PYODERMA: IMPORTANCE OF GROOMING/BATHING

Karen A. Moriello, DVM, Diplomate ACVD

Superficial bacterial pyoderma is one of the most common skin diseases of dogs. In 1976, Staphylococcus intermedius was identified as the primary pathogen. It is considered to be an opportunistic pathogen and is found within hair shafts and on hairs, skin, mucosal areas, and mucocutaneous areas of dogs. The anal area is believed to be an important carriage area. Contamination of the skin is believed to occur during grooming and pruritic behaviors. A "strain" is a clonal population in which all members are genetically identical and have the same phenotypical characteristics. It is unknown whether Staphylococcal isolates cultured from pustules have the same genotypical pattern as isolates from carriage sites. In this study, 3 pustules and 3 carriage sites were cultured from each dog with superficial bacterial pyoderma. Staphylococcal speciation and pulse-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) were done to answer this question. Of the 246 isolates, 203 were S. intermedius, 5 were S. aureus, 15 were Staphylococcus species, and 22 were coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates. None of the dogs had an isolate with a PFGE pattern the same as that of another dog. Pustule isolates from individual dogs were genotypically the same, and strains from pustules were genotypically the same as strains from carriage sites on the same dog. Study funded by The Ohio State University Canine Research Fund and Bayer Animal Health

COMMENTARY: The finding that each dog had its own genetically unique strains of Staphylococcus suggests that dogs are not being colonized passively from other dogs. This study did not examine bacterial isolates among dogs in the same family, and dogs in proximity to each other may have genetically similar strains. How that would affect treatment protocols is unknown. What this study did show was that strains of bacteria from pustules were the same as those found in carriage sites. This finding does not prove that the carriage sites are the source of the infection, but it does further highlight the importance of concurrent therapy when dogs are being treated for bacterial pyoderma. Grooming to remove debris and retained hair from the coat along with extra attention to bathing of carriage sites needs special emphasis with clients. Anal pruritus leads to increased anal licking and mechanical carriage and spread of bacteria. Controlling pruritic skin disease and recurrent pyoderma is clearly important.

Genotypic relatedness of staphylococcal strains isolated from pustules and carriage sites in dogs with superficial bacterial pyoderma. Pinchbeck LR, Cole LK, Hillier A, et al. Am J Vet Res 67:1337-1343, 2006.

"THE LAST GROOMER SHAVED MY DOG!"

“The Last Groomer Shaved My Dog!!” -“Humanity before Vanity”

Posted by Tina Standing on May 22, 2012

“The last groomer shaved my dog”.

A sentence I am sure every groomer has heard many, many times in their career.

It’s disappointing as a groomer when someone comes in and wants a fluffy haircut and you feel the dog’s coat and it is matted beyond any hope of achieving such a look. The only option is a “smoothie”.

You want to give the client what they want but the dogs comfort always comes first. “Humanity before vanity” is a slogan many groomers quote.

I can remember a few times I have had to shave a dogs coat and explained to the client why and showed them the knots and they agree but then you never see that client again.

I offer the option of a free brushing session to my clients to help them keep the fluffy look; if that is a look they want. Brushing isn’t rocket science, of course but there is a trick to it. A lot of times clients do a terrific job of keeping the top coat knot free but the undercoat is a solid knot and then the dog gets a bath and once the knots get wet, they tighten up even more, which can cause the dog discomfort, create sores etc… I often tell my clients, brushes are great but combs won’t lie. A good stainless steel comb is a valuable asset to a dog’s coat, if you want a longer style.

“My dog acted funny after it was shaved”. Dogs do feel different after a shorter haircut, especially if they had a lot of hair previously. Think of how you’d feel if you had a pile of matted hair on your head and it was suddenly gone. It would probably feel itchy once the air finally got to it.

It’s never in the groomer’s best interest to not give a client what they want, within reason. I’ve built up a wonderful clientele who trust me and they know if the dogs ears were shaved, it’s because I had to do it for the dogs comfort.

If the clip is shorter than the usual, it was because the condition of the coat warranted it. Most breeds of dogs with the exception of short haired dogs do need regular grooming. Even the short haired breeds require regular nail trimming and brushing to remove dead coat. I recommend long haired dogs get professional grooming at least every 4-8 weeks. Depending on the style you chose and how much maintenance you do athome.

Even those so called shed-less breeds require professional grooming.  Shed-less breeds, in my opinion don’t exist unless you have a hairless dog. Dogs labeled as shed-less still lose hair, it just sticks in the coat which does mean they will require regular grooming. I have curly hair so I don’t shed as much but if I don’t brush my hair, I will get knots. If I washed my hair without brushing out these knots, I’d have to get a shorterhair cut also!

So my advice is find a groomer you trust and ask their advice on how to achieve the look you want for your pet. If your dog has to be shaved, it’s not the end of the world as it will grow back faster than you realize.

Dogs Align Themselves to Earth’s Magnetic Field When Pooping

By Breanna Draxler | January 2, 2014 2:39 pm

Dogs seem to do their business wherever they feel like it, sometimes in very unfortunate places like neighbors’ yards and kids’ sandboxes. But scientists now say it isn’t random: dogs actually align themselves with the Earth’s magnetic field before dropping a doody.

An ability to sense the orientation of the Earth’s magnetic field has been detected in migratory animals such as birds, whales and bees. They are thought to use it for navigation. But this study is the first to find such “magnetosensitivity” in dogs. The researchers spent two years gathering the necessary data (i.e., watching 5,582 pee breaks and 1,893 defecation stops) in Germany and the Czech Republic. After ruling out the influence of wind, time of day, and sun angle, the researchers found that the only factor that played a role in determining how and where the dogs popped a squat was the Earth’s magnetic field.

Canine Compass

When the field was stable, dogs preferred to squat along the North-South axis and actively avoided the East-West axis. That’s without the influence of leashes, fire hydrants or fences.

The researchers don’t know if the 70 dogs in the study actually “felt” the magnetic pull, according to the paper published inFrontiers in Zoology. But the scientists base their conclusion on the fact that during periods of instability in the Earth’s magnetic field, when the sun’s magnetic field and solar winds vary its orientation, the dogs no longer showed a preference for the North-South axis.

Next time you take Fido for a walk, bring a compass and see if the results hold true.

IS BUYING FROM A BREEDER BAD?

Are all breeders bad???

Are all breeders bad???

I was walking in a parade a year ago for a shelter I support with my then new puppy.  A shelter volunteer asked me nicely but with a bit of a pointed tone, “Do you feel bad about buying a dog from a breeder?”  I didn’t skip a beat with my answer of “Not at all”.  She was taken aback as I believe lots of shelter volunteers would be because they see the dogs being given up daily and don’t have an opportunity to see the other side.

Let me say that Clever is my 8th dog I have owned and my very first breeder purchase.  Sage was my first dog who is now 11 and she came from a shelter.  The other 6 all came from rescues.  Honestly, when I got Sage I didn’t know what I know now and she’s the main reason I wanted to never quit learning.

However, I was someone who knew that I wanted a dog as a child and was always met with the answer of “When you grow up and get your own house, then you can get a dog!”.  So the day came and I finally had my own place.  After unloading the moving truck, my next agenda item was heading to the shelter and looking for a new dog.  After doing some research, I went looking for a Golden Retriever reading that they were very family friendly dogs, easy to train and loved everyone.  I ended up falling in love with an Airedale mix instead but the shelter was closing for the day so I decided to bring my mom back the next day to have a look (as I was renting a house from my parents, I thought it only fair).

Of course my mom thought she was too big and too much energy and urged me to keep looking.  Two kennels down was this sweet, gold 6 month old puppy that ran right up to lick my hand.  Love at first sight.  I pet her a little in the meet and greet room and I was sold.  My mom agreed and I headed to the front to start the adoption.  The computers locked up and the front desk realized that another woman was trying to adopt the same dog.  After a call to the shelter manager, I won since I already had an application in the day before.  Boy did Sage become a lucky dog.  I say this because she really dislikes kids and the other adopter had 4.  She also ended up being way more energy than I was prepared for.

Over the next few weeks she ran laps around my house, ate the arm off of my couch, tore up so many pieces of paper I lost count and even though I had been successful at teaching her the basics, she was still a lot of dog to manage.  I truly cannot imagine her in a home with 4 kids.  Matter of fact, I can very much see her being returned to the shelter, sold or given away.  So let’s just pretend for a minute that Sage was adopted by the woman with 4 kids.  Let’s also say that in her first two weeks in a home that she did all the things I described above and managed to growl at the kids for grabbing at her.  Who gets the blame in this situation?  Is it the new owner for not sticking with it?  Is it the shelter for allowing the dog to go to a home that didn’t work?  Or is it the breeder that allowed her to be born?

I would really like to take a moment here to talk about a “breeder”.  I’ve done rescue for the past 10 years and when I started, I was very much into the stereotype that if you buy a dog from a breeder then shelter dogs die.  I know that is still a common thought as I see posts stating it on Facebook all the time.  There are many different types of breeders out there and I think that educating the general public about them is where we really need to start.  10 years ago, most people had never heard the term “puppy mill” yet now we think it’s pretty common knowledge, right?  If so, then why do people still continue to purchase puppies from pet stores?  Why do people not think to inquire about puppies listed on the internet and where they come from?  Just because most people reading this are very aware of puppy mills doesn’t mean your neighbor or your cousin has the slightest idea about them, or maybe they just don’t care.

Now let’s take the breeders who advertise on Craigslist, in the local paper and yes, even some on reputable websites.  Whether on purpose or by accident, they now have a litter of puppies that they need to get rid of and they want money for them.  These folks are the biggest part of education that we need to focus on.  It’s pretty rare that these folks will dump a litter at the local shelters.  They want to try to “recoup costs” by offering them at a discounted price similar to what it would cost to adopt from a shelter.  Most of these folks have no clue about behavior or temperament and are really just looking for “a good home” and in the end, your money.  They are the same folks that will have yet another litter in 6 – 12 months to sell.  If you have any questions or issues you will be lucky to get a call back let alone any advice.  These are the main puppies that end up at the shelter between 6 months and 2 years of age.  I call these folks Backyard Breeders.

Now before you go and put all the blame on these folks, let’s stop and talk about the people who buy them.  How many actually put in the time to train, socialize or basically make them into a well-mannered dog?  Some do and some just wait until they can’t deal with the dog anymore and then send them to the local shelter or rescue.  These are the dogs that you see that jump all over you, mouth and nip for food or attention and basically have no real skills to offer.  So now we have the original breeder that sold the puppy but we also have the owner that did no real work to give this dog any skills to be successful in a home.

Now let’s talk about what I call a “good quality breeder”.  These aren’t the folks who are looking for money.  Don’t get me wrong, you will pay a good price for one of their dogs, but they make very little from puppy sales.  They are spending the money on multiple OFA (Orthopedic Foundation for Animals) tests.  They are testing things like hips, eyes, hearts and other genetic issues to make sure that the parents should not pass on any negative traits to their offspring.  Not only parents, but grandparents that have also tested clear as well.  Any good breeder is also involved in showing their animals in one venue or another be it conformation, obedience, agility, hunting, herding, schutzhund or whatever that breed was designed to do.  These titles aren’t just about letters with a dog’s name but putting lots of money where their mouth is and showing that they are breeding dogs that live up to the breed standard.

Not only that, but a good quality breeder will commit to taking back any dog they have produced no matter if it’s a puppy or a senior that for any reason might lose it’s home.  I personally know a breeder that took dog’s back because she heard they weren’t properly being taken care of.  She was at the owner’s house within the week and per her contract took the dogs back to her own house.  She didn’t really have the room for 3 more dogs but she made it work because she was committed to these dogs for life.  These are the same breeders that you can call 10 times a week for advice and they will give it.  So again if you ask me “Do I feel bad buying from a breeder?”, I will tell you absolutely not!  Clever’s breeder has introduced me into the world of hunting which I never would have even thought about.  She was bred to do it and when I watch her out there searching for birds I get a huge smile seeing her so happy.  We also email frequently and she is genuinely interested in knowing what I’m doing.  She does this with all of her owners and it’s a commitment to be admired.

Bottom line is that this topic of breeders being bad is something that needs some serious education.  Are there a lot of bad breeders out there?  You bet there are.  Are there a lot of owners out there who aren’t committed and would rather give up than take a simple obedience class to help?  You know it.  We need more public education about how to find a good quality breeder for those folks that choose to purchase a puppy.  So before you make the blanket statement that all breeders are bad, step back and think about the folks who think all Pit Bulls are bad.  Just as we say blame the deed and not the breed…please step back and apply the same principle to really ask why this dog ended up in a rescue or shelter in the first place.

Published September 2, 2013 by furbetterfurworse.com

The Loss of a Pet: Resources to Help You Grieve

By Dr. Sophia Yin

To some people, the death of a pet or even the decision to euthanize seems just another complication of day-to-day life. To others, the loss of an animal companion can lead to overwhelming grief.

Says Betty Carmack, author of Grieving the Death of a Pet, "People often say they grieved more for their animal's death than they did for a spouse, parent, child, or sibling, and they seem a bit surprised by that. But when they say it in a support-group situation, other people are nodding their heads in understanding."

"Our relationship with animals is sometimes very different from our relationships with people. People talk about how their relationship with their animal companion is more pure. They don't have the conditions that relationships with people do. There's a lot of baggage that's connected with relationships with people that we don't have in our relationships with animals. "

That means that even when we've just lost a game-winning point or put the office copier out of commission for the day, or made an epic fashion faux pas, kitty still wants to curl up in our lap and Sneakers the rat still wants to sit on our shoulder. And even when we forget the morning walk and then come home late from work, Rover still greets us with a wag.

Our pets offer a kind of stability that's hard to find among our human friends. Consequently, a loss can send someone into a deep depression characterized by loss of sleep, loss of appetite, and trouble focusing on daily tasks. Other factors can make the loss worse.

"In society, grief for an animal, especially at work, is minimized," Carmack says. "You don't get bereavement leave and people don't know how to behave, so often they don't do anything, which makes the person feel even more isolated."

Those who do care frequently ask insensitive questions such as, "It was only a dog or cat. When are you going to get another," as if the animal could be replaced. Instead, friends should acknowledge the significance of the loss, even for small or short-lived species, Carmack says, because it's not how long you've had an animal or how much you paid for it. It's what that animal meant in the person's life.

A sympathy card, a visit, or flowers will show you care. Friends also can help in other simple ways. "When people are going through grief they don't feel like doing things such as preparing meals or cleaning the house," Carmack says. She suggests friends offer to bring dinner over or run to the grocery store or baby-sit the kids. They can even offer to help the griever memorialize the pet. Planting a tree or flower, making a collage, making a monetary donation to animal organizations in the pet's memory, sending out notices of the pet's death and what it meant. Such tributes help make the loss real and give an opportunity to honor the animal and the relationship with the owner.

Perhaps the most important help a friend can offer is to invite the pet owner to talk about the pet. In support groups, such as the one that Carmack leads at the San Francisco SPCA, people have a chance to talk about the loss of their loved animal companions and they find that their feelings and their experiences are validated. Such groups can also benefit those trying to make a euthanasia decision.

How do you know when a grieving friend needs more than you can offer? "After the death of a pet, some part will irrevocably change, while others will get back to normal," Carmack says. So if the person isn't able to work or continues to be hopeless or talks about wanting to join the animal, help the person seek resources such as a doctor, priest, or counselor. Most importantly, remember, people grieve at their own rate and in their own way. Be patient and respect the loss.

OVER-VACCINATION-AN UNETHICAL PRACTICE

Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice

UPDATE!  The WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group has recently (May 2013) publishedVaccination Guidelines for New Puppy Owners*.   Dog and puppy owners need to read these guidelines very carefully.  I have highlighted important points in this copy of the new Vaccination Guidelines.

*Published on the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines webpage

_____________________________________________________________________________

Over-vaccination of companion animals, and exploitation of pet owners, is a massive international scandal.

Many dog owners are still not being advised that there is no scientific evidence to support annual OR triennial revaccination with core modified live virus (MLV) vaccines for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus.

The World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats note that duration of immunity after core MLV vaccination is “many years and may be up to the lifetime of the pet”.[1]   

It is misleading for veterinarians to demand that already immune pets have bogus ‘booster’ shots every year or every three years.  (Core MLV vaccines for dogs can be compared to the live Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine for children – adults are not revaccinated with the MMR vaccine every year or every three years as these vaccines are likely to provide lifetime immunity.)  

Many pet owners remain unaware of the option to have titre-testing to verify their pet has responded to core MLV vaccination, despite the fact that the WSAVA Guidelines say “…the principles of ‘evidence-based veterinary medicine’ would dictate that testing for antibody status (for either pups or adult dogs) is a better practice than simply administering a vaccine booster on the basis that this should be ‘safe and cost less’”.[1]  

Non-core vaccines of questionable benefit and safety for diseases such as Bordetella bronchiseptica (often referred to as ‘kennel cough’) continue to be prescribed indiscriminately.

In Australia, I and fellow pet owner Bea Mies have been campaigning for ethical and evidence-based vaccination of companion animals.  As a result of our persistence, change is slowly happening in companion animal vaccination practice.

Internationally other pet owners are also raising awareness about over-vaccination of pets.  For example, in the United States, Jan Rasmusen has  established the excellent websites truth4pets andtruth4dogs which provide much useful information about vaccination of pets.

In the United Kingdom, Catherine O’Driscoll of Canine Health Concern is the co-ordinator of the international Pet Welfare Alliance.  Catherine has been at the forefront of demands for better healthcare for pets for many years.

Online publications Dogs Naturally and National Dog have also been instrumental in warning pet owners about over-vaccination of pets.

It is a disgrace that members of the public have to be the leaders for change due to the failure of self-interested experts/professionals in the veterinary vaccine industry.  While some veterinarians (e.g. Jean Dodds, Patricia Jordan and others) have been active in raising concern about vaccination of pets, their warnings have often been ignored.  The veterinary profession risks losing credibility when pet owners discover crucial information about revaccination has been withheld from them for years.  There are serious questions about professional responsibility and competence, transparency and accountability, ethical conduct, abuse of authority, and betrayal of trust that must be answered.

My essay “Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice” provides some background on this subject.  The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) announced a new reduced vaccination policy[2] soon after my essay was widely circulated in June 2009.  (After demands from dissenting AVA members, the AVA’s vaccination policy was subsequently downgraded to a position statement in July 2011).[3]

In January 2010, the government regulator of veterinary vaccines, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), issued a position statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats, acknowledging matters of concern in regard to re-vaccination intervals.  State veterinary boards in Australia subsequently blatantly disregarded the APVMA’s request for the APVMA’s Position Statement to be circulated to veterinarians in Australia.  It is astonishing that veterinary boards ignored advice from the Federal regulator of veterinary vaccines, and that they can do so without penalty.

In August 2010, CHOICE, Australia’s consumer watchdog, published its report on over-vaccination of pets i.e. “Pet vaccination: Over-vaccinating your pet could be harmful to their health as well as your own hip pocket”.  The ABC also reported on this story i.e. Questions raised over pet vaccination, broadcast in October 2010.

In May 2011, specialist dog breeder magazine, National Dog, published my article  “Vaccination failure!” which warns there is a potential for maternally derived antibodies (MDA) to interfere with a puppy’s response to core vaccination, and calls upon the World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Vaccination Guidelines Group to provide clear and objective advice on optimal puppy vaccination, and an optional titre test confirmation protocol.

In February 2012, Bea Mies addressed the industry sponsored WSAVA Guidelines for the Owners and Breeders of Dogs and Cats, arguing that advice to pet owners contradicts scientific findings published elsewhere.

Bea’s latest email to Professor Michael Day, Chairperson of the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group, and Sarah Mitchell of Pfizer Animal Health, provides critical analysis of their Canvac vaccine study paper, recently published in the December 2012 edition of the Australian Veterinary Journal[4].  Bea argues their paper is the latest instalment of willfully misleading and ethically dubious veterinary education on canine vaccination.

I supported Bea’s recent email to Michael Day and Pfizer Animal Health (January 2013)  with a call to the industry-funded WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group to publicly provide an objective, simple and effective message on vaccination to pet owners.

For more information contact:

Elizabeth Hart: eliz.hart25@gmail.com             Bea Mies beatemies@gmail.com

See below links to my correspondence, submissions and articles on over-vaccination of pets:

Key documents:

• Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice (16 June 2009).  My essay summarises the issue of over-vaccination of pets.
• Is over-vaccination harming our pets? Are vets making our pets sick? (13 April 2009).  My detailed and fully-referenced report was tabled at a special meeting convened by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority on 15 April 2009 to discuss the problem of unnecessary vaccination of pets.

Correspondence with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), and others:

• Email to James Suter, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (20 April 2011) with further questions re the APVMA’s responses to adverse experience reports being marked ‘COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE’.
• Email to Australian Veterinary Boards (19 May 2011) enquiring if the APVMA’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats had been circulated to veterinarians, as requested by the APVMA in September 2010.
• Open letter to Barry Smyth, President of the Australian Veterinary Association; Peter Punch, Chair of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council; Eva Bennet-Jenkins, CEO, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (26 March 2011): A formal complaint re the continuing calls for already immune animals to be needlessly, and possibly harmfully, revaccinated.
• Email to James Suter, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (6 March 2011) “Request for information re adverse experience reporting / possible conflicts of interest”.
• Email to Allen Bryce, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (31 January 2011) re adverse experiences after vaccination
• Open letter to the veterinary profession and industry (9 August 2010) re use of the media to promote over-servicing in the veterinary profession- unnecessary, and possibly harmful, vaccination of companion animals.
• Response to Allen Bryce (23 June 2010), Program Manager, Veterinary Medicines, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority re unnecessary, and possibly harmful, vaccination of companion animals, and the APVMA’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats.
• Open letter to Allen Bryce (17 June 2010), Program Manager, Veterinary Medicines, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority re unnecessary, and possibly harmful vaccination of companion animals, and the APVMA’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats.
• Open letter to Mark Lawrie (May 2010) (Immediate Past) President of the Australian Veterinary Association re over-servicing in the veterinary profession – unnecessary, and possibly harmful, vaccination of companion animals  (6 May 2010, with an update added on pages 3-4 on 23 May 2010).
• Open letter to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (24 January 2010), Australian Veterinary Association, Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association, and Competition and Consumer Policy Division, The Treasury re unnecessary vaccination of pets and the APVMA’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats.
• Open letter to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (8 January 2010), Australian Veterinary Association and Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association re unnecessary vaccination of pets and the APVMA’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats.
• Open letter to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (22 December 2009), Australian Veterinary Association and Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association re over-vaccination of pets / APVMA Position Statement / vaccine product labelling issues.
• Is over-vaccination harming our pets? Are vets making our pets sick? (13 April 2009).  This detailed and fully-referenced report was tabled at a special meeting convened by the APVMA on 15 April 2009 to discuss the problem of unnecessary vaccination of pets.

Correspondence with the UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD):

• Email to Anna-Maria Brady, UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate (23 June 2011) requesting evidence to support the veterinary industry’s call for revaccination of pets.
• Email to Anna-Maria Brady, UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate (15 May 2011) with questions re core vaccine product labelling in regards to duration of immunity.
• Email to Anna-Maria Brady, UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate (1 April 2011) providing a pet owner’s perspective on pet vaccination.
• More emails on this topic are accessible on the VMD website:http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/public/vaccines_letters.aspx#hart

Correspondence with Virbac Animal Health (Disease WatchDog):

• Email to Mark Kelman, Virbac / Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association (7 February 2011) re further questions about the Virbac Disease WatchDog
• Email to Mark Kelman, Virbac / Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association (26 January 2011) re alarming statistics regarding parvovirus and the Virbac Disease WatchDog.
• Email to Mark Kelman, Virbac / Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association (31 July 2010), re canine vaccination protocols.

Submissions on the subject of unnecessary vaccination of pets:

• A Submission to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (24 June 2011), on the Draft Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
• A Submission on the National Scheme for Assessment, Registration and Control of Use of Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Discussion Paper in relation to “Unnecessary, and Possibly Harmful, Use of Companion Animal Vaccines” (10 February 2010).
• Submission to Craig Emerson MP (17 July 2009), Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, on the Consumer Voices Issues Paper: “Request for consumer protection for consumers of veterinary services in Australia”.

Correspondence to Members of Parliament:

• Email to Senator Joe Ludwig, Minister responsible for the APVMA (26 November 2011), complaining about the failure of ‘self-regulation’ of veterinarians.
• Letter to Craig Emerson MP (4 July 2010), Federal Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs re submission on the Consumer Voices Issues Paper: “Request for consumer protection for consumers of veterinary services in Australia”.
• Letter to Tony Burke MP (17 June 2010), Federal Minister responsible for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, re unnecessary, and possibly harmful, vaccination of companion animals, and the APVMA’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats (17 June 2010).

Articles and summaries re over-vaccination of pets:

• The Australian campaign for ethical and evidence-based vaccination of companion animals (February 2012)
• Vaccination failure!  There is a potential for maternally derived antibodies (MDA) to interfere with a puppy’s response to core vaccination. (Article published in the May 2011 edition of National Dog).
• Important Information for Dog Owners – Vaccination Update July 2010 (An earlier version of this article was also published in National Dog Volume 13, No. 6).
• Letter to the Editor of The Veterinarian magazine (8 June 2010) Response to Aine Seavers’ article “Three-year vaccination intervals: a different view from the parvo trenches of practice-land”.
• Letter to the Editor of The Veterinarian magazine (7 June 2010): ‘A pet owner’s perspective of the vaccination controversy’.
• Too many needles !  Unnecessary vaccination exposed (February 2010. Article published in National Dog in April 2010).
• The over-vaccination controversy continues (Article published in National Dog in December 2009).
• Over-vaccination: Are vets making our pets sick? (June 2009. Article published in National Dog in July 2009).
• Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice (16 June 2009).  This essay summarises the issue of over-vaccination of pets.

Media reports re over-vaccination of pets:

• Media reports re over-vaccination of pets in Australia August –October 2010
• Examples of reports in the Australian media about parvovirus outbreaks during the period Dec 2009 to March 2011.

___________________________________

[1] MJ Day, MC Horzinek, RD Schultz. World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol.51. June 2010.

[2] The Australian Veterinary Association’s policy on vaccination of dogs and cats was ratified by the AVA Board on 26 June 2009.

[3] “Position Statement are chosen when the AVA membership has conflicting views on the topic which is particularly the case with duration of immunity and there was lack of agreeance with the document produced.” E-ructations, AVA NSW Division Newsletter, Issue 26 May 2011.

[4] SA Mitchell, RJ Zwijnenberg, J Huang, A Hodge and MJ Day. Duration of serological response to canine parvovirus-type 2, canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus type 1 and canine parainfluenza virus in client-owned dogs in Australia. AVJ Vol. 90, No. 12, December 2012.

One thought on “Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice”