I would never take a chance with heart worm... I use NuHeart that is just for heart worm... small pill once a month... we do not have issues with heart worm in NoCal but I do not take a chance. I use it year round. In the area that there is frost/frozen for the winter you can use it just in the spring/summer/fall months.
For fleas/ticks I use frontline but only when I see fleas... again in NoCal not too much of an issue.. I need to use it maybe about twice a year and only when need or if I am traveling with the pups.
This Was All Preventable
-
It is sad and add in the people who "claim"… "we are a family home just raising some pups"... right... for the money that is....
And for the breeders on this list (responsible ones) notice how many try to sell anyone puppies on this forum? None.... We push about testing only to make people aware of how important it is and how to find a responsible breeder, not trying to push our pups that we might have. We typically have reservations for the pups before we even breed....
-
I think our breeders were clueless about this disease! We got ours in Texas, they never told us anything about it. We're learning about it as we go.
-
I think our breeders were clueless about this disease! We got ours in Texas, they never told us anything about it. We're learning about it as we go.
That is a problem or even if they do know, they choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend like they don't… or as is in most cases, they do not want to test because it takes away from the profit.
-
While most likely a pipe dream, if there was a way to lobby and get a bill authored in regard to known diseases in breeds require mandatory health testing that would be a step in the right direction. The next problem would be enforcement of that health testing. At this point, we cannot even shut down the puppy mills and even if we could, how would we find all the back yard breeders. On top of this add to the issues the rescue and re-homing of dogs that are placed but not completely tested for all known existing diseases prior to that placement.
Clearly there are many many issues that exist. So what is the best way to combat these things and fight back. I think clearly what lvoss, Tanza, and others have stated is right now the best way to be effective is to be pro active and spread the word through websites, conversations, blogs, and what ever public means possible. If you are a member of a local dog club that meets do they address these types of issues on a regular basis. Can it be added to the agenda so its addressed occasionally. In addition can we find a way to bring pressure on the rescue organizations and placement agencies to test for Fanconi and other health issues so they might be disclosed to any perspective person considering the adoption on an animal.
Even considering everything above, what should really happen to the affected dogs. Should Fanconi affected Dogs be euthanized? Its this a more humane type of solution? Sure this is a horrible solution but how does it really compare to the life that these dogs might be subjected to. This I think is topic that seriously needs to be debated.
Jason
-
With Fanconi dogs there is no one solution… some of them really do well on the protocol and have no problem with the 10 to 40 pills a day... I do not believe they should be euthanized unless they 1. do not do well on the protocol and 2. Will not willing take the medication whether it be by "forcing" the pills down or by hiding it in the food. Then you need to evaluate the quality of life and at some point make that decision. But many of us have to make that hard decision as our kids age and have any kind of health problems that requires medication or treatment that may be less then pleasant. And not everyone is up to the challenge for a Fanconi dog, so again the decision to euthanize is never an easy one.
As far as testing before a rescue is place, I think if you go back through many of the threads, you will see that I full agree that they do... IMO, it is not fair to place a rescue dog with someone without full disclosure of possible health concerns. While prior to the DNA test the only tool we had was strip testing so it was always a crap shot... but now to place a dog only giving the knowledge that he/she is not spilling at that time is not fair to the dog or the person that adopting. And to say, "well they can test if they want".. it is like buying a puppy, you become attached... so great you get a rescue, you test and find out that he/she is DNA Fanconi Affected... now what? 99% of the time they will keep the dog, but it will put a sour taste in their mouths that had they known they most likely would not have taken that particular dog. And that of course is the reason they don't test them... because they say they will not be able to place them... and that is a problem... So as Jason brings up, what is the best solution... I surely don't know, but I know that I believe that placing rescues without testing is wrong -
While most likely its a pipe dream, if there was a way to lobby and get a bill authored in regard to know diseases in breeds require mandatory health testing that would be a step in the right direction. The next problem would be enforcement of that health testing. At this point, we cannot even shut down the puppy mills and even if we could, how would we find all the back yard breeders. On top of this add to the issues the rescue and re-homing of dogs that are placed but not completely tested for all known existing diseases prior to that placement.
Because every breed is different it really is not practical to try to legislate health testing. What some states have done is to put in place puppy lemon laws that include state something along the line that a breeder just disclose of all known hereditary issues prior to sale or breeder is responsible for any hereditary disorder that they knew of and did not disclose or should reasonably have been aware of. The should reasonably be aware of is to try to cover instances where breeders are just not testing so they can say they didn't know or where both parents had the disease and they said that since there were no DNA tests they couldn't really know if the offspring would have it.
-
Even considering everything above, what should really happen to the affected dogs. Should Fanconi affected Dogs be euthanized? Its this a more humane type of solution? Sure this is a horrible solution but how does it really compare to the life that these dogs might be subjected to. This I think is topic that seriously needs to be debated.
JasonI think that Parry (Jaadi), Tracy (Data), Susan (Nate), myself and many others would agree that they would NOT hate traded their Fanconi Affected dogs for the world.
Had we known of their affliction before they were bred, we all would have bred them in different directions.
But, I for one, would HATE to see this kind of thing become a law.
There is already a bill trying to be passed (in Oregon) so there is no line-breeding within several generations.
I find this total crap and would hate for it to happen.
While I do agree with many of the bills about limiting the number of dogs (I truly believe that no person needs up to 50 dogs), I don't think one should legislate how I follow my hobby.Educating the public is the best thing we can do.
With the day and age of the internet, there is NO reason for someone to say that they did not learn about Fanconi Syndrome prior to purchasing their basenji.With the number of ads out that talk about Fanconi, there is no reason for folks to be in the dark about it.
-
How the public can be "clueless" about this is very hard to believe. Just google Basenji and all the websites that pull up will have info on Fanconi to a certain degree. Yes you might have to click on that button once you are on the website but as a buyer wouldn't you want to find out everything you can about the breed? Of course you would…but living here in the states as a foreigner (swede) I have to admit it is very "easy" to just buy and oops it didn't work out..."forget". So many people buy any dog or cat or whatever animal because it is just so darn cute, and then reality kicks in and the puppy or whatever is not cute anymore now it is destructive ( ie bored), it got bigger than I thought (?), or it has an ailment I didn't know they could get....what do you mean. We need to educate people responsibility about animals in general regardless of what breed it is. Do your homework and the make a educated desicion on whether you would be a good NO GREAT pet owner. It is horrible,all these animals in shelters all over the country.
Basenjimamma
-
If you don't test - then you don't know and if you don't know - you can look someone in the eye and say - "my dogs don't have that." Since many of those folks don't know where their dogs currently are and many people contact lists rather than go back to the 'breeder' - they can continue the mythg.
Rather than mandatory health testing - the best way to address it is via puppy lemon laws. Why states like it is "they don't have to do anything but pass the bill" If you say mandatory testing - that means staff and inspections etc etc.
Here is a list of puppy lemon law states - posted on the Maltese list - I do not know how current it is so there MAY be more states. If your state doesn't appear - I think that trying to get it passed is a good thing. It ONLY allows the owner to take the breeder to small claims court to recoup the health expenses - up to the price of the dog.
-
Yes Lemon laws can be great if they are effective. How long is the time limit on those lemon laws. If it takes a Basenji 3 years or more to develop symptoms of Fanconi or any other disease then does that lemon law apply?
Is that breeder, or back yard breeder, or pet shop still going to be in business 3 years or more down the road?
What do lemon laws really do to stop irresponsible breeders from passing on genetic disorders from one generation to another as long as they are able to stay in business?
How many people are really going to complain?
Just think about how many people forget to mail in rebates. The companies issuing the rebates are counting on this. So if there is a time limit or restriction then for that irresponsible breeder, it might be worth the financial risk.
In my opinion, lemon laws just allow some financial recovery for the buyer if he or she catching things in time. It does not heal the heart over the loss of that animal, and it also may not be a big enough deterrent.
Just my thoughts
Jason
-
Typically it is for one year - so the new owner can get the puppy tested way before 3 years - I have recommended that course of action many times - at least 4 people I know of have used it successfully.
Is it perfect - nope - is it easy to use yes, do some people decide it's too much work yes. You are NEVER going to get all people to do what is right all the time but you have to start somewhere. The media in MN loves to find out about puppy lemon law violations and bad press hurts more than anything.
RE: Broken Heart - nope - BUT - that's life we can be pretty sure that we will be sad at some time.
-
What do lemon laws really do to stop irresponsible breeders from passing on genetic disorders from one generation to another as long as they are able to stay in business?
How many people are really going to complain?
The first time I heard of the lemon law in California was during a news segment about a BYB who had a class action law suit filed against them. It was filed against the individual breeder not a company so I don't think the "stay in business" really applies. The dysplastic pups produced ranged in age from 2 years old and 4 years old. She had repeated the breeding several times both parents were dysplastic and puppies from the first litter had been reported as dysplastic before several of the litters were bred.
The interviewed 5 different owners for the news segment. So lemon laws can be effective IF people know about them and file complaints but again it is all about education.
-
This sueing bad breeders might just work, if it was successful and made public.
-
The first time I heard of the lemon law in California was during a news segment about a BYB who had a class action law suit filed against them. It was filed against the individual breeder not a company so I don't think the "stay in business" really applies. The dysplastic pups produced ranged in age from 2 years old and 4 years old. She had repeated the breeding several times both parents were dysplastic and puppies from the first litter had been reported as dysplastic before several of the litters were bred.
The interviewed 5 different owners for the news segment. So lemon laws can be effective IF people know about them and file complaints but again it is all about education.
I think we need to be realistic and accept the fact that individual can come and go just as puppy mills come and go. While the reasons may be different that either one ceases to exist it does happen.
As has been mentioned there may be time limits involved in regard to lemon laws and depending on your breed and the time for a particular disease varies.
While I am not shooting down education at all, I find I have to compare how education has impacted other areas of our lives and how ineffective it can be. Education has not stopped teen pregnancy. Education has not stopped the spread of Aids, Diabetes, Drug use, or Alcoholism. While some might consider this statement extreme, law enforcement, and penalties have not stopped crime or murder.
I guess what I am attempting to say is that unless a very tight control of any given situation is taken, there is no real effective way of preventing those situations from happening. Even when tight control and severe penalties apply, people will continue to violate others as long as they feel that can get away with it.
Jason
-
I am going to have to disagree with you. There is no solution that is 100% effective but the studies that have been done related to the topics you have mentioned do show that education does work. Some education is more effective than others and often controversy about what should be taught decreases the efficacy of education.
I am also going to be a little harsh here and say that there are also plenty of people out there who get dogs from irresponsible breeders because they are bargain hunting, don't want to answer responsible breeders questions, refuse to wait, etc. For those people, you get what you pay for, not just monetarily but in the effort you are willing to expend on an endeavor. At some point people have to take responsibility for their choices and actions.
-
I am going to have to disagree with you. There is no solution that is 100% effective but the studies that have been done related to the topics you have mentioned do show that education does work. Some education is more effective than others and often controversy about what should be taught decreases the efficacy of education.
I am also going to be a little harsh here and say that there are also plenty of people out there who get dogs from irresponsible breeders because they are bargain hunting, don't want to answer responsible breeders questions, refuse to wait, etc. For those people, you get what you pay for, not just monetarily but in the effort you are willing to expend on an endeavor. At some point people have to take responsibility for their choices and actions.
+1.
To me, ineffective would be 0% change or a negative %. Even +1% is a positive outcome. It might not be the number we want or think should be the result, but again, things take time to catch on…Rome wasn't built in a day. The lemon laws are a step in the right direction, IMHO...especially if it gets even a handful of bybs or puppymills to think about what they are doing and stop.
To that end, there are people on this forum that have purchased from petstores (puppymills and/or bybs) or bybs that now know they made a mistake and now know the difference between a responsible breeder and byb. I seriously doubt that now armed with the proper education they would opt to go their original route again...no matter how wonderful their pet. So if it stops even a handful of people on here from making the same mistake, then, to me, the education has been effective.
Lisa, while some may think what you said as harsh about cut rate pricing and immediate gratification, I completely agree with what you said. It is the elephant in the room and needs to be said.
-
I am going to have to disagree with you. There is no solution that is 100% effective but the studies that have been done related to the topics you have mentioned do show that education does work. Some education is more effective than others and often controversy about what should be taught decreases the efficacy of education.
I am also going to be a little harsh here and say that there are also plenty of people out there who get dogs from irresponsible breeders because they are bargain hunting, don't want to answer responsible breeders questions, refuse to wait, etc. For those people, you get what you pay for, not just monetarily but in the effort you are willing to expend on an endeavor. At some point people have to take responsibility for their choices and actions.
I do not have any problem with you disagreeing with me. After all that is the point of discussion.
I do not think you are being harsh at all and I find it a positive thing to directly and honestly address what you see as the root of the problem. I think we need more of this and not less of it. Its almost like we are so concerned about hurting someone's feelings that we bite our lips and do not share how we really feel.
Thanks at least for stepping forward and doing so.
Jason
-
I think Euthanizing a dog that is diagnosed with Fanconi is a bit harsh - but requiring them to be spayed/neutered would achieve the same effect, no? Which is not allowing them to produce any Fanconi affected (or carrier) offspring.
If someone tried to make me put Tayda down cause she has Fanconi I would have to beat them up.
-
I think Euthanizing a dog that is diagnosed with Fanconi is a bit harsh - but requiring them to be spayed/neutered would achieve the same effect, no? Which is not allowing them to produce any Fanconi affected (or carrier) offspring.
If someone tried to make me put Tayda down cause she has Fanconi I would have to beat them up.
I wouldn't either unless it was absolutely in their best interest, quality of life would be the major factor, I wouldn't neuter mine, the risk would worry me if they were already compromised, I have mum, two sons and a daughter who I wouldn't mate either so I can't see why the circumstances would be any different.
-
I think Euthanizing a dog that is diagnosed with Fanconi is a bit harsh - but requiring them to be spayed/neutered would achieve the same effect, no? Which is not allowing them to produce any Fanconi affected (or carrier) offspring.
If someone tried to make me put Tayda down cause she has Fanconi I would have to beat them up.
Of course….it is a little ridiculous to suggest putting Fanconi affected animals down when their quality of life is still good. Why would anyone put a beloved pet to sleep when they were still enjoying life? Maybe I missed something, but I don't really understand this suggestion?
