Boosters?

Katrina101 · 22-10-2013 11:35am #1

Hi,

My dog is due is annual booster injections. This is our first dog and first time getting boosters. I would like to know what boosters he needs and in what form? I know he will need Kennel Cough but what else...Is the booster just one injection that covers him for everything or is it multiple injections. Roughly how much will this cost.

Thank You
Kat

andreac · 22-10-2013 11:57am

All vets prices vary so its best to ring the one you use.

You are probably talking roughly 40-60 for a booster on its own and maybe up to 70-80 with Kennel Cough.

You dont have to get the Kennel Cough. This is only a requirement for dogs going into Kennels so just bear that in mind.

Katrina101 · 22-10-2013 12:03pm

Thank you for the feedback ..Its good to have a rough idea...we will probably have to put the little guy in kennels over the Christmas period

So will get everything done on the same day. Thanks for taking the time to reply

spur · 22-10-2013 12:15pm

Do shop around though - the prices vary a lot.

I get my 2 done every year, vac & kc. The vac is €25, KC is €15. It's €40 for one dog, €80 for 2. There are other threads on here about the costs and some vets do deals with you're getting both together or for more than 1 dog etc. My vet just has this pricing and however you mix it up, works out the same.

Make sure you have a card and that the vet puts the stickers onto the card and stamps it (you probably have this from the initial vacs anyway) - but if you're putting him into kennels, you will (should) be asked to show this.

I'm not sure where you're based - the vet above is in Co. Cork.

tk123 · 22-10-2013 12:49pm

I think ours were around €55-65..but I was getting puppy vaccinations around the same time so can't be sure. Our vet treats it like an annual checkup and examines them from head to two so it's €42 for the exam and then whatever the vaccinations cost. Ours doesn't give everthing every year - it's lepto evey year and then the others every 3 years.

aonb · 22-10-2013 4:07pm

got my dogs booster shot yesterday - 1 shot - he didnt need kennel cough (we dont use kennels) (OP FYI if you dont know, KC vaccine is squirted up the dogs nose) - it was E39. my other dog is elderly so vet & I are in agreement he doesnt need to be vacc at this stage. but was interested to hear from the vet, that in US they are starting to only vacc every 3 years now. He went on to discuss things like immunity and the effectiveness of vaccines etc. But this is probably a discussion thats been had before and/or for another thread.

boomerang · 22-10-2013 4:40pm

Kennel cough is something of a misnomer. Canine cough would probably be more accurate. Your dog doesn't have to be in kennels to catch it. My two doglets got it last winter and they weren't anywhere near kennels, or training classes, or anywhere else that dogs congregate in numbers!

aujopimur · 22-10-2013 4:46pm

You can do DIY vacs, a vetinery supply store will supply you with what you need (€15)

boomerang · 22-10-2013 5:29pm

If they do, they are breaking the law. Vax are only given by a vet, with very good reason.

tk123 · 22-10-2013 6:40pm

boomerang wrote: »

If they do, they are breaking the law. Vax are only given by a vet, with very good reason.

Also if you have insurance they need to be done by the vet and stamped etc. I've heard of policies being cancelled because the owner had missed a vaccination.

aonb · 22-10-2013 7:18pm

boomerang wrote: »

Kennel cough is something of a misnomer. Canine cough would probably be more accurate. Your dog doesn't have to be in kennels to catch it. My two doglets got it last winter and they weren't anywhere near kennels, or training classes, or anywhere else that dogs congregate in numbers!

no, I meant that we dont need to have the Kennel Cough vacc as we dont go to kennels - just about every kennel demands that an incoming dog is vacc for Kennel Cough. As you say though, one of my dogs who had been KC vaccinated for many years actually got kennel cough a couple of years ago (no where near kennels etc) - the cough sounded nasty but wasnt dibilitating or anything - strangely the other dogs didnt get it from him (although our doggie neighbours treated us like pariahs with the plague!!!!!!!!!!)

Lemlin · 24-10-2013 4:03pm

boomerang wrote: »

If they do, they are breaking the law. Vax are only given by a vet, with very good reason.

Just wondering what law is being broken here?

I ask because I know a vet that sells the vaccinations to people for them to give to the dogs themselves.

That said, he sold them to one person I know for €15. My local vet only charges €10 for the vaccination as part of a yearly check up so I informed this person that his vet wasn't exactly giving him value for money.

tk123 · 24-10-2013 4:13pm

Lemlin wrote: »

That said, he sold them to one person I know for €15. My local vet only charges €10 for the vaccination as part of a yearly check up so I informed this person that his vet wasn't exactly giving him value for money.

Yeah you're right ours are less than €10 I think... EDIT just went back thru my statement €13 for vaccination+KC

Lemlin · 24-10-2013 4:45pm

tk123 wrote: »

Yeah you're right ours are less than €10 I think... EDIT just went back thru my statement €13 for vaccination+KC

But the poster above stated, as well as ripping a customer off, the vet was breaking the law, Im just wondering what law?

We have a habit in this country of saying this breaks the law and that breaks the law but nobody ever stops and wonders what law or if it really is a breach. The post above got 4 thanks so I'm just wondering if someone could confirm what law says a vet can't sell the vaccination privately.

muddypaws · 24-10-2013 6:05pm

Lemlin wrote: »

But the poster above stated, as well as ripping a customer off, the vet was breaking the law, Im just wondering what law?

We have a habit in this country of saying this breaks the law and that breaks the law but nobody ever stops and wonders what law or if it really is a breach. The post above got 4 thanks so I'm just wondering if someone could confirm what law says a vet can't sell the vaccination privately.

It's been mentioned on previous threads, with the relevant law

Lemlin · 24-10-2013 6:12pm

muddypaws wrote: »

It's been mentioned on previous threads, with the relevant law

Any chance of a link?

muddypaws · 24-10-2013 6:21pm

I had a look through the last 3 pages of this forum, but couldn't see anything that looked like it might be the right thread. But there have been a few about vaccinations etc. I'm sure whoever said it was illegal will be back on later with the relevant legal info, was it Boomerang? She's usually on in the evenings, after work etc.

boomerang · 24-10-2013 10:01pm

It's the Veterinary Practice Act, 2005.

As vaccines are prescription-only medicines, if you wish to buy them at a chemist, you must have a prescription from your vet. Likewise if the vet gives vaccines to his clients (which IMO is wrong) he must likewise issue a prescription.

In either case, the vaccination card will be invalid, as it requires that the vet administer the vaccine and sign to that effect.

Even veterinary nurses cannot administer a vaccine and then sign for the vaccination on a vaccination card. The only vaccine they are allowed to give is the second of the two primary vaccinations such as given to puppies and kittens.

Just because a vet is giving out vaccines for clients to administer themselves doesn't mean it's appropriate. There is more to administering a vaccine than just a quick jab between the shoulder blades. I've given the reasons in a previous thread so no need to repeat them here. I say that as someone who previously worked in a rescue who did administer all the vaccines themselves. There are very good reasons for giving vets the monopoly on vaccinations and it goes above and beyond what a lot of clients suspect is purely money-spinning.

Lemlin · 25-10-2013 2:23pm

boomerang wrote: »

It's the Veterinary Practice Act, 2005.

As vaccines are prescription-only medicines, if you wish to buy them at a chemist, you must have a prescription from your vet. Likewise if the vet gives vaccines to his clients (which IMO is wrong) he must likewise issue a prescription.

In either case, the vaccination card will be invalid, as it requires that the vet administer the vaccine and sign to that effect.

Even veterinary nurses cannot administer a vaccine and then sign for the vaccination on a vaccination card. The only vaccine they are allowed to give is the second of the two primary vaccinations such as given to puppies and kittens.

Just because a vet is giving out vaccines for clients to administer themselves doesn't mean it's appropriate. There is more to administering a vaccine than just a quick jab between the shoulder blades. I've given the reasons in a previous thread so no need to repeat them here. I say that as someone who previously worked in a rescue who did administer all the vaccines themselves. There are very good reasons for giving vets the monopoly on vaccinations and it goes above and beyond what a lot of clients suspect is purely money-spinning.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0022/index.html

Could you point to the part of the Act which states it is illegal though? I've found the act and had a quick search of it and it makes no reference to the words "booster" or "vaccination".

The only reference to the word "prescription" is "prescription of educational qualifications for registration". Which has nothing to do with this subject.

boomerang · 25-10-2013 9:26pm

Sorry Lemlin, I thought of it again today and I believe it's in the 2012 amendment. I haven't studied it since college!

Also worth pointing out the 1993 Animal Remedies act, which states that if a vet issues a prescription for a vaccine or any other POM, the animal must be in the vet's care and have been clinically assessed.

A pharmacist can sell a vaccine, but only in accordance with the veterinary prescription, which must be presented by the customer or faxed in by the vet.

Retail premises other than pharmacies can apply for an animal remedies merchant’s licence. (Typically dairy co-ops). They can sell certain prescription-only veterinary medicines (including some small animal vaccines) so long as a vet oversees their sale and the customer provides the retailer with a prescription from the animal's vet.

boomerang · 25-10-2013 9:36pm

For future reference:

NB The list does not include the caution that live vaccines can cause the illness being vaccinated against if administered incorrectly. Live vaccines can also have the effect of infecting other, unvaccinated pets in the home.

Incorrect handling and storage of the vaccination increases the risk of adverse reactions.

1. A severe, life-threatening anaphylactic reaction can occur after a vaccination. The reaction may require rapid medical intervention to save the animal's life.

2. Improper handling of vaccines or syringes can result in infections at the injection site as well as post-vaccine fibromas.

3. If a vaccine intended for subcutaneous administration is accidentally delivered intravenously, or an intra-nasal vaccine given parenterally, a life-threatening reaction may occur.

4. The vaccine may not be effective for any of the following reasons:

(a) It is outdated
(b) Left unrefrigerated too long
(c) Mixed with diluent and then not promptly administered
(d) The syringe has residue or contaminants in it
(e) Alcohol is swabbed on the skin prior to vaccinating
(f) Vaccine is exposed to sunlight, heat, or freezing

5. The proper route of administration is important. If the vaccine is administered in the skin rather than under the skin when the subcutaneous route is indicated or if given in or under the skin when the intra-muscular route is indicated ... the vaccine may not be effective in inducing immunity.

6. Some brands of vaccines are more effective than others.

7. No vaccine manufacturer guarantees that every animal vaccinated will produce protective antibody. There is a wide range of responses possible to each vaccination.

8. With reference to the USA: If you vaccinate your own animal for rabies, state public health and law enforcement officials do not recognize your vaccination as valid. You and the animal will be treated as if NO rabies vaccine was administered. To be recognized as a legal and valid vaccination, Rabies vaccine must be administered by a currently licensed veterinarian in accordance with established state protocol.

8. With reference to the USA: If you vaccinate someone else's animal and they pay you for the favor, you are considered by state statutes to be in violation of the law. Only a licensed veterinarian may legally receive a fee for administering vaccinations.

9. Syringes and needles are considered hazardous waste and may be disposed of only in accordance with regulations. They may NOT be disposed of with ordinary garbage nor in a landfill.

http://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_vaccinating_your_own_dog

Lemlin · 27-10-2013 10:23pm

boomerang wrote: »

Sorry Lemlin, I thought of it again today and I believe it's in the 2012 amendment. I haven't studied it since college!

Also worth pointing out the 1993 Animal Remedies act, which states that if a vet issues a prescription for a vaccine or any other POM, the animal must be in the vet's care and have been clinically assessed.

A pharmacist can sell a vaccine, but only in accordance with the veterinary prescription, which must be presented by the customer or faxed in by the vet.

Retail premises other than pharmacies can apply for an animal remedies merchant’s licence. (Typically dairy co-ops). They can sell certain prescription-only veterinary medicines (including some small animal vaccines) so long as a vet oversees their sale and the customer provides the retailer with a prescription from the animal's vet.

Can you link any of this back to the Act and quote it? You stated it was illegal but I've yet to see the actual law quoted.

I'm also confused with your remark re the 2012 Amendment. You say you haven't studied it since college like that was some time ago but if the amendment was only made in 2012 that's just twelve months ago.

Bizzum · 27-10-2013 10:51pm

Lemlin wrote: »

Can you link any of this back to the Act and quote it? You stated it was illegal but I've yet to see the actual law quoted.

I'm also confused with your remark re the 2012 Amendment. You say you haven't studied it since college like that was some time ago but if the amendment was only made in 2012 that's just twelve months ago.

This debate here happens to be about a booster vac for a dog, but to expand it a little: I would regularly get vaccinations from our own Vet, on prescription, to be administered by myself (and thousands like me) to our livestock.
This would be absolutely standard practice. I don't believe either the Vet or myself are in breach of any legislation. ( It goes without saying that the proper paper trail is maintained)

Lemlin · 29-10-2013 8:14am

Bizzum wrote: »

This debate here happens to be about a booster vac for a dog, but to expand it a little: I would regularly get vaccinations from our own Vet, on prescription, to be administered by myself (and thousands like me) to our livestock.
This would be absolutely standard practice. I don't believe either the Vet or myself are in breach of any legislation. ( It goes without saying that the proper paper trail is maintained)

Thanks. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here to be honest. The user has stated something is illegal yet in several posts since hasn't be able to quote the exact law or ruling which states it.

In fact, they first pointed me to a piece of legislation which makes no reference to vaccinations or boosters.

They may indeed be correct with what they've stated but they have yet to show it.

Bizzum · 29-10-2013 10:25am

Lemlin wrote: »

The user has stated something is illegal yet in several posts since hasn't be able to quote the exact law or ruling which states it.

They may indeed be correct with what they've stated but they have yet to show it.

Having gone through The veterinary practice act 2005 inc the 2012 amendment act, I can see nothing preventing me vaccinating my stock, using a prescribed vac from our own vet.

Lemlin · 29-10-2013 1:11pm

Bizzum wrote: »

Having gone through The veterinary practice act 2005 inc the 2012 amendment act, I can see nothing preventing me vaccinating my stock, using a prescribed vac from our own vet.

I would imagine the same. Sadly the person who made the outlandish claim appears to have scarpered.

tk123 · 29-10-2013 1:12pm

Lemlin wrote: »

I would imagine the same. Sadly the person who made the outlandish claim appears to have scarpered.

Maybe they have better things to do than argue with you? :pac:

boomerang · 29-10-2013 5:33pm

Oh for god's sake!

You try to provide information to further a debate and this is the thanks...

Because now the crux of the matter comes down to whether one person can prove outright to you with the precise subsection of a subsection? May I suggest YOU do the research rather than pettishly waiting for someone to prove it to you? I'm done. Contact the Veterinary Council if you're that bothered.

Bizzum · 29-10-2013 5:57pm

boomerang wrote: »

Oh for god's sake!

You try to provide information to further a debate and this is the thanks...

Because now the crux of the matter comes down to whether one person can prove outright to you with the precise subsection of a subsection? May I suggest YOU do the research rather than pettishly waiting for someone to prove it to you? I'm done. Contact the Veterinary Council if you're that bothered.

Could you possibly have gotten it wrong?

(I'm not suggesting you are mind. It would be a dangerous suggestion to make to a woman.)

time lord · 29-10-2013 6:28pm

Lemlin wrote: »

But the poster above stated, as well as ripping a customer off, the vet was breaking the law, Im just wondering what law?

We have a habit in this country of saying this breaks the law and that breaks the law but nobody ever stops and wonders what law or if it really is a breach. The post above got 4 thanks so I'm just wondering if someone could confirm what law says a vet can't sell the vaccination privately.

A fellow brave! Too right ,armchair solicitors I call them. They have the half the country afraid of their own shadows.
On this particular point it may be against the law but it will mushroom a hundred scare stories too and I challenge anyone to find a conviction for said offence. Don't j walk in o Connell st. either it's also against the law. The courts are full of offenders from transgressors. :-)

DBB · 29-10-2013 7:29pm

Lemlin wrote: »

I would imagine the same. Sadly the person who made the outlandish claim appears to have scarpered.

Okay, let's calm things down here. Not everyone can dedicate lots of time to posting here, or are confined to waiting til they're finished work before they can address issues. This does not mean the they have "scarpered", for goodness sake.
Quit the haranguing everyone. It is entirely possible to make your points without belittling or haranguing other posters.
Do not reply to this post on-thread.
Thanks,
DBB

DBB · 29-10-2013 7:47pm

Now, with mod hat off, as I understand it, owners of animals can carry out certain procedures on their animals, as long as they are sufficiently competent and have been instructed on how to carry out such procedures by a vet.
That is paraphrased, my interpretation of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Act 2012, Section 54.
The same actually allows for a farmer to carry out a wide range of procedures if the animal's life is in danger and there is no qualified help immediately available.
What procedures are okay for an average, pre-taught owner to carry out are not listed in either the 2005 nor the 2012 Acts, and correctly so imo. I assume this means that is down to the discretion of the vet who prescribes the medication, eg the vaccine, also needles etc.
That vet would, I assume, have to be able to justify why he/she gave discretion for this animal, its owner, and the procedure in question, if it came to it.
As has been said already, a vaccination cert is not worth the paper it's written on if the dog (for example) is vaccinated by a non-vet.
The legislation appears to allow for a non-vet to carry out procedures on their own animals, but not on animals owned by others, and certainly not for reward.
POMs and vPOMs should only be available by prescription... And this, I think, is where some pharmacies are potentially falling foul of the law, because some of them dispense POMs with no prescription, vaccines being prime amongst these.
As for the laws being upheld, well, I think it's poor advice to allow someone to break the law just because it doesn't appear to be enforced. In any case, I know one vet who has been prosecuted under this legislation for transgressions relating to vaccinating dogs.

Lemlin · 02-11-2013 12:12am

boomerang wrote: »

Oh for god's sake!

You try to provide information to further a debate and this is the thanks...

Because now the crux of the matter comes down to whether one person can prove outright to you with the precise subsection of a subsection? May I suggest YOU do the research rather than pettishly waiting for someone to prove it to you? I'm done. Contact the Veterinary Council if you're that bothered.

You made a point above that something was breaking the law and illegal.

I've asked you to back up that claim because I am interested in knowing if you are correct.

Your first reply was to point me to a piece of legislation which made no reference to vaccinations. Your second was to say that the 2012 Act changed the law and you hadn't studied it since college. 2012 was only a year ago. Your third is now to state that you haven't the time to find the information and that I should find the information to back up YOUR point.

I'm sure you can see from the above why I remain sceptical.

If you are indeed correct then I am aware of a vet that is breaking the law. That is why I asked the question as I have explained.

boomerang · 02-11-2013 1:04pm

Your tone sucked, Lemlin. Why would I be bothered helping you any further, given your attitude?

Suggesting that I "scarpered" rather than give you an answer immediately?

Intimating that I'm somehow deficient for not remembering the minutiae rather than the broad strokes after a break from college? I take umbrage at that. I'm pretty sure you don't have a photographic memory either.

That's why I'm out. Good luck to you, sir!

borderlinemeath · 02-11-2013 1:46pm

Lemlin wrote: »

You made a point above that something was breaking the law and illegal.

I've asked you to back up that claim because I am interested in knowing if you are correct.

Your first reply was to point me to a piece of legislation which made no reference to vaccinations. Your second was to say that the 2012 Act changed the law and you hadn't studied it since college. 2012 was only a year ago. Your third is now to state that you haven't the time to find the information and that I should find the information to back up YOUR point.

I'm sure you can see from the above why I remain sceptical.

If you are indeed correct then I am aware of a vet that is breaking the law. That is why I asked the question as I have explained.

Lemlin, you're the very poster that won't register your lab pups with the Ikc because it cuts 'unnecessary costs'. The last couple of pages here suggest that you consider getting the pups boosters from the vet as a similar 'unnecessary cost' as all you are trying to ascertain is whether it is legal to administer them yourself. <snip> Cut corners every which way to keep costs down and ship the pups out at a discounted price (ie cheaper than responsible breeders)

Mod note: I've edited out comments here which cast unfair aspersions on lemlin's actions as a breeder. I also feel that lemlin's enquiries re legalities of self-vaxing pups has been misconstrued: as I read it, lemlin is asking the question out of interest, rather than as a means to produce pups for less money.

Lemlin · 03-11-2013 12:01am

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Lemlin, you're the very poster that won't register your lab pups with the Ikc because it cuts 'unnecessary costs'. The last couple of pages here suggest that you consider getting the pups boosters from the vet as a similar 'unnecessary cost' as all you are trying to ascertain is whether it is legal to administer them yourself. <snip> Cut corners every which way to keep costs down and ship the pups out at a discounted price (ie cheaper than responsible breeders)

I have no wish to administer boosters myself. As I said, the person I know pays their vet €15 a shot. IMO he is being ripped off because I paid €160 to Cavan Pet Hospital in Corlurgan in Cavan to have all nine of my pups vet checked and inoculated. That was a €70 consultation fee and €10 an inoculation.

All of the pups were weighed and fully checked over for heart conditions etc. I also treated them for any possible fleas with Advantage 100 for dogs 4kg to 10kg at 7 weeks and wormed them every two weeks from birth with Drontal Worming Solution. They were given 1ml for every 1kg as prescribed by the vet.

The pups were given to their new owners with full vaccination certs. I wouldn't do it any other way and I take great offence that you would try to stipulate otherwise.

The vet in question, a young vet who had just moved from Tyrone where she told me Huskys are very common, said my litter was one of the best cared for she had seen in some time. Not one had any health condition and all were good strong pups at 8 weeks.

I ask the question re the boosters because, as I said, people in this country are too fond of saying this breaks the law or that breaks the law. I have raised a question and I am yet to get an acceptable answer. I ask it because I wish to inform my friend that not only is his vet ripping him off but he is also breaking the law. That is if he is breaking the law and I have yet to be given proof that his vet is.

As for my opinion re IKC papers, as I have said, they are not always necessary. In saying that, all of my litters are registered because generally some buyers do wish to have their pups registered. Others do not. I have NEVER said that I won't register pups with the IKC. Quite the opposite in fact. I simply allow people a choice. For example, in this litter, four of the nine people wanted their pup IKC registered. The other five did not.

One lady for example was buying the Labrador for her 8 and 12 year old daughters who had just lost a King Charles in the Summer. Do an 8 and 12 year old require a dog that is IKC registered?

Does me giving people a choice demonise me? It seems to to some on this forum. It's not as if I am trying to deliberately not register litters to overbreed a dog.

All of my buyers were also given written contracts with all my contact details for future reference. They were also given a period of time to have their pup checked over by their own vet for their own piece of mind and a copy of both the dam and sire's four generation pedigree certs.

Also, I'd point out again that I can't be a backyard breeder. I don't have a backyard for a start. My house is built on an acre of land and is part of a farm of 40 acres overall. The nearest house is five minutes walk away. Therefore I would see my breeding facilities and area as far greater than people on here who breed dogs in housing estates.

Oh, and to quote another poster on here:

IKC reg means nothing, bar that is shows the parentage of the pup, nothing more. It guarantees absol nothing else. Its only a piece of paper to prove the pup is registered and the parents are. Any eejit can register pups once both the parents are, but it doesnt mean the pup is well bred or that the parents are health tested.

I agree totally with the above yet I guarantee if I said it I'd be attacked on here. You folks need to drop the siege mentality.

I don't see what I've done here other than ask someone to back up a point they made.

Lemlin · 03-11-2013 12:21am

boomerang wrote: »

Your tone sucked, Lemlin. Why would I be bothered helping you any further, given your attitude?

Suggesting that I "scarpered" rather than give you an answer immediately?

Intimating that I'm somehow deficient for not remembering the minutiae rather than the broad strokes after a break from college? I take umbrage at that. I'm pretty sure you don't have a photographic memory either.

That's why I'm out. Good luck to you, sir!

Perhaps I did go over the top. For that I apologise and I apologise for the use of the word "scarpered".

My only excuse is that I work in a legal area and I'm very used to people and their broad ideas of what is "illegal".

If someone makes a point and claims something, I expect them to have the relevant legislation to back that up. It's part of the environment I operate in every day.

Perhaps a better way to resolve the issue than to declare yourself out would be to prove your point?

borderlinemeath · 03-11-2013 10:07am

Lemlin wrote: »

I have no wish to administer boosters myself. As I said, the person I know pays their vet €15 a shot. IMO he is being ripped off because I paid €160 to Cavan Pet Hospital in Corlurgan in Cavan to have all nine of my pups vet checked and inoculated. That was a €70 consultation fee and €10 an inoculation.

All of the pups were weighed and fully checked over for heart conditions etc. I also treated them for any possible fleas with Advantage 100 for dogs 4kg to 10kg at 7 weeks and wormed them every two weeks from birth with Drontal Worming Solution. They were given 1ml for every 1kg as prescribed by the vet.

The pups were given to their new owners with full vaccination certs. I wouldn't do it any other way and I take great offence that you would try to stipulate otherwise.

When a poster in one thread talks about cutting 'unnecessary costs' and then in another questions the legality and validity of administering boosters bought from a pharmacy then it is very easy to come to a conclusion such as I did and I'm not going to apologise for it. If you wanted to you could have been clearer in your posts, knowing that the contentious thread where you stated you would cut costs was only recently.

The vet in question, a young vet who had just moved from Tyrone where she told me Huskys are very common, said my litter was one of the best cared for she had seen in some time. Not one had any health condition and all were good strong pups at 8 weeks.

I ask the question re the boosters because, as I said, people in this country are too fond of saying this breaks the law or that breaks the law. I have raised a question and I am yet to get an acceptable answer. I ask it because I wish to inform my friend that not only is his vet ripping him off but he is also breaking the law. That is if he is breaking the law and I have yet to be given proof that his vet is.

People in this country? You mean posters that work with animals in vets and rescues every day? Who have to work within the confines of the legislation? IMO 'people in this country' are far too fond of breaking laws, the more people that actually say, 'hold on, that's illegal' the better.

As for my opinion re IKC papers, as I have said, they are not always necessary. In saying that, all of my litters are registered because generally some buyers do wish to have their pups registered. Others do not. I have NEVER said that I won't register pups with the IKC. Quite the opposite in fact. I simply allow people a choice. For example, in this litter, four of the nine people wanted their pup IKC registered. The other five did not.

One lady for example was buying the Labrador for her 8 and 12 year old daughters who had just lost a King Charles in the Summer. Do an 8 and 12 year old require a dog that is IKC registered?

Does me giving people a choice demonise me? It seems to to some on this forum. It's not as if I am trying to deliberately not register litters to overbreed a dog.

You really don't get it do you? This is the loophole that byb/puppy farmers use. 'Ah sure why bother if it's just a pet, you don't need to register it'. Enough convincing and the whole litter goes out unregistered and they can put the bitch out to pup again far too soon. You giving people 'a choice' as you put it, will give unwitting dog owners a mindset of 'ah it means nothing so why bother'. That IKC registration, as useless as it may be for most people, is the only thing that links the breeder to the self regulatory body and for responsible breeders their reputation means a lot more than giving people 'a choice'

All of my buyers were also given written contracts with all my contact details for future reference. They were also given a period of time to have their pup checked over by their own vet for their own piece of mind and a copy of both the dam and sire's four generation pedigree certs.

But some of them went without registration. And those buyers will tell other buyers that it's not necessary and when somebody else goes to buy a pup it won't ring any alarm bells because it's not registered. While you're doing most things right, you're still sending out the wrong message regarding registration.

Also, I'd point out again that I can't be a backyard breeder. I don't have a backyard for a start. My house is built on an acre of land and is part of a farm of 40 acres overall. The nearest house is five minutes walk away. Therefore I would see my breeding facilities and area as far greater than people on here who breed dogs in housing estates.

C'mon Lemlin, you know as well as anybody that 'back yard breeder' is a phrase used to describe a breeder who has a couple of dogs of the same breed, mates them, doesn't bother with things like health testing, registration etc. It's not about the size of the garden:rolleyes:. <snip>

If I was in the market for buying a puppy, it wouldn't matter an iota whether the dog was in a housing estate or out in the country. The pups should be reared in the house, exposed to everyday noises, people traffic, alarm clocks, doorbells, vacuum cleaners etc to ensure that they are exposed to them in their fear imprint period of life. In fact if somebody boasted about their 'breeding facilities' on their 40 acre farm it would set alarm bells ringing as I would assume that the pups would have been whelped and reared in a farm outbuilding, certainly not the best start to life and detrimental to their mental health.

Oh, and to quote another poster on here:

I agree totally with the above yet I guarantee if I said it I'd be attacked on here. You folks need to drop the siege mentality.

I don't see what I've done here other than ask someone to back up a point they made.

2 pages of asking for clarification and then a sly dig made about scarpering. Bearing in mind that the registration thread is fresh in peoples minds, you can't blame posters for putting 2+2 together and getting 5.

Lemlin · 03-11-2013 10:44am

As I've explained, I work in a legal environment everyday. Therefore I am used to asking people for relevant proof and legislation when they say something is illegal. That is the "people in this country" I was refereeing to. People I deal with everyday in general. Did I say at any time I was referring to people involved in working with animals? No, that is yet another incorrect assumption you made.

I also explained why exactly I was asking the question but perhaps it's easy to presume people have agendas on here rather than trust what they state.

There is a big difference between "unnecessary costs" like IKC papers and the health and well being of the pup.

If you recall on the "contentious thread", as you put it, I had it put to me that registering pups with the IKC meant that the breeder was keeping to the IKC breeding guidelines. As I said then, these guidelines are a disgrace and I wouldn't even see them as a minimum standard for breeding.

I also pointed out where I have been in contact with one breed club who pointed me in the direction of a breeder whose dogs had no hip or eye scores yet were being sold for €650. When I asked the breeder about hip scores, I was told that the only hip scores needed were that two dogs in the pedigree were 14 years old and had no issues.

Another 'breeder', a source from the club, was someone breeding for the first time. They had bought a pup through the club and were breeding it for the first time but had paid a high fee to another member of the club for a sire. They were not a club member and they had no health checks for their own dog. The sire and their dog's mother both had health checks. They were charging €650 again. When I asked why the high price when the mother had no health checks, the 'breeder' stated that she was told she was told by the breeder of her own dog and the sire's breeder that she had to charge at least €600 so as not to "devalue their stock".

I managed then to source a pup myself with the necessary tests completed on both parents for €450, albeit from across the border. What's your explanation for that? I'm not going to broadcast the breed club but feel free to pm me. I'd be more than happy to give you the details.

Yet again you continue to try to insult me by stating the pups may have been kept in an outhouse. You're more than welcome to come and see my facilities. You're only in Meath. I'm fifteen minutes over the county border. All buyers came and saw the facilities and only one lady did not purchase a pup of those who visited. That was because she wanted a large show type dog and I explained my Labs will be of the smaller field trial type.

You have your own opinion and I have mine and people breeding in estates certainly sets my alarm bells ringing. Have you seen the size of the average garden in an estate? Not to mention the size of the average house itself. Yes, puppies need socialisation and noise but they also need room to grow and new areas to explore and discover. I also think its vital that they are socialised with other animals and livestock - cats, sheep, hens, cattle for example. Is this done in an estate?

Perhaps you should stop putting 2+2 together and getting 5 then and get off your high horse and actually ask people questions rather than try to label them with tags.

Also, you state:

You really don't get it do you? This is the loophole that byb/puppy farmers use. 'Ah sure why bother if it's just a pet, you don't need to register it'. Enough convincing and the whole litter goes out unregistered and they can put the bitch out to pup again far too soon. You giving people 'a choice' as you put it, will give unwitting dog owners a mindset of 'ah it means nothing so why bother'. That IKC registration, as useless as it may be for most people, is the only thing that links the breeder to the self regulatory body and for responsible breeders their reputation means a lot more than giving people 'a choice

But some of them went without registration. And those buyers will tell other buyers that it's not necessary and when somebody else goes to buy a pup it won't ring any alarm bells because it's not registered. While you're doing most things right, you're still sending out the wrong message regarding registration.

I find that an amazing quote from someone who has just mentioned rescues. Dogs leave rescues every day without papers and links to the IKC. So are they sending out the wrong message to people then? It seems to me that you are clutching at straws. If I wasn't informing my buyers of the importance of pedigree, why would I be giving them four generation pedigree certs for both parents?

Also, the wide majority of dogs on sites like Donedeal are IKC registered so does that make them great examples of the breed that won't have health problems? Surely those breeders are linked back to the breed club and IKC like you state if they have IKC papers.

You must also disagree with Andreac who I quoted above. I would agree with her that IKC registration means nothing and does not guarantee anything but the parentage of the pup. As she so eloquently put it, "any eejit can register pups once both parents are".

And before you even try to jump to more conclusions and state one that one of my pups could end up in a rescue to insult me further, it's written into the contract given and signed that the buyer must contact me if the dog needs to be rehomed at any stage of its life for any reason and I will help with rehoming.

And perhaps there wouldn't have been two pages of me asking for clarification if some had been given.

borderlinemeath · 03-11-2013 4:41pm

Lemlin wrote: »

As I've explained, I work in a legal environment everyday. Therefore I am used to asking people for relevant proof and legislation when they say something is illegal. That is the "people in this country" I was refereeing to. People I deal with everyday in general. Did I say at any time I was referring to people involved in working with animals? No, that is yet another incorrect assumption you made.

The posters who did state that there was an illegality do work with animals every day.

I also explained why exactly I was asking the question but perhaps it's easy to presume people have agendas on here rather than trust what they state.

Only after I posted my initial post stating that you weren't doing your reputation any favours, as it looked as if you were questioning the relevence of any old joe soap administering boosters.

There is a big difference between "unnecessary costs" like IKC papers and the health and well being of the pup.

If you recall on the "contentious thread", as you put it, I had it put to me that registering pups with the IKC meant that the breeder was keeping to the IKC breeding guidelines. As I said then, these guidelines are a disgrace and I wouldn't even see them as a minimum standard for breeding.

That they may be, but they are still a step that puppy farmers and byb will do their best to avoid, for cost purposes and to overbreed the bitch.

I also pointed out where I have been in contact with one breed club who pointed me in the direction of a breeder whose dogs had no hip or eye scores yet were being sold for €650. When I asked the breeder about hip scores, I was told that the only hip scores needed were that two dogs in the pedigree were 14 years old and had no issues.

Another 'breeder', a source from the club, was someone breeding for the first time. They had bought a pup through the club and were breeding it for the first time but had paid a high fee to another member of the club for a sire. They were not a club member and they had no health checks for their own dog. The sire and their dog's mother both had health checks. They were charging €650 again. When I asked why the high price when the mother had no health checks, the 'breeder' stated that she was told she was told by the breeder of her own dog and the sire's breeder that she had to charge at least €600 so as not to "devalue their stock".

I managed then to source a pup myself with the necessary tests completed on both parents for €450, albeit from across the border. What's your explanation for that? I'm not going to broadcast the breed club but feel free to pm me. I'd be more than happy to give you the details.

I don't need to know the breed club and this is aside from the initial boosters/registration point so I'm not going to get into another debate.

Yet again you continue to try to insult me by stating the pups may have been kept in an outhouse. You're more than welcome to come and see my facilities. You're only in Meath. I'm fifteen minutes over the county border. All buyers came and saw the facilities and only one lady did not purchase a pup of those who visited. That was because she wanted a large show type dog and I explained my Labs will be of the smaller field trial type.

Seriously? You go on about a 40 acre farm and 'breeding facilities'. Nobody who is going to breed needs 'breeding facilities' other than a whelping box and space indoors for the mother and pups. A secure garden is plenty adequate for a puppy for the first 8 weeks of life.

You have your own opinion and I have mine and people breeding in estates certainly sets my alarm bells ringing. Have you seen the size of the average garden in an estate? Not to mention the size of the average house itself. Yes, puppies need socialisation and noise but they also need room to grow and new areas to explore and discover. I also think its vital that they are socialised with other animals and livestock - cats, sheep, hens, cattle for example. Is this done in an estate?

Depends, I don't think I would be as confident letting partly vaccinated pups out with livestock etc. Why give them exposure to ticks, fleas and other parasites? Maybe at 12 weeks when they're fully vaccinated but not any younger. And as you say yourself, some of yours are going as family pets, so the majority of socialization needs to be household noises and people of all shapes and sizes.

Perhaps you should stop putting 2+2 together and getting 5 then and get off your high horse and actually ask people questions rather than try to label them with tags.

I only go on your posts. Again it wasn't until <snip> you stated you worked in a legal environment and that your questioning came from you being used to asking for verification in your line of work. Perhaps you should have stated that in some of your earlier posts and I wouldn't have to reach my own conclusions as to the nature of your queries.

I find that an amazing quote from someone who has just mentioned rescues. Dogs leave rescues every day without papers and links to the IKC. So are they sending out the wrong message to people then? It seems to me that you are clutching at straws. If I wasn't informing my buyers of the importance of pedigree, why would I be giving them four generation pedigree certs for both parents?

I think it's you who are clutching at straws here Lemlin. You know full well that rescue dogs don't have paperwork because a lot of them come through as strays and lost dogs. People who take dogs from pounds and rescues do so because they want to save a dog from possible euthanasia or want to give a rescue dog a home. The rescue gets a donation that goes towards their costs rather than a seller making money. People have their own reasons for choosing or not choosing rescue dogs just as people have their own reasons for purchasing a puppy, they may want a dog with no history or sometimes they don't pass a rescue homecheck.

Also, the wide majority of dogs on sites like Donedeal are IKC registered so does that make them great examples of the breed that won't have health problems? Surely those breeders are linked back to the breed club and IKC like you state if they have IKC papers.

It's certainly not a foolproof system and no, a dog can be IKC registered and have no relevent health checks but again it is another step that byb/puppy farmers will try and cut costs on. Why not register them? Why put that mindset out there that a pup doesn't have to be registered? It's giving the byb/puppy farmers that don't register a bit of validity, that's why. The less people register their pups, the more mainstream it becomes and it's win/win for the puppy farms.

You must also disagree with Andreac who I quoted above. I would agree with her that IKC registration means nothing and does not guarantee anything but the parentage of the pup. As she so eloquently put it, "any eejit can register pups once both parents are".

But it's the ones that don't that bother me. Just another corner to cut.

And before you even try to jump to more conclusions and state one that one of my pups could end up in a rescue to insult me further, it's written into the contract given and signed that the buyer must contact me if the dog needs to be rehomed at any stage of its life for any reason and I will help with rehoming.

And perhaps there wouldn't have been two pages of me asking for clarification if some had been given.

Do you follow up on all your pups though? How do you know that one might have been lost/stolen, put into the pound without your knowledge? Genuine question, it's something I always wondered. We sent our dogs breeder a christmas card each year for the first few years with a photo of her, but I suppose you're depending on the honesty of others to follow through on your contract.

Kinzig · 03-11-2013 5:49pm

Just wondering what law is being broken here?

I ask because I know a vet that sells the vaccinations to people for them to
give to the dogs themselves.

I dont know about breaking laws, but a vet will check that a dog is in good health and not incubating a disease before giving a booster, even if its only done with a well trained eye..non qualified folks dont have that expertise and may give the shot when its not prudent to do so..

Lemlin · 03-11-2013 7:19pm

I'm on a phone do will need to reply to this bit by bit:

The posters who did state that there was an illegality do work with animals every day.

Well I am not aware of where they work and I made a point about people in this country in general, not those posters. As another user said, we've plenty of armchair solicitors in this country.

Only after I posted my initial post stating that you weren't doing your reputation any favours, as it looked as if you were questioning the relevence of any old joe soap administering boosters.

Please reread the thread. In my initial post I said my VET administers my vaccinations for €10 a shot as part of a yearly check up. I said I was asking the question because I have a friend who buys them off his vet for €15 which I think is extortionate.

Here's my initial post for reference:

"Just wondering what law is being broken here?

I ask because I know a vet that sells the vaccinations to people for them to give to the dogs themselves.

That said, he sold them to one person I know for €15. My local vet only charges €10 for the vaccination as part of a yearly check up so I informed this person that his vet wasn't exactly giving him value for money."

That they may be, but they are still a step that puppy farmers and byb will do their best to avoid, for cost purposes and to overbreed the bitch.

You're extremely naive if you think some back yard breeders don't register their pups. Have a read of Donedeal and the amount of pups being sold IKC registered.

I don't need to know the breed club and this is aside from the initial boosters/registration point so I'm not going to get into another debate.

I find this hilarious. Most of our posts now are not about boosters. My point is about breed clubs and health checks which you have made plenty of reference to. When I come back telling you a few home truths though you choose to try and ignore them.

Have you seem the Panorama documentary about breed clubs in the UK? Some are far from the standard bearers you hold them out to be.

Seriously? You go on about a 40 acre farm and 'breeding facilities'. Nobody who is going to breed needs 'breeding facilities' other than a whelping box and space indoors for the mother and pups. A secure garden is plenty adequate for a puppy for the first 8 weeks of life.

I wouldn't see a small estate garden as being adequate for my nine Labrador pups. I also don't see how someone living in an estate would have enough room in their 1300 or so square foot house for nine pups and the mother until 8 weeks. Pups need to discover new areas, smells and animals. Not be pent up in a matchbox garden.

Depends, I don't think I would be as confident letting partly vaccinated pups out with livestock etc. Why give them exposure to ticks, fleas and other parasites? Maybe at 12 weeks when they're fully vaccinated but not any younger. And as you say yourself, some of yours are going as family pets, so the majority of socialization needs to be household noises and people of all shapes and sizes.

Another hilarious point. You do know a pup could easily pick up any of those parasites from walking in the grass. In a town, a cat could easily be in your estate garden without you knowing at night and carry any of those parasites. And why limit the pup to household noises? Pups are just as likely to go to country people as those who live in estates so socialising them with other animals is vital IMO. Even family pets come across sheep and cattle you know.

I only go on your posts. Again it wasn't until after <snip> you stated you worked in a legal environment and that your questioning came from you being used to asking for verification in your line of work. Perhaps you should have stated that in some of your earlier posts and I wouldn't have to reach my own conclusions as to the nature of your queries.

Have a look at my initial post on the thread again. I clearly state the nature of my queries. The post is above word-for-word.

It's certainly not a foolproof system and no, a dog can be IKC registered and have no relevent health checks but again it is another step that byb/puppy farmers will try and cut costs on. Why not register them? Why put that mindset out there that a pup doesn't have to be registered? It's giving the byb/puppy farmers that don't register a bit of validity, that's why. The less people register their pups, the more mainstream it becomes and it's win/win for the puppy farms.

I have already explained that I offer people the choice to save on costs for them. Why have a mother buying a dog for her two daughters spend €50 on papers she doesn't need? I'd prefer she spend the €50 on the dog itself. For example, let her put the €50 to getting it neutered in future. That's far better than papers she doesn't need. As I said, I hand any cost saving from not registering back to the new buyer. It makes no difference to me if they want the pup registered or not.

You seem to put a huge over emphasis on IKC papers. As Andreac said, they prove very little and I fully agree with her.

But it's the ones that don't that bother me. Just another corner to cut.

I find that hypocritical. It's fine for one poster to say something you reckon but not for another poster to say it.

As I said, I'm not cutting any corners. I fully agree with you that there are people out there that cut corners in this fashion but there are just as many people that get full IKC papers and cut plenty of corners. Donedeal as I said is full of them. These people then charge a premium price on poor buyers because the pup is "IKC registered". IKC papers prove nothing.

Yet people like yourself put a huge emphasis on it and are, if anything, helping these dishonest breeders. You hold out IKC registration as some sort of standard but it is far from it. As said, any eejit can register a pup if both parents are registered,

You are posting false information that papers provide this and that. The fact is, as Andreac said, held out as a reputable breeder by many on here, they provide nothing more than proof of parentage. That you are trying to paint them as something else is dishonest on your part and misleading for people who do not have the necessary knowledge and experience.

Do you follow up on all your pups though? How do you know that one might have been lost/stolen, put into the pound without your knowledge? Genuine question, it's something I always wondered. We sent our dogs breeder a christmas card each year for the first few years with a photo of her, but I suppose you're depending on the honesty of others to follow through on your contract.

I have email addresses for all new owners. Most are already emailing me pics of the pups. Even those who don't, I will knock them off an email when the pups are 6 months, 12 months etc. and hope that serves as a reminder that I am here.

I can't force them to keep me informed but I can do my best to maintain communication with them.

thegreatgonzo · 03-11-2013 10:27pm

Bizzum wrote: »

Having gone through The veterinary practice act 2005 inc the 2012 amendment act, I can see nothing preventing me vaccinating my stock, using a prescribed vac from our own vet.

Farmers are allowed to under Part 5 section 55 part 3 though. It specifically mentions farmers as unregistered persons, not unregistered persons in general.

thegreatgonzo · 03-11-2013 10:42pm

Lemlin wrote: »

Hi Lemlin, I think the part of the act you were looking for is in Part 5 section 54 part one which says a person other than a vet practitioner does not perform any act which forms part of the practice of veterinary medicine. However in an emergency and when there is no vet around, section 55 part 2 allows non registered persons do administer first aid or administer an animal remedy. Part 3 refers to farmers.
So administering a prescribed medicine doesn't qualify as an emergency. Allowing a non registered person to administer it even after prescribing it is dangerous territory for a vet, just say the dog had an adverse reaction after prescribing a drug to an animal the vet never saw.
Having said that I'm sure it happens a quite often with regular clients.
If I've misinterpreted any of this I will post corrections later but that is my understanding anyway.

Lemlin · 03-11-2013 11:21pm

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Hi Lemlin, I think the part of the act you were looking for is in Part 5 section 54 part one which says a person other than a vet practitioner does not perform any act which forms part of the practice of veterinary medicine. However in an emergency and when there is no vet around, section 55 part 2 allows non registered persons do administer first aid or administer an animal remedy. Part 3 refers to farmers.
So administering a prescribed medicine doesn't qualify as an emergency. Allowing a non registered person to administer it even after prescribing it is dangerous territory for a vet, just say the dog had an adverse reaction after prescribing a drug to an animal the vet never saw.
Having said that I'm sure it happens a quite often with regular clients.
If I've misinterpreted any of this I will post corrections later but that is my understanding anyway.

Thanks for the reply. Good to get the exact legislation and section pointed out.

I'm actually calling into my own vet tomorrow and I'm going to seek their opinion on this topic.

borderlinemeath · 03-11-2013 11:27pm

Lemlin wrote: »

I'm on a phone do will need to reply to this bit by bit:

Well I am not aware of where they work and I made a point about people in this country in general, not those posters. As another user said, we've plenty of armchair solicitors in this country.

Please reread the thread. In my initial post I said my VET administers my vaccinations for €10 a shot as part of a yearly check up. I said I was asking the question because I have a friend who buys them off his vet for €15 which I think is extortionate.

Here's my initial post for reference:

"Just wondering what law is being broken here?

I ask because I know a vet that sells the vaccinations to people for them to give to the dogs themselves.

That said, he sold them to one person I know for €15. My local vet only charges €10 for the vaccination as part of a yearly check up so I informed this person that his vet wasn't exactly giving him value for money."

You're extremely naive if you think some back yard breeders don't register their pups. Have a read of Donedeal and the amount of pups being sold IKC registered.

You know well that I'm aware that bad breeders also register. But if they can get away without doing so they will. By using your method of giving the buyer 'a choice to cut unnecessary costs' or by bullshiiting that they are registered when they aren't.

I find this hilarious. Most of our posts now are not about boosters. My point is about breed clubs and health checks which you have made plenty of reference to. When I come back telling you a few home truths though you choose to try and ignore them.

No, I was sticking to my point about your reputation regarding boosters and registrations. You were the one who went off on a tangent about breed clubs. I never once mentioned them.

Have you seem the Panorama documentary about breed clubs in the UK? Some are far from the standard bearers you hold them out to be.

There's bad eggs in every organisation. There's bad eggs in the IKC too but they are still the only organisation that sets standards in the area. No it's not a perfect scenario but I never said it was either. I said it was the area where the likes of byb/puppy farmers will cut corners if they can.

I wouldn't see a small estate garden as being adequate for my nine Labrador pups. I also don't see how someone living in an estate would have enough room in their 1300 or so square foot house for nine pups and the mother until 8 weeks. Pups need to discover new areas, smells and animals. Not be pent up in a matchbox garden.

I don't want to start naming posters but there's a few on here that I'm sure live in estates that have had litters of puppies. Now your trying to set a standard on the home that the pups are born in because you think you have the perfect set up?? Having a large house in the country does not make for a good breeder and you inferring as such is probably insulting a lot of people.

Another hilarious point. You do know a pup could easily pick up any of those parasites from walking in the grass. In a town, a cat could easily be in your estate garden without you knowing at night and carry any of those parasites. Why limit the pup to household noises? Pups are just as likely to go to country people as those who live in estates so socialising them with other animals is vital IMO. Even family pets come across sheep and cattle you know.

I don't have an estate garden. But I would limit the pups to certain areas and use kennel disinfectant to ensure the area was fastidiously clean. Nothing wrong with introducing pups to animals when they have got all their vaccinations.

Have a look at my initial post on the thread again. I clearly state the nature of my queries. The post is above word-for-word.

I have already explained that I offer people the choice to save on costs for them. Why have a mother buying a dog for her two daughters spend €50 on papers she doesn't need? I'd prefer she spend the €50 on the dog itself. For example, let her put the €50 to getting it neutered in future. That's far better than papers she doesn't need. As I said, I hand any cost saving from not registering back to the new buyer. It makes no difference to me if they want the pup registered or not.

And that is probably the same spiel that the byb/puppy farmer who doesn't register gives to the unsuspecting buyer. But you don't seem to see that you are putting the wrong message out to puppy buyers.

You seem to put a huge over emphasis on IKC papers. As Andreac said, they prove very little and I fully agree with her.

And I guarantee that Andreac has registered her litter with the IKC. Yes it proves little but it does prove that the breeder won't cut corners.

I find that hypocritical. It's fine for one poster to say something you reckon but not for another poster to say it.

As above.

As I said, I'm not cutting any corners. I fully agree with you that there are people out there that cut corners in this fashion but there are just as many people that get full IKC papers and cut plenty of corners. Donedeal as I said is full of them. These people then charge a premium price on poor buyers because the pup is "IKC registered". IKC papers prove nothing.

Yet people like yourself put a huge emphasis on it and are, if anything, helping these dishonest breeders. You hold out IKC registration as some sort of standard but it is far from it. As said, any eejit can register a pup if both parents are registered,

As above. I think you're just avoiding what I'm saying. I'm sure you understand but you seem to think that you are the ultimate breeder when you cut 'unnecessary costs'. Why do you do it though? So your pups are one of the cheaper ones and you get more inquiries? That would be the only reason I would think a breeder would cut corners and pass on 'savings'.

I have email addresses for all new owners. Most are already emailing me pics of the pups. Even those who don't, I will knock them off an email when the pups are 6 months, 12 months etc. and hope that serves as a reminder that I am here.

I can't force them to keep me informed but I can do my best to maintain communication with them.

Lemlin · 04-11-2013 7:36am

First off, I'm not sure there's much point continuing this debate because of the unbelievable arrogance you are displaying. You are aware you made a point above regarding me not posting my nature of questioning which I showed to be wholly incorrect. Yet you cannot even muster an apology or acknowledgement that you were clearly incorrect.

You know well that I'm aware that bad breeders also register. But if they can get away without doing so they will. By using your method of giving the buyer 'a choice to cut unnecessary costs' or by bullshiiting that they are registered when they aren't.

So if bad breeders can also register so easily then what advantage are the IKC papers providing? I honestly don't think bad breeders will choose not go register if possible. If anything, they will choose to register because it allows them to maximise their profit by bumping up the price of the pup because it is "IKC registered". Why else would there be so many of these pups on Donedeal?

Then people will read posts like yours above and think that IKC papers are offering something like a link to the breed standard when, in truth, they are not.

I also don't see the need to reduce your argument to foul language.

No, I was sticking to my point about your reputation regarding boosters and registrations. You were the one who went off on a tangent about breed clubs. I never once mentioned them.

My "reputation". So posting my opinion on one point gets me a "reputation"? So what is my reputation on boosters then seeing as I clearly said I get my vet to do them?

And this is an Internet forum. I'm not too bothered about my "reputation" on it.

I don't want to start naming posters but there's a few on here that I'm sure live in estates that have had litters of puppies. Now your trying to set a standard on the home that the pups are born in because you think you have the perfect set up?? Having a large house in the country does not make for a good breeder and you inferring as such is probably insulting a lot of people.

Why shouldn't I outline my own standard for breeding when you are trying to enforce yours on me? I will not change my opinion that someone living in a cramped city estate does not have the necessary room to breed a dog correctly.

You have continued to insult me by making veiled accusations that I am different terms so why should I be worried about who I insult? I certainly won't change my opinion regarding breeding in estates.

But sure you seem to think breeding is easy anyway. How did you put it - all ya need is the necessary room and a whelping box? Yet I'm the one you are throwing accusations at!

I don't have an estate garden. But I would limit the pups to certain areas and use kennel disinfectant to ensure the area was fastidiously clean. Nothing wrong with introducing pups to animals when they have got all their vaccinations

So, let me get this right, for the first eight weeks of its life your puppy will smell kennel disinfectant wherever it goes outside? That is just ludicrous. For the first six weeks of life the pups gain some immunisation from their mother's own inoculations. At six weeks they get their initial shot and at eight weeks their first shot of the second two.

6 to 12 weeks is vital for puppy socialisation so I see it as a key time to introduce pups to as many animals as possible and allow them to explore and discover new areas and smells, albeit in a secure area.

I also think the puppy needs to be exposed to areas not covered in the likes of disinfectant so it can start to build a natural immunity, otherwise you are going to have a very sick dog in the future.

And that is probably the same spiel that the byb/puppy farmer who doesn't register gives to the unsuspecting buyer. But you don't seem to see that you are putting the wrong message out to puppy buyers.

So a puppy farmer has never fed a buyer spiel about IKC papers?

I assure you I do not send out the wrong message to puppy buyers. My pups, as well as a huge wealth of oral and emailed information, each went out to their new home as standard with written info on:

1. Vaccination cards
2. A 2.5kg bag of Skinners Field and Trial puppy and information on the benefit of feeding a premium nut.
3. Information about RAW feeding from Dogsfirst.
4. A full schedule of what dates the pups had been flea treated and when they were wormed.
5. The contract I already mentioned.
6. 4 generation Pedigree certs for both parents.
7. The buyers were emailed pictures of their pup each week up until it was collected at 8 weeks old. I also answered any queries they had during this time and continue to answer queries.
8. A copy of the reg papers and what is entailed if they wish to register the pup at a later date.

So the message I give my buyers is that this is the standard they should accept from their breeder and that if they are to mention anything to their friends it would be all the information they received and continue to. I would expect them therefore to be able to say to friends no, you should expect this, this and this from your breeder.

I wouldn't expect people to naively believe that everything will be hunky dory once you get IKC papers which means absolutely nothing.

And I guarantee that Andreac has registered her litter with the IKC. Yes it proves little but it does prove that the breeder won't cut corners.

Are you even reading the thread? My litter has also been registered with the IKC. 4 of the pups have already been registered and I gave the other buyers info on the IKC and told them to come back to me if they wish to register at a later date.

As above. I think you're just avoiding what I'm saying. I'm sure you understand but you seem to think that you are the ultimate breeder when you cut 'unnecessary costs'. Why do you do it though? So your pups are one of the cheaper ones and you get more inquiries? That would be the only reason I would think a breeder would cut corners and pass on 'savings'.

Why would I enforce an extra cost on people from an institution that I have no faith in? I've already outlined some anecdotal evidence re the IKC and breed clubs above and I could share plenty more.

I give people a choice. I previously bred Springer Spaniels as I've said before. The majority of people buying them wanted them for hunting and did not want IKC papers.

When enough people come and say they don't want papers or aren't interested in them, why would I continue getting them for all buyers?

borderlinemeath · 04-11-2013 7:58am

You're right about one thing. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

muddypaws · 04-11-2013 10:48am

Lemlin wrote: »

The vet in question, a young vet who had just moved from Tyrone where she told me Huskys are very common, said my litter was one of the best cared for she had seen in some time. Not one had any health condition and all were good strong pups at 8 weeks.

Are you breeding Huskies?

Lemlin · 04-11-2013 11:06am

muddypaws wrote: »

Are you breeding Huskies?

Nope, I bred my Labrador. The vet was making a point about Huskies being prevalent in Tyrone where she previously worked and where she finds it crazy that people keep such a high energy breed in small estate gardens.

I was asking her about dogs in NI because my own Labrador came from there and 4 of my nine pups also went to NI. Portadown seems to be a hugely popular area for the breed.

Lemlin · 04-11-2013 11:07am

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You're right about one thing. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Still no apology then?

Well hopefully if you've learned one thing from this thread it's that before you jump on that high horse of yours again and come galloping over a thread, you'll actually read what posters have said before making assumptions, jumping to conclusions and trying to force your opinion on others.

Boosters?

Comments