Popular blog post - harsh reality of vet med

[DVMDream]

A good example is that dogs did not need to have an exam to get their booster vaccines if we had seen them in the last year for an exam. However, puppies had to have an exam for every vaccine booster round. The vet would also just "start the vaccines over" because, as she put it, she didn't know if the breeder/store/shelter/friend/whoever really did the previous vaccines, even if the new puppy owner came in with a list of vaccines the puppy had previously by wherever they got it. I got yelled at more times than I care to remember for not charging puppy people for an exam when they had an exam three weeks ago. Charging puppy parents an exam fee didn't start until about four and a half months after I started working there.

A few things on this to maybe help understand the vaccine thing better. The exam thing, I agree, is odd, we charged everyone an exam puppy or adult with vaccines, however puppy booster vaccine exams were 1/2 the cost of the full exam. They repeat constantly in vet school that your exam is your number 1 tool for trying to figure out abnormalities so they are important.

Now the vaccines. We also restarted any vaccine series that was not given by a vet. There are various reasons on that. Yeah perhaps the breeder gave a vaccine or the friend you got the dog from says they gave it but where did that vaccine come from? Was it from a reputable place? Stored properly? Transported correctly? Reconstituted correctly? Administer correctly? Did the vaccine get in the animal and not poke through the skin and squirt in the fur? Also, check manufacturer guarantees, most state the vaccines are guaranteed if administered by a vet so those from the friend or breeder won't count. So restarting the series isn't a bad thing. Wish vets would explain to employees why they have certain policies makes it easier to understand and have your staff also back up what you are telling the client.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dyachei]

@dyachei I'm asking this off the assumption that you took out a loan for starting your practice, but don't all business loans need a well-thought out business plan before issuing a loan? How do other practices manage to get the loan needed to start a practice if they aren't business-minded and have a plan of action before obtaining the loan?
Having recently had a discussion about finances and loans with family, it was a thought in my head.

well thought out business plans are different than business plans. And there's a difference in how you project your earnings as well. Most people don't really do that. Most people just want to do the "doctor stuff"

 

[battie]

They repeat constantly in vet school that your exam is your number 1 tool for trying to figure out abnormalities so they are important.

Now the vaccines. We also restarted any vaccine series that was not given by a vet. There are various reasons on that. Yeah perhaps the breeder gave a vaccine or the friend you got the dog from says they gave it but where did that vaccine come from? Was it from a reputable place? Stored properly? Transported correctly? Reconstituted correctly? Administer correctly? Did the vaccine get in the animal and not poke through the skin and squirt in the fur? Also, check manufacturer guarantees, most state the vaccines are guaranteed if administered by a vet so those from the friend or breeder won't count. So restarting the series isn't a bad thing. Wish vets would explain to employees why they have certain policies makes it easier to understand and have your staff also back up what you are telling the client.

A lot of that makes sense. I totally get the exam thing as far as finding the abnormalities in life. My physics professor (horrible teacher, decent person though) caught his stage three liver cancer from a routine check up and blood work. My boyfriend hasn't seen a doctor in years and I give him crap for it all the time. But then again, I have to go to the doctor once a year to renew my prescriptions, so it is what I am used to.

I had no clue about vaccines in that light. It definitely makes me think about personal experiences and how different aspects of the pet industry connect to one another. Two of the clinics I worked at never questioned the vaccines on paperwork and, as I said, this most recent clinic had only recently changed the policy. That is interesting.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

A few things on this to maybe help understand the vaccine thing better. The exam thing, I agree, is odd, we charged everyone an exam puppy or adult with vaccines, however puppy booster vaccine exams were 1/2 the cost of the full exam. They repeat constantly in vet school that your exam is your number 1 tool for trying to figure out abnormalities so they are important.

Now the vaccines. We also restarted any vaccine series that was not given by a vet. There are various reasons on that. Yeah perhaps the breeder gave a vaccine or the friend you got the dog from says they gave it but where did that vaccine come from? Was it from a reputable place? Stored properly? Transported correctly? Reconstituted correctly? Administer correctly? Did the vaccine get in the animal and not poke through the skin and squirt in the fur? Also, check manufacturer guarantees, most state the vaccines are guaranteed if administered by a vet so those from the friend or breeder won't count. So restarting the series isn't a bad thing. Wish vets would explain to employees why they have certain policies makes it easier to understand and have your staff also back up what you are telling the client.

This. People don't know that if it comes out of a vet clinic, it is typically backed by some sort of guarantee of efficacy (think getting your Frontline at a clinic vs. your grocery store). I'm not saying that vaccines have a written 'guarantee,' but you can be confident in that they were handled/stored/administered properly. Usually.

I always get annoyed when someone asks "Why do you guys charge $27 for a bordetella vaccine when Drs. Foster and Smith have a single dose for $5?" Meanwhile, DFAS only "strongly recommend" air shipping to preserve the vaccine and no where "strongly recommends" seeing your vet yearly. I should note that that $27 price has an exam fee worked into it (I worked for one vet that did her vaccine appointments that way).

 

[battie]

I always get annoyed when someone asks "Why do you guys charge $27 for a bordetella vaccine when Drs. Foster and Smith have a single dose for $5?" Meanwhile, DFAS only "strongly recommend" air shipping to preserve the vaccine and no where "strongly recommends" seeing your vet yearly. I should note that that $27 price has an exam fee worked into it (I worked for one vet that did her vaccine appointments that way).

One of my least favorite question I was every asked/comment ever given was from a lady who rarely ever took her Yorkie to the vet. Only took her to get her vaccinated for boarding every couple of years. We use the bordetella vaccine that needs to be boosted every 9 months. The owner thought the Yorkie was only (over)due for rabies (by over a six months), but the Yorkie was also due for bordetella. The woman asked me why our vaccine for bordetella is every six months but her old vet's was a yearly one. I simply told her I don't know since I don't know what specific vaccine her old vet used (which she hadn't been to since 2010 in our records anyways). I explained our vet felt more comfortable using the six month vaccine. The words that came out of her mouth over a vaccine she only gets for her dog every couple of years were astonishing.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

One of my least favorite question I was every asked/comment ever given was from a lady who rarely ever took her Yorkie to the vet. Only took her to get her vaccinated for boarding every couple of years. We use the bordetella vaccine that needs to be boosted every 9 months. The owner thought the Yorkie was only (over)due for rabies (by over a six months), but the Yorkie was also due for bordetella. The woman asked me why our vaccine for bordetella is every six months but her old vet's was a yearly one. I simply told her I don't know since I don't know what specific vaccine her old vet used (which she hadn't been to since 2010 in our records anyways). I explained our vet felt more comfortable using the six month vaccine. The words that came out of her mouth over a vaccine she only gets for her dog every couple of years were astonishing.

I was chatting with my boss about overvaccinating today, actually. She told me about a paper that showed that dogs who get annual rabies (as opposed to the 3-year) actually show a lower immune response to the virus than the dogs who were vaccinated less frequently (if at all). I tried to find it on Google Scholar, but had no luck. Has anyone else read it? I don't know if that holds true for all vaccines, but it makes me curious.

I also worked for one clinic that did a 6 month bordetella, and then one that did a 1-year bordetella. The first client that ever screamed at me was actually over the 6-month bordetella. "WHAT THE HELL KIND OF VACCINE ONLY LASTS 6 MONTHS? YOU'RE JUST TELLING ME THAT SO I FORK OVER MORE CASH." I don't know why it's only licensed for 6 months. I don't know why certain clinics choose a bi-annual vaccine instead of the annual. Why bother with a vaccine that needs to be done twice yearly when you can just bring your dog in for an annual once yearly and get it all done? Is it business-related, or is the 6 month truly proven to provide better immunity?

 

[SummerTheLynx]

I was chatting with my boss about overvaccinating today, actually. She told me about a paper that showed that dogs who get annual rabies (as opposed to the 3-year) actually show a lower immune response to the virus than the dogs who were vaccinated less frequently (if at all). I tried to find it on Google Scholar, but had no luck. Has anyone else read it? I don't know if that holds true for all vaccines, but it makes me curious.

I also worked for one clinic that did a 6 month bordetella, and then one that did a 1-year bordetella. The first client that ever screamed at me was actually over the 6-month bordetella. "WHAT THE HELL KIND OF VACCINE ONLY LASTS 6 MONTHS? YOU'RE JUST TELLING ME THAT SO I FORK OVER MORE CASH." I don't know why it's only licensed for 6 months. I don't know why certain clinics choose a bi-annual vaccine instead of the annual. Why bother with a vaccine that needs to be done twice yearly when you can just bring your dog in for an annual once yearly and get it all done? Is it business-related, or is the 6 month truly proven to provide better immunity?

From what the doctors at my practice told me, and someone can correct me on this, the 1 year bordetella and 6 month are the same vaccine. However, the difference is that many boarding facilities in my area will only accept the 6 month bordetella. If you are using the intranasal then I remember glancing at something the doctor showed which showed better efficacy for 6 month vaccines then 12 month which would make sense from a mucosal immunity perspective. With regards to the injectable, I am not too sure on thst (we never used that as a 6 month), but the protocol we use for that is different and is 3 wk/1 yr.

 

[WildZoo]

I was chatting with my boss about overvaccinating today, actually. She told me about a paper that showed that dogs who get annual rabies (as opposed to the 3-year) actually show a lower immune response to the virus than the dogs who were vaccinated less frequently (if at all). I tried to find it on Google Scholar, but had no luck. Has anyone else read it? I don't know if that holds true for all vaccines, but it makes me curious.

I also worked for one clinic that did a 6 month bordetella, and then one that did a 1-year bordetella. The first client that ever screamed at me was actually over the 6-month bordetella. "WHAT THE HELL KIND OF VACCINE ONLY LASTS 6 MONTHS? YOU'RE JUST TELLING ME THAT SO I FORK OVER MORE CASH." I don't know why it's only licensed for 6 months. I don't know why certain clinics choose a bi-annual vaccine instead of the annual. Why bother with a vaccine that needs to be done twice yearly when you can just bring your dog in for an annual once yearly and get it all done? Is it business-related, or is the 6 month truly proven to provide better immunity?

Don't know about the rest but I know some kennels,dog parks, groomers, etc require bordetella every 6 months (don't know why) so that may have something to do with it. It's the same vaccine though.

 

[WildZoo]

STL stahp

 

[WildZoo]

I believe (I could be wrong) that the 1 year and 3 year adjuvanted rabies vaccines are also the same, but have to be labeled differently for legal reasons, since rabies vaccination is required by law, and you're only covered for the amount of time it is labeled for.

 

[SummerTheLynx]

That is true WZ. A lot of it has to do with state legislation from what I have seen.

 

[WildZoo]

Yeah I found a VIN article about it instead of doing actual homework/studying

In the case of Defensor 1 and Defensor 3 vaccines made by Pfizer, testing is the only difference between the products. “The formulations are the same, but regulatory requirements for the one- and three-year vaccines are different, requiring distinct and separate studies for each label,” said Pfizer spokesman Richard Chambers.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Yes, they are the same. That's exactly my issue. I wish I could find this study she told me about. If dogs that have been receiving a yearly vaccine are worse off than dogs who have not been vaccinated at all (at least that was my understanding of it, always possible I misheard) or receiving infrequent vaccines, what the heck are we doing?

I wonder if the boarding facilities just want hyper-immune dogs so they can basically have herd immunity if one dog comes in that slipped through the cracks and is unvaccinated/carrying bordetella. I've never worked anywhere that used the injectable, so I guess the intranasal one is the most popular.

I'm starting to meet more and more anti-vaxxer clients who think we're poisoning their pets, so I really do want to know if they are, in theory, correct (not the poisoning part, but you know what I mean). WHERE IS THAT STUDY? I'll have to ask her.

 

[thecatastrophist]

Yes, they are the same. That's exactly my issue. I wish I could find this study she told me about. If dogs that have been receiving a yearly vaccine are worse off than dogs who have not been vaccinated at all (at least that was my understanding of it, always possible I misheard) or receiving infrequent vaccines, what the heck are we doing?

I wonder if the boarding facilities just want hyper-immune dogs so they can basically have herd immunity if one dog comes in that slipped through the cracks and is unvaccinated/carrying bordetella. I've never worked anywhere that used the injectable, so I guess the intranasal one is the most popular.

I'm starting to meet more and more anti-vaxxer clients who think we're poisoning their pets, so I really do want to know if they are, in theory, correct (not the poisoning part, but you know what I mean). WHERE IS THAT STUDY? I'll have to ask her.

You might want to look for studies about antibody titers. I don't remember hearing anything about decreased immune responses, but over the summer this actually came up with a client. The clinic her dogs were previously at used the 1-year rabies vaccine and this clinic only did three years. The vet explained to me that researchers had drawn antibody titers from dogs vaccinated for rabies and found that the vaccine itself was effective for three years. It's probably not what you're looking for, but if you use the "cited by" tool that google scholar provides you might be able to find a few similar studies and get a better idea of the situation.

There is a general sentiment nowadays that our overly aseptic lifestyle might contribute to problems with the immune system. But, that's not quite the same as a vaccinated dog showing less immune response to a virus when vaccinated yearly versus every three years. If you find that article, I'd really be interested to read and see for myself.

 

[WildZoo]

If dogs that have been receiving a yearly vaccine are worse off than dogs who have not been vaccinated at all (at least that was my understanding of it, always possible I misheard) or receiving infrequent vaccines, what the heck are we doing?

I seriously doubt that's true at least...

It also kind of depends because there are different companies and there are going to be differences between their formulations. But as stated in the article I posted, they test the efficacy of the vaccine after the time period that it is guaranteed for. If 85% of dogs that were vaccinated do not get the disease, and 80% of unvaccinated dogs do, the vaccine is considered good for that time period. But they don't really compare 1 year vs 3 year usually because those experiments take a long time, and they would need to keep another experimental group for 3 years (the dogs getting the 1 yr vaccine).

I think one of the reasons the 1 year vaccines continue to be recommended is that a lot of people only bring their pet in for that purpose, and then end up getting an exam while they are there. I don't know if this is state regulated or what, but the clinic I worked at had a policy of at least giving a limited exam (like a puppy exam) to any animal receiving a rabies vaccination. Some clients, if you give them the 3 year vaccine, won't bring their pet in for another 3 years. It's not the best model, clearly it would be better for clients to be educated and to understand why yearly exams are important, but I think it is something that plays a part.

 

[SummerTheLynx]

Yes, they are the same. That's exactly my issue. I wish I could find this study she told me about. If dogs that have been receiving a yearly vaccine are worse off than dogs who have not been vaccinated at all (at least that was my understanding of it, always possible I misheard) or receiving infrequent vaccines, what the heck are we doing?

I wonder if the boarding facilities just want hyper-immune dogs so they can basically have herd immunity if one dog comes in that slipped through the cracks and is unvaccinated/carrying bordetella. I've never worked anywhere that used the injectable, so I guess the intranasal one is the most popular.

I'm starting to meet more and more anti-vaxxer clients who think we're poisoning their pets, so I really do want to know if they are, in theory, correct (not the poisoning part, but you know what I mean). WHERE IS THAT STUDY? I'll have to ask her.

I almost want to say for a fact that the bolded statement is not true. I really want to see any study that is making that claim, as I cannot honestly believe that.

And you have to remember that, especially with Bordetella, the vaccine isn't necessarily preventing kennel cough. What it is doing is decreasing duration and severity of symptoms. With mucosal vaccines, there is much more benefits to doing more frequent vaccines (with the way that mucosal memory works) then SC vaccines.

I mean don't get me wrong, vaccines have their risks. In my 3000 hours of working in clinics, I have seen 1 pet turn blue on me from vaccines (which ironically enough, given this discussion, was from the Rabies Vx), and that pet ended up being just fine after treatment. And in cats, it is certainly ideal to get them vaccinated as minimally as possible (but still so they are still protected) simply due to the possibility of local cancers developing (even if this is rare).

I mean, in theory, I could see some claim about Tregs being developed and these will inhibit a response later on. However, the spacing of 1 year is relatively far apart for that to be a major issue, at least in what I am thinking... I really, really want to see this research article, so please post it when you get it....

 

[dyachei]

Bordetella vaccines are different. The 6 month is typically intranasal and protect against 4 strains that cause kennel cough symptoms. The manufacturer recommends every 6 months to 1 year based on exposure. The injectable must be boostered as it is not a live vaccine and can be given yearly. It only protects against two types of causes, I think. Intranasal gives almost instantaneous protection whereas the injectable takes more time.

 

[Caia]

My SA is limited, so a curious question...

With the owners that freak-out over the frequency required for a vaccine, anyone ever show them on the paperwork/label that it says 6 months or 1 year to prove their point? I could see my mother going "you just say that so I'll come in more!" unfortunately. Unless she could read it.

 

[dyachei]

My SA is limited, so a curious question...

With the owners that freak-out over the frequency required for a vaccine, anyone ever show them on the paperwork/label that it says 6 months or 1 year to prove their point? I could see my mother going "you just say that so I'll come in more!" unfortunately. Unless she could read it.

I usually explain the differences to the owner and let them choose

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I ended up getting the practice manager involved and she did explain the reason why it was a 6 month vaccine, but the owner still thought it was a money thing for the manufacturer.

I'll ask her today if I don't forget. It is completely possibly I misheard because it is hard to believe that statement. But her general point is that we seriously overvaccinate.

 

[dyachei]

I ended up getting the practice manager involved and she did explain the reason why it was a 6 month vaccine, but the owner still thought it was a money thing for the manufacturer.

I'll ask her today if I don't forget. It is completely possibly I misheard because it is hard to believe that statement. But her general point is that we seriously overvaccinate.

we do. But we do it to get the guarantees from manufacturers. Many titers are good for at least five years after initial boosters. That being said, if you are vaccinating for parvo or distemper and your older dog gets it, you would probably rather have the manufacturer pay for treatment (which they will do).

Labels are 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years depending on the vaccines after appropriate boostering. I have some that are 2 years. Bacterial vaccines MUST be given more regularly to be effective. I believe the IN bordetella does have a bacterial strain. But IN forms are made differently than injectables so they are apples and oranges.

 

[Puffins]

An unpaid internship had you working full time (plus overtime)??
That is just
No
I think I'd go 20 hrs/wk max doing unpaid work so I'd still have time for another job if I need it.

Woops, taking this thread back a page or two, but I did a 3-month full time unpaid internship where I worked 50-60hrs/week. It was at an aquarium that also did marine mammal rehabilitation, so it was so it was both professionally and personally rewarding. Many of the previous interns went on to paid employment at the facility, although I had to head back to school. They did offer free housing, however, so that made it more feasible. I lived off of savings. Yea, unpaid interns are an unregulated work force that sometimes get the worst jobs, but my point is that sometimes taking a financial hit to get an "in" somewhere can lead to greater opportunities in the future, or letters of rec, or networking, you get the idea.

Now back to vaccines!

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Woops, taking this thread back a page or two, but I did a 3-month full time unpaid internship where I worked 50-60hrs/week. It was at an aquarium that also did marine mammal rehabilitation, so it was so it was both professionally and personally rewarding. Many of the previous interns went on to paid employment at the facility, although I had to head back to school. They did offer free housing, however, so that made it more feasible. I lived off of savings. Yea, unpaid interns are an unregulated work force that sometimes get the worst jobs, but my point is that sometimes taking a financial hit to get an "in" somewhere can lead to greater opportunities in the future, or letters of rec, or networking, you get the idea.

Now back to vaccines!

Lol it's really the only way to get into a zoo nowadays....that whole "aptitude testing" that some zoos used back in the 80s and 90s is loooooong gone.

 

[WildZoo]

Woops, taking this thread back a page or two, but I did a 3-month full time unpaid internship where I worked 50-60hrs/week. It was at an aquarium that also did marine mammal rehabilitation, so it was so it was both professionally and personally rewarding. Many of the previous interns went on to paid employment at the facility, although I had to head back to school. They did offer free housing, however, so that made it more feasible. I lived off of savings. Yea, unpaid interns are an unregulated work force that sometimes get the worst jobs, but my point is that sometimes taking a financial hit to get an "in" somewhere can lead to greater opportunities in the future, or letters of rec, or networking, you get the idea.

Now back to vaccines!

I think that kind of model has some not so good implications for the role that financial resources play in these kinds of things (future opportunities, networking, etc). Not that anybody is expected necessarily to do a full time unpaid internship, but it closes the door to that kind of opportunity for people who simply do not have the financial ability to do it. I guess I take issue with it on a philosophical level. It doesn't seem reasonable to me for these places to expect people to offer them free labor while also effectively eliminating their ability to make money elsewhere. But people are willing to do it, and that's why it continues. It's all well and good to promise future opportunities, but I know many people would not be able to take that hit, no matter how much they wanted it.

 

[Puffins]

I think that kind of model has some not so good implications for the role that financial resources play in these kinds of things (future opportunities, networking, etc). Not that anybody is expected necessarily to do a full time unpaid internship, but it closes the door to that kind of opportunity for people who simply do not have the financial ability to do it. I guess I take issue with it on a philosophical level. It doesn't seem reasonable to me for these places to expect people to offer them free labor while also effectively eliminating their ability to make money elsewhere. But people are willing to do it, and that's why it continues. It's all well and good to promise future opportunities, but I know many people would not be able to take that hit, no matter how much they wanted it.

All good points. This model does favor and benefit those that are financially able to do unpaid work for awhile. I will say that some interns worked in the aquarium giftshop for a little bit of money but even the opportunity to do paid work for 10-20 hrs/week ruled out some interns because these hours were on top of the 50-60 hours spent doing the internship and that is simply exhausting. I guess that unpaid internships will continue because people are clamoring for the chance to do them and it's a great opportunity for facilities to take advantage of unpaid labor, as you said. It's just another reason why zoo work is hard to get into, and not just for veterinarians. Typically only those willing to make personal sacrifices (money, location, long hours, etc) will get jobs.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I think that kind of model has some not so good implications for the role that financial resources play in these kinds of things (future opportunities, networking, etc). Not that anybody is expected necessarily to do a full time unpaid internship, but it closes the door to that kind of opportunity for people who simply do not have the financial ability to do it. I guess I take issue with it on a philosophical level. It doesn't seem reasonable to me for these places to expect people to offer them free labor while also effectively eliminating their ability to make money elsewhere. But people are willing to do it, and that's why it continues. It's all well and good to promise future opportunities, but I know many people would not be able to take that hit, no matter how much they wanted it.

You're totally correct. There's no doubt about it. It's the same as being prevet and only finding volunteer/shadow opportunities that you just cannot do financially. Unfortunately, like you said, there are other people who would jump at a chance like that.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

All good points. This model does favor and benefit those that are financially able to do unpaid work for awhile. I will say that some interns worked in the aquarium giftshop for a little bit of money but even the opportunity to do paid work for 10-20 hrs/week ruled out some interns because these hours were on top of the 50-60 hours spent doing the internship and that is simply exhausting. I guess that unpaid internships will continue because people are clamoring for the chance to do them and it's a great opportunity for facilities to take advantage of unpaid labor, as you said. It's just another reason why zoo work is hard to get into, and not just for veterinarians. Typically only those willing to make personal sacrifices (money, location, long hours, etc) will get jobs.

And, realistically, those sacrifices still stand for any paid position within a zoo, lol. Especially keepers.

 

[DVMDream]

You're totally correct. There's no doubt about it. It's the same as being prevet and only finding volunteer/shadow opportunities that you just cannot do financially. Unfortunately, like you said, there are other people who would jump at a chance like that.

Sorry, not the same. I have not ever heard of a volunteer/shadow opportunity at a veterinary clinic that forces you to be there for 40-50 hours per week. And if you have the excuse that you can't get experience because you need a job.. that is just an excuse. You should easily be able to work and fit in shadowing/volunteering hours at a vet clinic or shelter.

 

[Caia]

I worked 70 hour weeks for most of a summer for free as a pre-vet, for the exact reason that it was prestigious practice that required that time. I was lucky that I could manage without income. But I do believe it's a problem to be expecting it in an entire field while the vet experience I gained could have been done elsewhere with a more reasonable schedule.

 

[WildZoo]

I worked 70 hour weeks for most of a summer for free as a pre-vet, for the exact reason that it was prestigious practice that required that time. I was lucky that I could manage without income. But I do believe it's a problem to be expecting it in an entire field while the vet experience I gained could have been done elsewhere with a more reasonable schedule.

I have seen a few more reasonable pre-vet internships at zoos...but not a ton. The National Aviary was 18 hrs/wk (and they let me do 9 for the semester that I was taking 18 credits), but you could of course do more if you wanted. The Pittsburgh Zoo has animal care internships that are 15-20 hrs/wk. But it seems like most of the ones where you actually get to work with the vets and everything are...a little cray.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Sorry, not the same. I have not ever heard of a volunteer/shadow opportunity at a veterinary clinic that forces you to be there for 40-50 hours per week. And if you have the excuse that you can't get experience because you need a job.. that is just an excuse. You should easily be able to work and fit in shadowing/volunteering hours at a vet clinic or shelter.

I disagree. You're right that most unpaid veterinary opportunities are not full time+, and I wasn't saying the two situations are identical in that respect. I meant that you cannot always do things because of financial constraints. For typical students, I can see that statement being accurate most of the time.

I completely empathize with career-changers and non-traditional students (particularly those with children). Some are able to do weekend experience opportunities, late night ER hours, etc. Others cannot. Heck, I had to stop volunteering at my 'local' wildlife rehab place () because I just couldn't afford the gas anymore. Between classes and two other jobs, I still couldn't get enough hours to foot the bill for that extra trip. And that's without the extra responsibilities of kids, a home, and whatever else. If you have existing responsibilities and a lack of unpaid help (those darn kids again), you might not be able to commit to a steady/weekly experience. Some clinics don't appreciate you popping in here and there, others are fine with it. I can think of a whole host of reasons and situations where "not getting experience because you need a job" is not "just an excuse." Perhaps I am making the difficulties other people face sound much harder than they actually are....but being a single mother, working full time, taking night classes and doing well, struggling to pay for daycare and sitters, and having your nearest unpaid help (grandparents) 2 hours away, and THEN looking for experience that doesn't require you to sacrifice the paycheck that covers tuition/rent/daycare/gas/food....sounds pretty hard and stressful to me. Not sure how the girl I am referring to managed it all without exploding. Granted, she only got about 2-3 hours a week (better than nothing!). Some can make all of that work, though.

I have seen a few more reasonable pre-vet internships at zoos...but not a ton. The National Aviary was 18 hrs/wk (and they let me do 9 for the semester that I was taking 18 credits), but you could of course do more if you wanted. The Pittsburgh Zoo has animal care internships that are 15-20 hrs/wk. But it seems like most of the ones where you actually get to work with the vets and everything are...a little cray.

Yeaahhh....

Also, back to the vaccines:
She will try to find the paper, but it is highly likely we will both forget again. Anyways....I revisited our conversation and she did say that the paper definitely said that dogs who were receiving yearly rabies vaccinations had a significantly lower immune response than those who were receiving a vaccine every three years AND were very much out of date for the next vaccine due. She said she was curious of the difference in immune response between vaccinated and unvaccinated dogs (in other words, are overly-vaccinated dogs used to their bodies crying wolf, so to speak?) and went through a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo that I don't understand yet. I think she may have been assuming that if an over-vaxxed dog no longer responds to a viral attack, then an unvaxxed dog would theoretically have a stronger immune response.

I also did a lot of Googling on it trying to find a paper for you guys, but found a whole other bunch of stuff that wasn't scientifically backed, so....

 

[DVMDream]

I disagree. You're right that most unpaid veterinary opportunities are not full time+, and I wasn't saying the two situations are identical in that respect. I meant that you cannot always do things because of financial constraints. For typical students, I can see that statement being accurate most of the time.

I completely empathize with career-changers and non-traditional students (particularly those with children). Some are able to do weekend experience opportunities, late night ER hours, etc. Others cannot. Heck, I had to stop volunteering at my 'local' wildlife rehab place () because I just couldn't afford the gas anymore. Between classes and two other jobs, I still couldn't get enough hours to foot the bill for that extra trip. And that's without the extra responsibilities of kids, a home, and whatever else. If you have existing responsibilities and a lack of unpaid help (those darn kids again), you might not be able to commit to a steady/weekly experience. Some clinics don't appreciate you popping in here and there, others are fine with it. I can think of a whole host of reasons and situations where "not getting experience because you need a job" is not "just an excuse." Perhaps I am making the difficulties other people face sound much harder than they actually are....but being a single mother, working full time, taking night classes and doing well, struggling to pay for daycare and sitters, and having your nearest unpaid help (grandparents) 2 hours away, and THEN looking for experience that doesn't require you to sacrifice the paycheck that covers tuition/rent/daycare/gas/food....sounds pretty hard and stressful to me. Not sure how the girl I am referring to managed it all without exploding. Granted, she only got about 2-3 hours a week (better than nothing!). Some can make all of that work, though.

You are making very extreme examples that don't even come close to the average population of normal prevets. The bottom line is that experience is needed for vet school and there is zero excuse for not getting any. Even in your extreme example you said she got a few hours in a week. That's all it takes. We aren't talking about devoting 50 hours a week to gaining prevet experience like the zoo example. Having to work is an excuse. Having to take care of a child is an excuse. If you apply to vet school with no experience and the excuses of well I had to work and I have kids, they aren't going to care. I don't mean that in a mean way, I mean that in a you need to make time for it and admissions committees aren't going to accept excuses as legitimate reasons. Getting a few hours a week of shadowing in a vet clinic in no way compares to being forced into a 50 hour per week unpaid internship at a zoo. I can see why people wouldn't be able to do that. But no excuse exists for not gaining a little bit of clinical experience.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

You are making very extreme examples that don't even come close to the average population of normal prevets. The bottom line is that experience is needed for vet school and there is zero excuse for not getting any. Even in your extreme example you said she got a few hours in a week. That's all it takes. We aren't talking about devoting 50 hours a week to gaining prevet experience like the zoo example. Having to work is an excuse. Having to take care of a child is an excuse. If you apply to vet school with no experience and the excuses of well I had to work and I have kids, they aren't going to care. I don't mean that in a mean way, I mean that in a you need to make time for it and admissions committees aren't going to accept excuses as reasons. Getting a few hours a week of shadowing in a vet clinic in no way compares to being forced into a 50 hour per week unpaid internship at a zoo. I can see why people wouldn't be able to do that. But no excuse exists for not gaining a little bit of clinical experience.

Well, that's why I never said anything along the lines of "Typical pre-vets face the problem of not being able to earn experience due to financial constraints." I only said that not being able to do an unpaid internship is the same as someone not being able to do unpaid experience....you can't do either because you cannot afford to. Not everyone is able to squeeze out 3 hours a week. It is what it is.

 

[DVMDream]

Well, that's why I never said anything along the lines of "Typical pre-vets face the problem of not being able to earn experience due to financial constraints." I only said that not being able to do an unpaid internship is the same as someone not being able to do unpaid experience....you can't do either because you cannot afford to. Not everyone is able to squeeze out 3 hours a week. It is what it is.

You are comparing a 50 hour/week unpaid internship to a few hours a week shadowing a vet. Certainly you can see the massive difference in that. If someone really can't squeeze out 3 hours per week to get experience they are making an excuse somewhere along the line. I know current vet students that have kids, a job, go to vet school and still have time in the schedule to fit in some experience. There are no excuses for not having 2-3 hours in a week to gain experience.

 

[LyraGardenia]

You are comparing a 50 hour/week unpaid internship to a few hours a week shadowing a vet. Certainly you can see the massive difference in that. If someone really can't squeeze out 3 hours per week to get experience they are making an excuse somewhere along the line. I know current vet students that have kids, a job, go to vet school and still have time in the schedule to fit in some experience. There are no excuses for not having 2-3 hours in a week to gain experience.

I agree that there are no excuses for having absolutely no experience (or a really paltry amount, say less than 100 hours) when applying to vet school. And I get what you're saying about the internship comparison being a little off -- in many fields, you HAVE to do that internship to get your foot in the door, whereas you don't HAVE to sacrifice a job in order to get pre-vet experience, except in extreme cases. But the point in both cases is that if you need to work full time to financially support yourself, it really limits the opportunities available to you. For someone trying to get shadowing experience that works a typical 9-5 job, it would be hard to find a clinic that's okay with you popping in for an hour or two around opening or closing time (and you're not going to get much valuable experience that way). Like pinkpuppy mentioned, there are emergency clinics and weekends, but if you've got other obligations (going to school full-time, supporting a family, etc.) sometimes that's not possible either.

I agree that adcoms aren't likely to be sympathetic to your sob story of how you were just too busy to get hours -- where there's a will, there's a way -- but needing a full-time job does limit your options. It's hard to draw the line of when someone is just making excuses for not pursuing more experience, and when there legitimately are not enough hours in the day. Maybe sacrificing a few hours of sleep, or studying, or time with loved ones each week would be possible, but would it be worth it? As addressed earlier in this thread, it's not fair to expect people to push themselves to the breaking point.

 

[DVMDream]

I agree that there are no excuses for having absolutely no experience (or a really paltry amount, say less than 100 hours) when applying to vet school. And I get what you're saying about the internship comparison being a little off -- in many fields, you HAVE to do that internship to get your foot in the door, whereas you don't HAVE to sacrifice a job in order to get pre-vet experience, except in extreme cases. But the point in both cases is that if you need to work full time to financially support yourself, it really limits the opportunities available to you. For someone trying to get shadowing experience that works a typical 9-5 job, it would be hard to find a clinic that's okay with you popping in for an hour or two around opening or closing time (and you're not going to get much valuable experience that way). Like pinkpuppy mentioned, there are emergency clinics and weekends, but if you've got other obligations (going to school full-time, supporting a family, etc.) sometimes that's not possible either.

I agree that adcoms aren't likely to be sympathetic to your sob story of how you were just too busy to get hours -- where there's a will, there's a way -- but needing a full-time job does limit your options. It's hard to draw the line of when someone is just making excuses for not pursuing more experience, and when there legitimately are not enough hours in the day. Maybe sacrificing a few hours of sleep, or studying, or time with loved ones each week would be possible, but would it be worth it? As addressed earlier in this thread, it's not fair to expect people to push themselves to the breaking point.

Nobody works 7 days a week... go in on your day off. Problem solved. If your only "free" babysitter is 2 hours away, make it a day trip... kids can hang out with grandma/grandpa find a clinic near them to shadow at and spend 5 or 6 hours there, then head home... you leave at 7AM you can be home by 4-5PM... sorry, but the full time job still isn't an excuse. And if you really can't afford that gas, then hire a sitter to watch your kids near where you live. I never said it would be "easy" I just said there is no legitimate excuse to not be able to get even 2-3 hours of experience each week and have around 100 hours of experience on application. Will it be a lot, no? But then when you tell adcoms about your full time job and kids they will at least see you are making an attempt, unlike having zero hours. This argument isn't about can it be done it is basically backing up what I am saying, just because it is hard to do does not mean that is an excuse to not do it. And if you are really being pushed to your "breaking point" by working 40 hours a week and gaining 2-5 hours of experience a week, then something else is not right and it has nothing to do with your job or gaining experience. Most people can work 40-45 hours a week while raising kids and not be at a "breaking point".

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I agree that there are no excuses for having absolutely no experience (or a really paltry amount, say less than 100 hours) when applying to vet school. And I get what you're saying about the internship comparison being a little off -- in many fields, you HAVE to do that internship to get your foot in the door, whereas you don't HAVE to sacrifice a job in order to get pre-vet experience, except in extreme cases. But the point in both cases is that if you need to work full time to financially support yourself, it really limits the opportunities available to you. For someone trying to get shadowing experience that works a typical 9-5 job, it would be hard to find a clinic that's okay with you popping in for an hour or two around opening or closing time (and you're not going to get much valuable experience that way). Like pinkpuppy mentioned, there are emergency clinics and weekends, but if you've got other obligations (going to school full-time, supporting a family, etc.) sometimes that's not possible either.

I agree that adcoms aren't likely to be sympathetic to your sob story of how you were just too busy to get hours -- where there's a will, there's a way -- but needing a full-time job does limit your options. It's hard to draw the line of when someone is just making excuses for not pursuing more experience, and when there legitimately are not enough hours in the day. Maybe sacrificing a few hours of sleep, or studying, or time with loved ones each week would be possible, but would it be worth it? As addressed earlier in this thread, it's not fair to expect people to push themselves to the breaking point.

Just to say this again, I wasn't at all saying "Not being able to do full time unpaid is the same as not being able to volunteer/shadow unpaid." I was literally saying being financially constrained for one opportunity is the same as being financially constrained for a separate. For both, you are financially constrained....I wasn't saying that the two opportunities require the same amount of sacrifice.

I also agree that adcoms won't likely accept most reasoning for having low experience (although I can tell you certain schools do express that they are sensitive to those challenges). They don't live your daily life. Some might share the same sentiment that "there are no excuses" and others might understand that there are certain situations when you might only get to earn experience during school breaks, and only little amounts at that.

If you think about it, it will take my friend 3 years to reach that coveted 500-hour mark, whereas a lot of us can hammer that out in one summer.

Nobody works 7 days a week... go in on your day off. Problem solved. If your only "free" babysitter is 2 hours away, make it a day trip... kids can hang out with grandma/grandpa find a clinic near them to shadow at and spend 5 or 6 hours there, then head home... you leave at 7AM you can be home by 4-5PM... sorry, but the full time job still isn't an excuse. And if you really can't afford that gas, then hire a sitter to watch your kids near where you live. I never said it would be "easy" I just said there is no legitimate excuse to not be able to get even 2-3 hours of experience each week and have around 100 hours of experience on application. Will it be a lot, no? But then when you tell adcoms about your full time job and kids they will at least see you are making an attempt, unlike having zero hours. This argument isn't about can it be done it is basically backing up what I am saying, just because it is hard to do does not mean that is an excuse to not do it. And if you are really being pushed to your "breaking point" by working 40 hours a week and gaining 2-5 hours of experience a week, then something else is not right and it has nothing to do with your job or gaining experience. Most people can work 45-50 hours a week while raising kids and not be at a "breaking point".

Wrong. I spent the last year and half working 7 days a week. You can't make a statement like that just because you don't work 7 days a week. I was just lucky enough that one of my jobs was at a clinic and that they were okay that I could only come in on Fridays and Saturdays. Plus, I don't have kids. After the clinic closed, I went to my other job and worked until midnight/1AM. That job cut me off at 29 hours a week because of some unionized full-time worker thing, and it was closed for Winter and Spring breaks. Hence me having to cut out a lot of things that would have been more valuable to my application. I studied and did all of my homework between classes since neither job allowed me to 'pop in.' Having all of that on my plate was enough without other financial stressors. Granted, I avoided loans at all costs. I could have just borrowed and not worked. But where the logic in that?

And I don't think that someone who is pushed to their limits by taking classes, working full time, and raising kids alone "is not right."

 

[DVMDream]

My main point is that when someone makes the decision that they want to go to vet school, it is their responsibility to figure out what all they need to do to get there. Gaining experience is an important part of that. You are responsible for figuring out how you are going to get that experience. If that means you have to do courses first and then take a year to gain experience, then you do that. Nobody is disagreeing that gaining experience can be difficult at times, but getting 2-3 hours of vet experience in a clinic is in no way comparable to trying to get into zoo experience where you might need to do a 50 hour/week unpaid internship. It just isn't. The time commitment isn't the same. There aren't as many zoos as there are vet clinics, so the drive times will be different. If you choose to go the route of applying for vet school, you need to figure things out.... maybe I am becoming a hard ass, but there is no one forcing you to go to vet school and experience is not something that schools are going to drop as a requirement for admission so at some point you will need to balance all your responsibilities and find a way to fit in getting some experience... it may not be easy (never once said it would be), but it is necessary.

 

[DVMDream]

Just to say this again, I wasn't at all saying "Not being able to do full time unpaid is the same as not being able to volunteer/shadow unpaid." I was literally saying being financially constrained for one opportunity is the same as being financially constrained for a separate. For both, you are financially constrained....

Even comparing the financial constraint is not the same... for one you would likely have to give up your job, the other you do not. It is not the same. At all.

Wrong. I spent the last year and half working 7 days a week.

7 days a week from 9AM to 5PM??? Or 7 days a week when you got out of classes??? I am thinking the latter... The example was a normal 9-5 job, I will clarify and say, there are not many people that work 7 days a week from early morning to evening...

 

[DVMDream]

And I don't think that someone who is pushed to their limits by taking classes, working full time, and raising kids alone "is not right."

I never said they weren't right. I said, "Most people can work 40-45 hours a week while raising kids and not be at a breaking point, and if they are at a point with only those two things, then likely there is something else going on." That "something else" could be anything... finances, health, etc...

 

[dyachei]

you don't need zoo experience before going to vet school to get into the field. Over one of your breaks is fine and you can take out enough loan to cover cost of living, usually.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

My main point is that when someone makes the decision that they want to go to vet school, it is their responsibility to figure out what all they need to do to get there. Gaining experience is an important part of that. You are responsible for figuring out how you are going to get that experience. If that means you have to do courses first and then take a year to gain experience, then you do that. Nobody is disagreeing that gaining experience can be difficult at times, but getting 2-3 hours of vet experience in a clinic is in no way comparable to trying to get into zoo experience where you might need to do a 50 hour/week unpaid internship. It just isn't. The time commitment isn't the same. There aren't as many zoos as there are vet clinics, so the drive times will be different. If you choose to go the route of applying for vet school, you need to figure things out.... maybe I am becoming a hard ass, but there is no one forcing you to go to vet school and experience is not something that schools are going to drop as a requirement for admission.

Yes, you're correct. There is no such thing as getting accepted with zero hours. However, to suggest that someone with overflowing responsibilities and difficulty coping with them has some underlying problem, well that statement is extremely judgmental and lacking empathy. Perhaps you didn't actually intend for it to be read that way. Someone doesn't have to have a health issue for that to be overwhelming. We already know that this theoretical person's finances aren't in the best shape, so that cat's out of the bag.

7 days a week from 9AM to 5PM??? Or 7 days a week when you got out of classes??? I am thinking the latter... The example was a normal 9-5 job, I will clarify and say, there are not many people that work 7 days a week from early morning to evening...

7 days a week with a full credit load. Some of my friends with lab jobs were lucky enough to be able to pop into work between classes to hit their needed hours, but campus cut us all off at 29 mad. Hence multiple jobs. Without having kids.

you don't need zoo experience before going to vet school to get into the field. Over one of your breaks is fine and you can take out enough loan to cover cost of living, usually.

I'm not saying a pre-vet needs to do an internship at a zoo in order to have a career later. Students who want to be keepers as their career? Different story.

 

[DVMDream]

Yes, you're correct. There is no such thing as getting accepted with zero hours. However, to suggest that someone with overflowing responsibilities and difficulty coping with them has some underlying problem, well that statement is extremely judgmental and lacking empathy. Perhaps you didn't actually intend for it to be read that way. Someone doesn't have to have a health issue for that to be overwhelming. We already know that this theoretical person's finances aren't in the best shape, so that cat's out of the bag.

I never once said this, you are putting words in my mouth. Which shouldn't surprise me since you are an expert at twisting what people actually say and this isn't the first time you have done that. Go back and re-read what I stated. I never one said that they have an underlying problem... EVER. I would quote exactly what I said, but time for you to do the leg-work and actually read it so you can stop twisting around peoples' words.

 

[dyachei]

I'm not saying a pre-vet needs to do an internship at a zoo in order to have a career later. Students who want to be keepers as their career? Different story.

we were talking about vet school experience. And this is the pre-vet forum.

Yes, for students that want to be keepers, it sucks. BUT - they may be able to have it counted as a class for their major, they also may be able to do it during breaks, and they also have access to student loans.

I think unpaid internships like that are a huge problem with vet med in particular. The "paying your dues" stuff is largely BS to get free labor. And it often gets abused.

 

[LyraGardenia]

Nobody works 7 days a week... go in on your day off. Problem solved. If your only "free" babysitter is 2 hours away, make it a day trip... kids can hang out with grandma/grandpa find a clinic near them to shadow at and spend 5 or 6 hours there, then head home... you leave at 7AM you can be home by 4-5PM... sorry, but the full time job still isn't an excuse. And if you really can't afford that gas, then hire a sitter to watch your kids near where you live. I never said it would be "easy" I just said there is no legitimate excuse to not be able to get even 2-3 hours of experience each week and have around 100 hours of experience on application. Will it be a lot, no? But then when you tell adcoms about your full time job and kids they will at least see you are making an attempt, unlike having zero hours. This argument isn't about can it be done it is basically backing up what I am saying, just because it is hard to do does not mean that is an excuse to not do it. And if you are really being pushed to your "breaking point" by working 40 hours a week and gaining 2-5 hours of experience a week, then something else is not right and it has nothing to do with your job or gaining experience. Most people can work 40-45 hours a week while raising kids and not be at a "breaking point".

I agree with you for the most part. My point is just that needing to work full time limits one's shadowing opportunities. Yes, in all but the most extreme of cases it's still possible to get some hours in, but it's often not as simple as "find the room in your schedule and there will be a clinic in your area willing to accommodate you." Maybe your one day off a week is Sunday, so your only choice is the local emergency clinic (not ideal if you don't want to go into ECC). Or maybe clinics want you to commit to a set day each week, but your work schedule varies too much for that. Or maybe you're like me and work two jobs, so you tend to have weird chunks of free time from say 11am to 1pm. There are factors outside of one's control, and it can be hard to get all of that across in an application, especially if you're struggling just to get an interview. It's also hard to say when the answer to "could I fit this experience in my schedule?" goes from "it'll be tough, but yeah, it's feasible" to "nope, not possible" unless you're in that person's shoes.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I never once said this, you are putting words in my mouth. Which shouldn't surprise me since you are an expert at twisting what people actually say and this isn't the first time you have done that. Go back and re-read what I stated. I never one said that they have an underlying problem... EVER. I would quote exactly what I said, but time for you to do the leg-work and actually read it so you can stop twisting around peoples' words.

I didn't have to twist a single thing, I just took your statement at face value. And later gave you the opportunity to clarify how you actually meant it. You don't have to get so worked up any time I disagree with you. It's nothing personal.

"And if you are really being pushed to your "breaking point" by working 40 hours a week and gaining 2-5 hours of experience a week, then something else is not right..." "That "something else" could be anything... finances, health, etc..."
Directly implying that there is an underlying problem that this 'person' has that is not allowing them to cope with overflowing responsibilities. You later stated that it could be health, financial, etc. (even though we already know that the financial problem is not a secret). So, in my twisted opinion, assuming that someone must have some other issue in their life in order to find all of that extremely difficult...yeah. Rubbed me the wrong way. No hard feelings. Opinions are opinions. However, if you could possibly explain the other interpretation of those statements that doesn't say "there is another problem this person is facing," please do.

I personally don't have any health issues that present major challenges for me, but I'd find being a single parent with a full-time job, classes, and then trying to find time for unpaid experience that worked with my schedule, but that my schedule also worked for, pretty damn difficult/borderline impossible.

Now, I guess I can give it to you that just a full-time job and a handful of unpaid hours is very do-able, and that is what you said. However, that is definitely not what I've been talking about this whole time. At all.

we were talking about vet school experience. And this is the pre-vet forum.

Yes, for students that want to be keepers, it sucks. BUT - they may be able to have it counted as a class for their major, they also may be able to do it during breaks, and they also have access to student loans.

I think unpaid internships like that are a huge problem with vet med in particular. The "paying your dues" stuff is largely BS to get free labor. And it often gets abused.

Yeah, this is the pre-vet forum. Yet, when I'm talking about the zoo industry and how unpaid internships are basically required, it can't be that offensive to say "and anyone who wants to be a keeper faces that problem too." In general, the animal industry lacks paid opportunities for those who still need to get their foot in the door. Both pre-keepers (?) and pre-vets fall under that umbrella.

 

[dyachei]

I agree with you for the most part. My point is just that needing to work full time limits one's shadowing opportunities. Yes, in all but the most extreme of cases it's still possible to get some hours in, but it's often not as simple as "find the room in your schedule and there will be a clinic in your area willing to accommodate you." Maybe your one day off a week is Sunday, so your only choice is the local emergency clinic (not ideal if you don't want to go into ECC). Or maybe clinics want you to commit to a set day each week, but your work schedule varies too much for that. Or maybe you're like me and work two jobs, so you tend to have weird chunks of free time from say 11am to 1pm. There are factors outside of one's control, and it can be hard to get all of that across in an application, especially if you're struggling just to get an interview. It's also hard to say when the answer to "could I fit this experience in my schedule?" goes from "it'll be tough, but yeah, it's feasible" to "nope, not possible" unless you're in that person's shoes.

even in those cases you can volunteer at shelters on saturdays or certain clinics. Hell, I take shadows whenever they want. It is for their learning that we have them come in, not for our free labor.

yes, it sucks, but it is possible if it is something you want to pursue.

 

[dyachei]

Yeah, this is the pre-vet forum. Yet, when I'm talking about the zoo industry and how unpaid internships are basically required, it can't be that offensive to say "and anyone who wants to be a keeper faces that problem too." In general, the animal industry lacks paid opportunities for those who still need to get their foot in the door. Both pre-keepers (?) and pre-vets fall under that umbrella.

most of the keepers I met worked their way up in zoos. They didn't do an unpaid internship beforehand.

 

[Caia]

I think the moral of the story is...

"Suck it up, buttercup"

and

"Get'er done"

If it takes longer to get the hours you need then so be it. You do what it takes if that's what you want to do. No amount of listing the reasons why you can't is going to assist with this.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

most of the keepers I met worked their way up in zoos. They didn't do an unpaid internship beforehand.

Well, after having sought the advice from many zoo professionals, it is safe to say that unpaid interns have preference when choosing job applicants. Especially if you are applying to the zoo you did your internship at. Keeping is my plan B (which is unfortunate because I'm 2-3 unpaid internships behind my peers right now....), so I've looked into how to break through the wall heavily.

I'd say it depends on the age of the keepers you know. I worked with a lot of older keepers in my internship, and they just had to take what was essentially a common-sense test to get the job 20-30 years ago. One started as the train conductor and finally worked her way into animal care years later. None of the above had degrees. The younger keepers (under 30) had a zoology/animal science 4-year degree, 1-3 unpaid internships, tons of volunteer docent hours, etc. before they finally got hired. Some of them finally got offered seasonal positions and literally hopped around for a year or two until they finally got a full-time spot. It seems like you have to jump through hoops of fire.

For newcomers, degrees are required, 2-3 years of paid experience are required for entry-level keepers (But how? How do you get paid experience before your first paid keeper position? HOW?!), and you have to have those professional contacts you made during your unpaid position. It's just the way it is, and this is what we're told when our job applications get turned down.