Firstly Proheart 6 is not a vaccination. It is an injectable time released pesticide. When Proheart was allowed back on the market in the USA it was with a huge list of conditions attached to its use. The Risk Minimisation Plan was extensive. Its use was restricted to Vets that were registered to administer under a special Proheart 6 Program, and and they had to receive signed informed consent from owner prior to administering the the injection. The information that had to be provided to the owner was very detailed and listed the many risks attached to its use. Its release back into the market was certainly not taken lightly. Warning: “Do not administer ProHeart® 6 within 1 month of vaccinations.” Clearly stated on each package of the product. Yes it no doubt has its place amongst those owners who for some reason cannot manage an alternative preventative regime. But I would think it would have to be a last resort, even the USA packaging states it is to be used only when there is no other suitable alternative.

Anything that raises awareness there are alternatives to a byb carelessly raised pup can only be a good thing.

Of course the PIAA support it, PIAA members make huge amounts of money out of puppies, money talks.

I believe that has more to do with the requirements of the Dept of Fair Trade

RSPCA have seized dogs and charged owners for less than this, failing to provide Veterinary treatment is an offence.

An audit doesn't necessarily mean an onsite inspection it could all be on paper or dogs popped into the vet for a health check

There are huge numbers of pups coming from these sources, huge! An afternoon trolling through the local fb classifieds is enough to make you simply sit in a corner and rock. The majority are sold unvacc/unchipped and believe the laws do not apply to them. Any suggestion that they are not doing the right thing is enough to have you banned. Legislation will not affect these people, no one polices local laws and state laws regarding the selling of pups, so they all continue on.

The product info sheet for Australia clearly advises Vets that annual vaccination time is an ideal time to administer the Proheart. ETA My Vet does not recommend Proheart Inj

I don't care if people do not like children, I have repeated over and over it is the way that dislike is rudely expressed by some that is distasteful. Everyone makes different choices in life, but because something is not your cup of tea is no reason to be insulting. Unfortunately it comes across in many discussions be it about children, breeds of dog, food, whatever.

Yes, and there are many Breeds that are not recognised breeds by any number of organisations, doesn't make them any less a Breed.

It is how people openly express themselves that I believe the OP was questioning. Whether someone likes or dislikes children or chooses to have children or not isn't the issue IMO It is however obvious that many have no issue with people being so openly rude. then you aren't reading posts properly. I and other people said that she was very rude. I said earlier that she may have just been a very rude person and it had nothing to do with whether or not she liked kids others agreed that they wouldn't want to sit next to a child, but not necessarily agreed with how she went about it I have not said all posters, you didn't read my post properly. If I meant all the posters in this thread then I would have written that.

It is how people openly express themselves that I believe the OP was questioning. Whether someone likes or dislikes children or chooses to have children or not isn't the issue IMO I don't walk around volunteering that I don't like kids. It normally comes up when someone grills me about why I haven't got kids. Ok and it might be rather obvious if I am out somewhere and there is a naughty child! The lady on the plane might have liked kids btw but just didn't want to sit next to a baby during an international flught. Then child or children would be the appropriate term instead of one of those.

From OP's very first post in this thread It is how people openly express themselves that I believe the OP was questioning. Whether someone likes or dislikes children or chooses to have children or not isn't the issue IMO It is however obvious that many have no issue with people being so openly rude.

You can question whatever you like