Local vet clinic bans 3 breeds... WHAT?!

[NStarz]

---

Members don't see this ad.

haha, that was me that made that point earlier. And I don't think anyone in this conversation was saying that pit bulls are by nature agressive.

To clarify Peachy's argument.... all oranges are citrus fruits... not all citrus fruits are oranges.... 5 is a prime number, not all prime numbers are 5.... most fighting dogs are pit bulls... not all pit bulls are fighting dogs... most fighting dog owners are poor urban folk... not all poor urban folk are dog fighters....

Thanks for clarifying! I'd like to pose another question, then, in rebuttal. Why do people do drugs? Because it's fun? Maybe. Because it's 'cool'? Most likely. Because the act of doing drugs, having drugs, or obtaining drugs is illegal? YES!

BSL doesn't affect the crime ring AT ALL. If anything, it advocates for it by making something desirable by making it unattainable. (Just ask the kid whose mom said she couldn't have a cookie. What does she want most of all at that moment?) BSL (and the rules like at this clinic we're talking about) hurt only the good-natured, dog-loving families. The thugs who are fighting pits may kill them when they get hurt/sick because they can't find a vet, or it's easier than treatment. But the Smiths who live down the block now can't use their veterinarian. BSL= more fighting dogs = more crime = ultimately, more pit bulls (just not visibly, though in an underground locale).

 

[cowgirla]

I agree with what you said here. Basically I was being asked as to why i didnt have a problem with this clinic doing this and I explained that my clinic had to because it was a very real problem and it got into this debate that has made me seem like a racist and a pit bull hater haha.

I have been speaking on the basis of my community. Where the majority of aggressive dogs (towards everyone and everything) that came into the clinic were pit bulls, so the ban was needed.

this was not be a sweeping generalizations about the nation as a whole only for communities like mine where aggressive pits are more common than not.

I was only trying to give an example as to why we shouldn't jump to persecute this clinic when they may have a good reason based on their particular situation.

If the majority of your patients are pits, and you ban all pits...what's left to see? how does that clinic stay in business?


ETA: Not really aiming this towards you, just towards all clinics that ban a specific breed because "most" of what they see is that breed

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[NStarz]

I have been speaking on the basis of my community. Where the majority of aggressive dogs (towards everyone and everything) that came into the clinic were pit bulls, so the ban was needed.

.

I see a parallel in this argument to the obesity epidemic in America. Will banning soda and candy from schools stop kids from becoming obese? Not likely. If anything, it will have the opposite effect. Isn't a much better avenue to thwart the problem through education and incentives? Ie, teach the kids about healthy eating and exercise, and then give them a gold star when they pick the apple instead of the candy bar. I think this would have a similar effect in your clinic.

 

[peachy3214]

True. That is a problem.

Also, I agree with posts above that specifically excluding agressive dogs from a practice is better/more humane than banning a breed. It's really no better than BSL in any form.

I dont believe I EVER said that 99.99% of "thugs" are fighting dogs. If I did I apologize because it was a typo.

I said that most of the time the people that are caught fighting dogs fit the "thug" profile.

 

[peachy3214]

If the majority of your patients are pits, and you ban all pits...what's left to see? how does that clinic stay in business?


ETA: Not really aiming this towards you, just towards all clinics that ban a specific breed because "most" of what they see is that breed

Not sure that I said most of our clients were pits. I said that most of our aggressive clients were pits.

 

[Minnerbelle]

she was saying that the people who acquire pit bulls specifically for the purpose of fighting tend to fit a profile... and by most accounts that is accurate.

FINALLY! haha someone understands what I am trying to say!

yeah, i got that a while ago. what i don't get is how that logically leads to a breed ban. what i don't get even more, is why you had to bring in racist comments that were totally unwarranted.

 

[cowgirla]

Not sure that I said most of our clients were pits. I said that most of our aggressive clients were pits.

My question still stands though... what's left to see?

If you ban all the aggressive pits, and you still have a lot of aggressive dogs, what comes next? You ban the rotties... then there are still more aggressive dogs, or maybe you just "notice" it more from a new breed.... bye bye, bulldogs. It's a vicious cycle. Once you ban one breed for aggression, there's always another breed that's just as "vicious," but before, you just never noticed it, because you were so focused on Breed 1.

 

[peachy3214]

I see a parallel in this argument to the obesity epidemic in America. Will banning soda and candy from schools stop kids from becoming obese? Not likely. If anything, it will have the opposite effect. Isn't a much better avenue to thwart the problem through education and incentives? Ie, teach the kids about healthy eating and exercise, and then give them a gold star when they pick the apple instead of the candy bar. I think this would have a similar effect in your clinic.

Absolutely! I agree. But immediate action at the clinic was needed at the point. Im sure the ban will be lifted once the community has been better educated. We actual have programs in place for this purpose. But until we see the benefits it is not worth risking personal injury.

 

[peachy3214]

My question still stands though... what's left to see?

If you ban all the aggressive pits, and you still have a lot of aggressive dogs, what comes next? You ban the rotties... then there are still more aggressive dogs, or maybe you just "notice" it more from a new breed.... bye bye, bulldogs. It's a vicious cycle. Once you ban one breed for aggression, there's always another breed that's just as "vicious," but before, you just never noticed it, because you were so focused on Breed 1.

I stated in earlier posts that because of the cultural aspects of my community basically all the aggressive dogs are pits. We dont really have any clients from other so called aggressive breeds(meaning rotties etc.). Maybe one or two here or there but not to the degree that we see with our pit bulls. Which as I have stated is not the dogs fault but a cultural phenomenon.

 

[peachy3214]

yeah, i got that a while ago. what i don't get is how that logically leads to a breed ban. what i don't get even more, is why you had to bring in racist comments that were totally unwarranted.

What comment did I say that was outwardly racist?

Again, where I live the breed is a very real problem because of people using them for the wrong reasons which has lead to more aggressive pits in my community then not. The ban was needed to protect staff for the time being. I dont think this would be needed in most communities in america, but here it was.

 

[NStarz]

Absolutely! I agree. But immediate action at the clinic was needed at the point. Im sure the ban will be lifted once the community has been better educated. We actual have programs in place for this purpose. But until we see the benefits it is not worth risking personal injury.

That's kind of an oyxmoron, then. Let's see "we like pits and want you to be good owners but we're refusing you veterinary care cause you all fight your dogs" It seems a bit hypocritical to me, someone correct me if I'm readnig into that wrong.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[peachy3214]

haha thanks....but to clarify...I didnt say that dog fighters were bringing their fighting dogs in. My community because of rampant dog fighting as a whole glorifies aggressive pits. So those who owned pits wanted them to be aggressive and saw no problem with it when they came to the vet for whatever reason.

 

[Minnerbelle]

OK I'm definitely not trying to step up and fight Peachy's battle here... .but I think both of these comments are a less than fair.

She clarified what she was trying to say after. She didn't intentionally group all terrorists into one category, just tried (admittedly poorly) to parallel the fact that there are "profiles" for certain types of terrorists and that those committing certain acts of terror (let bombing the abortion clinic be an example) tend to be of a similar background/belief. This is also not inaccurate. Like she said.. you wouldnt expect the pro-choice person who had an abortion there to be behind the bombing. She just worded her initial argument poorly. But I do agree, this still doesn't justify BSL or breed banning from a clinic.

you know, i was reading through the thread again, and realized that peachy was trying to make 2 independent points. she started with:

1.) pit bulls in her area are aggressive for whatever reason, therefore she thinks it's ok for the clinic to ban pit bulls.

and then went off on a tangent later with:

2.) people who want pit bulls for the purpose of fighting generally fit the "thug" profile minus some exceptions.

In order to make point number 2, she was trying to say that likewise, people in al-qaeda generally fit the "middle-eastern muslim" profile

Which I think is totally fine. So sorry for misunderstanding.

What I thought you were doing was somehow using point number 2 to support point number 1, by using muslims as an example. I thought you were saying:

"thugs tend to get pits for fighting, and thus there are a lot of aggressive pits in the area and therefore, it's better to ban pits altogether than to risk injury to the clinic staff. see? it's just like the terrorists. al-qaeda members tend to be muslim."

and based on that, i thought you were implying that muslim people should be treated differently because that would be better than risking the safety of americans. and worse yet, i thought you were implying that that would be such a common sentiment that it would prove your point about pit bulls.

because there are posters on SDN that make a bunch of statements that don't logically go together, because you started off with the mistake of stating terrorists = muslims as a fact, AND because i personally know a lot of people who believe that muslim people as a whole are a risk to america, i somehow thought that's what you were saying.

i've been super shocked multiple times recently by people with unbelievably outwardly racist outlooks who vehemently deny that they are racist. over easter, i was told that slavery was actually a good thing for black people because it saved them from being trapped in africa. my boyfriend's grandfather also said to my face that he would feel bad for his great-grandchildren if one of his grandchildren married a non-white person (and he didn't mean it as an insult either). these things have kind of made me have some doubts about joining a not very racially diverse profession and moving out to a not very diverse location. so in this sensitive state of mind, i was very much disgusted that someone in the vet field would say something like that on a pre-vet forum.

again, i'm so sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[BlacKAT33]

OT: i'm gone for 1 night....and this thread jumped from 1 page to 4 pages 😱 now im behind 🙁

 

[PrimalMU]

OT: i'm gone for 1 night....and this thread jumped from 1 page to 4 pages 😱 now im behind 🙁

Don't worry, I've been here the entire time and I'm behind as well, haha.

 

[peachy3214]

you know, i was reading through the thread again, and realized that peachy was trying to make 2 independent points. she started with:

1.) pit bulls in her area are aggressive for whatever reason, therefore she thinks it's ok for the clinic to ban pit bulls.

and then went off on a tangent later with:

2.) people who want pit bulls for the purpose of fighting generally fit the "thug" profile minus some exceptions.

In order to make point number 2, she was trying to say that likewise, people in al-qaeda generally fit the "middle-eastern muslim" profile

Which I think is totally fine. So sorry for misunderstanding.

What I thought you were doing was somehow using point number 2 to support point number 1, by using muslims as an example. I thought you were saying:

"thugs tend to get pits for fighting, and thus there are a lot of aggressive pits in the area and therefore, it's better to ban pits altogether than to risk injury to the clinic staff. see? it's just like the terrorists. al-qaeda members tend to be muslim."

and based on that, i thought you were implying that muslim people should be treated differently because that would be better than risking the safety of americans. and worse yet, i thought you were implying that that would be such a common sentiment that it would prove your point about pit bulls.

because there are posters on SDN that make a bunch of statements that don't logically go together, because you started off with the mistake of stating terrorists = muslims as a fact, AND because i personally know a lot of people who believe that muslim people as a whole are a risk to america, i somehow thought that's what you were saying.

i've been super shocked multiple times recently by people with unbelievably outwardly racist outlooks who vehemently deny that they are racist. over easter, i was told that slavery was actually a good thing for black people because it saved them from being trapped in africa. my boyfriend's grandfather also said to my face that he would feel bad for his great-grandchildren if one of his grandchildren married a non-white person (and he didn't mean it as an insult either). these things have kind of made me have some doubts about joining a not very racially diverse profession and moving out to a not very diverse location. so in this sensitive state of mind, i was very much disgusted that someone in the vet field would say something like that on a pre-vet forum.

again, i'm so sorry for the misunderstanding.

haha no need to apologize, i realized I rattled some feathers but I think its because i really just was not expressing myself clearly. I have a hard time expressing what I am trying to say in writing. Its much easier for me to communicate face to face so much of what I said was misunderstood on my account. I would NEVER say something like that about any racial group. Some of my closest friends are middle eastern and are the greatest people you will ever meet. I should never have assumed that everyone would understand that progression I was taking. I think much of the jumping around was because I was trying to cover so many questions at once that it ended up a big jumbled mess. But thank you for taking the time to go back through and piece together my original thought process haha🙂

 

[Bearby]

i've been super shocked multiple times recently by people with unbelievably outwardly racist outlooks who vehemently deny that they are racist. over easter, i was told that slavery was actually a good thing for black people because it saved them from being trapped in africa. my boyfriend's grandfather also said to my face that he would feel bad for his great-grandchildren if one of his grandchildren married a non-white person (and he didn't mean it as an insult either). these things have kind of made me have some doubts about joining a not very racially diverse profession and moving out to a not very diverse location. so in this sensitive state of mind, i was very much disgusted that someone in the vet field would say something like that on a pre-vet forum.

There's a song from the musical Avenue Q called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." I suggest you listen to it. It's really funny and I think the idea behind it is probably accurate. Even those of us who are very accepting of other ethnicities, beliefs, etc. have moments when we make stereotypes. I'm guilty as charged, but would never make a claim that I am a racist person. I've grown up in a very diverse town and tell my mom often that I'm so glad I grew up here and not in a place where it was the norm to view certain people a certain way. The clinic I work at now is two towns over but it may as well be a different country. People have a very different mindset, and while many of the younger people don't share it, a lot of the older men and women have a very negative take on certain races. In fact, one of my previous coworkers was probably the most racist person I had ever met. It was sad, really.

As far as your boyfriend's grandfather, his generation is so different from ours. Even our parents' generation is. I mean, segregation was only banned ~55 years ago, in the grand scheme of things, that's not long. I'm not trying to excuse his actions, my grandmother is one of the most accepting people I know and she grew up a long time ago too, I'm just trying to point out that he may not have realized what he said was wrong.

This was totally an OT tangent lol

 

[bunnity]

The ASPCA dogfighting link that I already posted specifically states that dog fighters do not fit a profile and that it is a cross cultural issue.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[cowgirla]

She's saying that where she is from, there is a lot of dog fighting, and for whatever reason these dogs fighters brought their dogs to the vet (I'm not completely convinced that I believe this btw...). And because those dogs were agressive based on their training to be faught, they were particularly vicious. Once they're eliminated from the practice, the other normally agressive dogs are acceptable... people aren't suddenly going to start training the rotties to fight just because the vet wont see their pit. So that population is gone from the clinic (the owners being the main problem in this scenario...)

I wasn't addressing Peachy in particular. The question stood for all clinics, like the one the OP mentioned that HAD banned three breeds already. It's a downward cycle, there's always going to be another breed that presents itself as the most vicious once the first is gone.

 

[BarnyardPunch]

If the majority of your patients are pits, and you ban all pits...what's left to see? how does that clinic stay in business?

You wouldn't. If you wanted a pit-free practice in that case, you'd move to another community. There's likely a solid business reason behind this decision (though none of us know for sure) to remove those three breeds from the practice. It's a serious challenge to keep a small practice afloat and I don't think any vet or practice manager would make this sort of decision lightly.

So to flip this discussion, would those of you are upset by breed-based refusal have a problem with a vet in the south refusing to treat Tennessee Walkers?

TWH are fine horses indeed, but in some communities there's a lot of very shady methods used to get this horses to perform. Of course, no trainer will admit to the illegal methods they use, so as a vet it may be hard to ascertain who is soring and who is not. The one thing you do know is you don't want to be associated with a trainer that gets busted by the USDA so you decide that you're not treating Walkers.

So... similar (not same) set up, but in your mind, would that vet be just as wrong as a SA vet not treating certain breeds? Or is it within that vet's right to refuse service?


TO BE CLEAR before anyone freaks out: Not all TWH trainers mistreat their animals, but it is a longstanding, known problem within that breed. ALSO, I'm not saying nor implying that abuse does not happen with other breeds/disciplines as well. 🙂

 

[NStarz]

If the majority of your patients are pits, and you ban all pits...what's left to see? how does that clinic stay in business?

You wouldn't. If you wanted a pit-free practice in that case, you'd move to another community. There's likely a solid business reason behind this decision (though none of us know for sure) to remove those three breeds from the practice. It's a serious challenge to keep a small practice afloat and I don't think any vet or practice manager would make this sort of decision lightly.

So to flip this discussion, would those of you are upset by breed-based refusal have a problem with a vet in the south refusing to treat Tennessee Walkers?

TWH are fine horses indeed, but in some communities there's a lot of very shady methods used to get this horses to perform. Of course, no trainer will admit to the illegal methods they use, so as a vet it may be hard to ascertain who is soring and who is not. The one thing you do know is you don't want to be associated with a trainer that gets busted by the USDA so you decide that you're not treating Walkers.

So... similar (not same) set up, but in your mind, would that vet be just as wrong as a SA vet not treating certain breeds? Or is it within that vet's right to refuse service?


TO BE CLEAR before anyone freaks out: Not all TWH trainers mistreat their animals, but it is a longstanding, known problem within that breed. ALSO, I'm not saying nor implying that abuse does not happen with other breeds/disciplines as well. 🙂

To be clear: I know absolutely NOTHING about this issue, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

If I were a vet in the area where sketchy methods of horse training were being employed. I would 1) treat the horse, 2) document all injuries/illnesses with photographs and thorough medical records, and 3) be involved in an investigation with animal cruelty to ensure that these horses are being treated kindly and with respect.

I would not refuse to treat any animal based on their owner's practices. It's not the horse's fault that it may be being abused, why punish the horse for the owner's actions? As stated before, refusing to treat the horse (or pit bulls or rotties) will not dissuade these people from doing bad things to these animals. If anything, the bad deeds will be encouraged because there is no longer an authority figure watching over them.

 

[alliecat44]

If the majority of your patients are pits, and you ban all pits...what's left to see? how does that clinic stay in business?

You wouldn't. If you wanted a pit-free practice in that case, you'd move to another community. There's likely a solid business reason behind this decision (though none of us know for sure) to remove those three breeds from the practice. It's a serious challenge to keep a small practice afloat and I don't think any vet or practice manager would make this sort of decision lightly.

So to flip this discussion, would those of you are upset by breed-based refusal have a problem with a vet in the south refusing to treat Tennessee Walkers?

TWH are fine horses indeed, but in some communities there's a lot of very shady methods used to get this horses to perform. Of course, no trainer will admit to the illegal methods they use, so as a vet it may be hard to ascertain who is soring and who is not. The one thing you do know is you don't want to be associated with a trainer that gets busted by the USDA so you decide that you're not treating Walkers.

So... similar (not same) set up, but in your mind, would that vet be just as wrong as a SA vet not treating certain breeds? Or is it within that vet's right to refuse service?


TO BE CLEAR before anyone freaks out: Not all TWH trainers mistreat their animals, but it is a longstanding, known problem within that breed. ALSO, I'm not saying nor implying that abuse does not happen with other breeds/disciplines as well. 🙂

The big difference here is that soring does not directly lead to a highly increased danger to you or your staff. Unlike an owner who ignores/perpetuates (knowingly or unknowingly) aggression in their dog (regardless of breed).

 

[breenie]

The big difference here is that soring does not directly lead to a highly increased danger to you or your staff. Unlike an owner who ignores/perpetuates (knowingly or unknowingly) aggression in their dog (regardless of breed).

Not that I entirely disagree... but isn't it potentially damaging to your reputation and career? People in the community are going to ask why you, the veterinarian, did not do something about horses you treated that were later involved in a soring incident.

You can say that you never witnessed any evidence that the horse was in pain or was being abused to your knowledge, but some people would probably blame you for being complicit in some way. I think most people would want some "distance" between them and the abuser.

 

[BarnyardPunch]

The big difference here is that soring does not directly lead to a highly increased danger to you or your staff. Unlike an owner who ignores/perpetuates (knowingly or unknowingly) aggression in their dog (regardless of breed).

I was trying to avoid being analogous to the dog situation, especially since we have no idea why the clinic from the original post made their decision.

So maybe not physical danger, but how about reputation? Or being sanctioned? A trainer has 50 horses, he sores five of them for competition. You treat them all and may not know what goes on with the five--this sort of stuff is not done in the open. Either way, you take a chance of being the vet associated with that barn/trainer if the poop hits the fan with the USDA inspectors or animal control.

And NStarz, I'm not doubting you at all and admire your sense of conviction. In the real horse world, however, you'd probably have a hard time finding work anywhere if you turned in even half of the what can be can be construed as abusive training cases.

Granted the Walker world is pretty out there, but every single discipline has its asshats from the trainers who nerve block to run their racers, to the western pleasure folks who tie their horse's heads up all night to exhaust them before a show, to the Arabian folks that love to get that "wild n crazy" look from their halter horses using cattle prods. Not only is there a lot of MYOB in the horse world, horses are classified as livestock so there's a lot of leeway in their treatment according to the law.

If I were a vet today, I'd likely refuse to treat at any Big Lick training barn. I'm not sure about the SA practice situation. If it were a choice between treating a certain breed or staying in business, I'd probably stop seeing that breed.

 

[DVMDream]

😱 This was only on page 2 when I left and now it has gone all the way to page 4. I have read through the whole thread, but wow there was a lot of stuff in there. As far as the people fitting certain profiles I will actually have to agree to an extent. I really believe it has more to do with economic groups than race. But, I do want to point out something that has been happening recently. While I think it is fairly safe (again there are exceptions) to say that probably around half of the people involved in dog fighting are from or grew up in a lower class economic group I have to say this group is expanding at an alarming rate (not saying every person from a low class economic group is involved in dog fighting just that the low class economic group is expanding). As someone else mentioned earlier the majority of those that participate in dog-fighting tend to be teenagers. Now since there are so many more teenagers from poor economic classes many of those in the middle and upper-level classes are hanging out with and becoming friends with those in the lower level classes. They then get "peer-pressured" into even just watching a dog fight. Then, before you know it these kids (even though they come from a higher economic class) are participating in these events and placing bets and making money off of dog-fighting. I really believe (and have seen) an increase in the number of people that are well off involved in dog fighting. I also believe that as these kids grow up they will become the adults (of the higher economic class) who also participate in dog-fighting. I really believe that you will see less of a "profile" for dog-fighting and it will be much, much harder to distinguish between people who are involved with dog-fighting and those who are not. I can understand that if 99% of the pitties a clinic sees happen to be aggressive and have caused harm to workers that it might be best to just not see them, but I would personally never do that. I believe it is our job as vets/ future vets to educate people about their dogs and the particular breed they have chosen to have as a pet. I also agree that those aggressive dogs that you are seeing are most likely to be ones that are not involved in dog-fighting because those people are afraid of being caught and will often try to treat the dogs themselves. Where I live the most aggressive breed of dog we see are chihuahuas and most people would assume that it is the rich/ "Paris Hilton wannabes" who carry the dog in a purse and put sweaters on their dogs and call the dogs their wittle baby that are bringing in the aggressive/fearful chihuhuas, but I can tell you that for the most part when I see a chihuahua there is no link. Yes those people who I described above almost always have a fearful chihuahua that will bite, but I have also seen people that you would never guess treat their chihuahua like that and the dog is a fear biter (yes we had an African American guy who treated his dog like his "wittle baby"). I have also seen chihuahuas that are treated like an actual dog that still fear bite. Most of the chihuahuas we see are fear biters and while they may not be able to do a lot of damage, they could still place someone in the hospital, if bitten in the right spot someone could easily have to have part of a finger amputated from a chihuahua bite. Yet, we would never ban chihuahuas from the clinic. Instead we offer advice and guidance on how to help turn the behavior around and we give them referrals to professional dog trainers so that they can start training their dog. We have had clients that have taken our advice and come back with a much happier and less fearful dog. Stereotypes can be made in any situation but I honestly believe that stereotypes are bad. They do not help the situation and I honestly believe that it is not fair to the dog to refuse treatment simply because of the owner's actions. There are ways that you can still see an aggressive dog safetly without having any of the staff get injured. Also, as far as vets reporting abuse you literally have to have absolutely no doubt that the dog is being abused before you can report it. We had a case where these people brought their dog in with an embedded collar to be removed the dog was also underweight, but since they were seeking veterinary treatment we could not say anything even though it looked like a case of neglect (the vet really wanted to be able to get the dog out of that house, but there was nothing he could do). Ok, so that was really long, but my main point was I do not feel like breed banning is the way to solve anything (neither is stereotyping), instead I think educating clients works out much better in the long-run.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[DVMDream]

That's actually not accurate, we've had a few lectures on this and a vet can report suspected abuse whenever they suspect it and will not be punished if the investigation turns up negative. It's the investigators job to get proof, not the vets. That said, it can be a fine line from a business aspect... if you start reporting a bunch of clients, word can get around.. and even from a moral aspect, what help are you to the dogs then? It all really comes down to the vet and what decisions their comfortable making.

There are a lot of "abuse" scenarios that result from ignorance/lack of education/etc... that can be helped by the vet educating the owner and making some extra effort. There are some that need legal intervention or at least investigation. That's really where your judgment comes in. With the neglect case you're talking about, it might just be a scenario where actually telling the owner "So yea, you just need to make sure you check on your dog once a day to make sure they're comfortable, are eating their food and water, check their collar, that sort of thing". This might have been an owner who was feeding their dog, but the dog didn't eat because it was so uncomfortable. And the owner didn't notice/think of the collar and finally brought the dog it because it was thin. Is that someone who can be made into an ideal owner? Depends on your standards...but probably not. But are they intentionally abusive or even mindfully neglectful? Well, if they were feeding it daily and brought it to you once they became concerned... then I dont think so. I think that is someone who will do a better job if you just educate them and literally point out the obvious. Others may disagree. It's really subjective...

And obviously I made up the above scenario as an example and am not saying it definitely pertained to your case 😉

I 100% agree with you. It really does depend on the case/owner for what I stated above. This particular owner happened to just check on the dog one day (really do not know how often she checked on the dog) and noticed the smell from the dogs neck and the collar. Good point with being uncomfortable for not eating. Really, I think she was just uneducated and could she eventually make a good owner maybe/maybe not, but just being uneducated and not realizing you have to loosen a collar as a puppy grows does not necessarily make a "bad" dog owner just not an ideal one. So, I definitely do agree with you it really does depend on the situation. Also, in AZ the "cruelty" investigators around here suck. Literally. I could have watched a dog get beat over the head with a golf club and since they are not "contracted" with the city we live in they can not come out. Instead we have to call the local police department who will send an animal control officer (someone who is trained to pick up stray animals not trained for abuse cases) and they will come out sometime later that day or the next. I have personally had to deal with this issue twice where I have seen cases of obvious abuse/neglect and tried to call and it was impossible to get anyone to come out. 😡

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[DVMDream]

Yea it would really be nice if abuse laws were nationally mandated instead of state by state... there's a lot of variability and a lot of the standards are not great. I can't remember the exact numbers, but there's actually only a handful of states that require a vet to report suspected abuse. I would think that's kind of a no-brainer... it takes the burden off of the vet, who can then say "sorry, but I'm required to report this..." instead of leaving them to fend for themselves. And I think a lot more abuse would be caught that way... there is speculation that people might not go to the vet if the vet is required to report it, but in the states where it is mandated that hasn't proven to be a problem, since most vets dont even know what their state laws are, so you wouldn't really expect the clients to know.

Yeah, I really wish that abuse laws were nationally mandated. It would help a lot for reporting abuse/neglect. Yes, I also think that vets should be required to report suspected abuse because it really would be a great way to catch some abusers. Although, I really wonder how many people actually take their pet to the vet if they do abuse them; I doubt many do. But, it would just be an additional method to catch them if they happen to take their pet for treatment. I do not see mandating a vet to report suspected abuse to reduce clientele since I do not see animal abusers taking their pets for treatment, either, but that is just my opinion. I also believe that animal abuse should be a felony for many various reasons.

 

[nitheninny]

Wow, that was a LOT to read through! I'm glad I did though, since most of the drama seems to be resolved, I wouldn't have wanted to stir that pot up again!

As stated before, refusing to treat the horse (or pit bulls or rotties) will not dissuade these people from doing bad things to these animals. If anything, the bad deeds will be encouraged because there is no longer an authority figure watching over them.

No one has stated that refusing to treat abused animals will dissuade owners from abusing them in the future. It was already stated that a truly abusive owner won't really care about whether or not their animal has access to veterinary care. I can't comment on the equine world as I know nothing about it, but in the case of dogs, a breed ban is not put in place to protect the dogs, but to protect people. If, as in peachy's case, a clinic sees a disproportionate number of aggressive dogs from breed x, the veterinarian may have to decide whether or not it is worth the safety risk to continue treating these dogs or if it might be better for the clinic staff to refuse this particular breed, whether that breed is pitbulls, yorkies, or golden retrievers.

I think what it comes down to is this: as a veterinarian, you obviously have an obligation to your patients. You take an oath on that. Obviously you want to help every animal that comes through your door, even (and maybe especially) if that dog is aggressive. But as a clinic owner, you also have a responsibility to your staff. So say you have one client that every time it comes in will bite or lunge or in some way show aggression to your staff. Say it's even injured someone in your clinic before. Do you continue to treat that animal, knowing that every time it walks through the door, it is a potential threat to the safety and perhaps even the lives of your staff? What if nearly every dog of a specific breed that comes into your clinic behaves that way? Do you ban the breed because the majority is too dangerous, or do you treat everyone regardless of the risk? At what point do you choose to protect your staff over your patients? We have to value the lives of every animal we see, but do we have to value them more than the lives of our receptionists, techs, other clients, and other vets?

I'm not saying I support breed bans at all. Obviously banning pit bulls as a breed is completely unfair to the owners of pit bulls who are never aggressive and are just as gentle as your stereotypical golden. Education is always better than that course of action. But I can see how in some extreme cases, a veterinarian may have to make the choice to ban a breed in order to protect the people who work for him/her. Is it fair or ideal? Obviously not. But sometimes those hard choice have to be made.

Please note, I don't have experience with breed bans, dog fighting, or even very aggressive dogs. My clinic was fortunate enough that for the most part, we knew which dogs were aggressive before they came in and were able to properly prepare for them ahead of time. And as a side note, I don't recall any of our aggressive patients being pit bulls.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Funny, this topic came up at the clinic where I volunteer today. For background this clinic is in a fairly affluent area...

It was almost uniformly agreed that any one aggressive dog (of any breed) can be really bad for the practice. Owners expect the hospital to be a safe place and don't want to feel threatened. They (the clinic) personally would not turn away a specific dog or breed, but understand the concerns these days. Apparently there are a number of places in the area with "unofficial" breed bans and will only see certain breeds if they know the owner, or have received outside confirmation that the particular dog is not aggressive. No one wants to officially say they won't treat them, but the practice is more widespread than I would have thought.

Incidentally, we had one of the meanest dogs that we see in the clinic today(a Rottweiler). He is not allowed in the front waiting room. The owner comes in, receives a muzzle, and waits in the back parking lot until it is time for his appointment (and the exam room is empty). He was actually in for surgery. He was only allowed to be handled by certain members of the staff who were extremely experienced, confident, and calm... It was a lot of special treatment for one dog.

And again, this dog is really a huge exception. Most of the "powerful" dogs are teddy bears.

 

[nitheninny]

Incidentally, we had one of the meanest dogs that we see in the clinic today(a Rottweiler). He is not allowed in the front waiting room. The owner comes in, receives a muzzle, and waits in the back parking lot until it is time for his appointment (and the exam room is empty). He was actually in for surgery. He was only allowed to be handled by certain members of the staff who were extremely experienced, confident, and calm... It was a lot of special treatment for one dog.

This was generally my clinic's procedure for aggressive dogs.

 

[CatVet2Be]

Shanomong

I don't think all little dogs are evil, we just had a disproportionately large number of tiny vicious snapping jaws with chihuahuas or min pins attached to them. One of the most unnerving moments I ever had was when an owner handed me her chihuahua face first and it jumped up and bit my face before I even had a chance to ask her to wait. Despite that every once in a while we would get one that was so cute and so sweet I just wanted to stick it in my pocket and run out the back door. My experiences have made me more wary when dealing with certain breeds but my opinion on the individual dog only comes after I interact with it. And very few have been downright aggressive, most dogs that try to bite are just terrified and would much rather get away from you.

Anyway, I thought you might enjoy this newsclip:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/19391478#video=19391478

 

[Shanomong]

[

 

[DVMDream]

I think what it comes down to is this: as a veterinarian, you obviously have an obligation to your patients. You take an oath on that. Obviously you want to help every animal that comes through your door, even (and maybe especially) if that dog is aggressive. But as a clinic owner, you also have a responsibility to your staff. So say you have one client that every time it comes in will bite or lunge or in some way show aggression to your staff. Say it's even injured someone in your clinic before. Do you continue to treat that animal, knowing that every time it walks through the door, it is a potential threat to the safety and perhaps even the lives of your staff? What if nearly every dog of a specific breed that comes into your clinic behaves that way? Do you ban the breed because the majority is too dangerous, or do you treat everyone regardless of the risk? At what point do you choose to protect your staff over your patients? We have to value the lives of every animal we see, but do we have to value them more than the lives of our receptionists, techs, other clients, and other vets?

We actually do have a few clients that have repeatedly aggressive dogs. One is a german shepherd. Every time that dog comes in it lunges at us, barks, growls, tries to bite, etc. However, the owner knows this. The owner accpets that this is how his dog acts at the vet. This dog only acts this way at the vet, otherwise the dog is incredibly friendly. So, should we refuse to treat this one dog because it is so stressed out at the clinic that it acts like a ferocious wild animal? The answer is NO, we don't. We have given the owner ace and he gives the dog some of those before they come to the vet. It really does not work that well. We also require that the dog be muzzled, again the owner has no problem with this. We are able to actually work with this dog, properly restrain it, draw blood on it, etc. even though it does lunge, bite, growl, etc. (And yes we do it without heavy sedation just with one or two ace that does not always work). Another dog we see somewhat often is a pit bull. This owner also brings the dog in with a muzzle on, but the muzzle is much too big. Yet, we are able to saftely put another tighter muzzle on top of that one and then we are able to do an exam without sedation. Then, we did sedate to do x-rays one day. If you take necessay precautions you can work with aggressive animals, but it is all in how you handle it (yes there may be an excpetion or two to this). One of the exceptions is a rottie that used to come in somewhat often. We had to heavily sedate the dog no matter what. Yet, we came up with a way to get the dog pinned behind a door and poke it in the butt without anyone getting hurt and we did this multiple times. Yes, safety of the staff is important, but so is the welfare of the dog and if handled properly both can be accomodated. We are dealing with dogs, yes they can cause damage, yes they can hurt people, but it is not impossible to work with those that are aggressive (personally, I would rather take the lunging, biting large dog over the I am wagging my tail lab that bites with no warning). There are people who work with wild animals in zoos and wildlife parks across the country every day. For the most part, they sedate the animals but not always. As a volunteer I had to get close to crocodiles/alligators in order to just feed them. They have to clean those areas out as well. The animals are simply moved to another area without sedation. At any time, something could go wrong and somone could get hurt but does that mean those animals are less deserving of care just because they are aggressive? NO. Yes, the staff at the zoo is important, but take the necessary precautions and you can literally have no one get injured. We see many aggressive dogs at the vet clinic, and I think in the five years I have been working there we have had 5 bites (two of those was from one dog on two different people, and it was chihuahua that was blind and paralyzed), one was a small kitten, and another was a rottie puppy whose owner allowed the dog to play bite, the last one was a new tech that had her face a little too close to the dogs face while we were drawing blood and the dog turned and more like tooth scraped her on the lip (it did need stitches), but that could have been prevented if she would have kept her face away from the dog's face like we had told her to do 1,000 times. So, take the necessary precautions, spend the extra time it takes to treat these patients because any dog, aggressive or not, could be the one to seriously hurt a tech, vet, etc.

 

[cowgirla]

Hahaha, that is adorable. But see, since that little dog is a Red Sox fan... I'm fairly certain it probably is evil. 😀

Yowch!

 

[Newfie Girl]

You all keep banning.

And I'm going to take someone else's advice and open up a "bad dogs" clinic :-D
Love pitties and bullies. And what's going to be next? Dobes, great danes, mastiffs, and anything else with a "bulldog" in its name?

My boss has "fired" two clients because of the way their pets behave. One was a labradoodle, the other was a golden retriever. Both aggressive, showed no warning signs, and would freak out severely if you even attempted to muzzle or restrain them. One of them we required them to sedate before they came in, and we would give more sedation when they arrived-- the owners thought we should waive all those drug fees because "we were incompetent, and it wasnt their fault their dog was overly rambunctions."

We do have a few aggressive pitties and rotties. Most of those are either present owner issues (idiot owners) or previous owners (rescue dogs.) But they are very very few and far between. In fact, we've had many clients say "oh please muzzle him, I'll feel better," which is great, because we know they care about us and their dog. Half the time, we don't end up needing the muzzle, and it makes the owners so happy! 👍

I don't agree with banning breeds, but maybe there's more to the story?....I used to work at a groomer who would not groom certain Goldens in the area if they came from a specific breeder. This was due to the fact that the breeder was not good, and there was a history of aggression due to imbreeding :S She was attacked by more than 1 of the dogs that came from that breeder in the past. So I can totally understand why she would not take clients from there. But if it's a straight forward breed-biased then that makes me sad 🙁 Some of the most kind and gentle dogs I see at my clinic are the Pitties and Bullies 🙂 When they have good confidant owners of course. I just think of dogs like children, they won't learn their manners unless we teach them! 🙂 Thats why so many little dogs can be nuts haha because the owners don't see the need to train the small breeds because they are not seen as a threat. I myself have a Silkey Terrior, and he's VERY well behaved because I put him through puppy school. Regardless of size, the owness is on us (as owners) to make sure our animals are trained and socalized 🙂

 

[KiaKia]

I have a very dog-aggressive dog who turns unto a puddle of goo for any bully/bully mix, thank god. I can only imagine her trying to pick a fight with one of these guys and ending up dead in 2 seconds.

A bully ban would make her sad.