Has anyone heard of this new rule?

http://www.pdsa.org.uk/pdsa-vet-care/changes-to-service

I dont use the PDSA as i have been lucky enough to never need the service, and they do a good job but how is this responsible?

Is it not actively saying pedigrees are more unhealthy therfore go and buy a designer dog type??

I think it may be more about, if you can afford to go out and buy a pedigree dog then don't expect free/cheap/subsidised vet treatment.

The one gripe I had with the Rolf Harris Vet hospital program was that is was a charity hospital yet you had people using the service who were breeding (and one assumes selling the pups).

But what if someone has lost their job in the meantime and need help?

I was under the impression if you used the PDSA they wouldnt help with pregnancies? I have never used them so i dont know about that.

You could be right Brainless, but what about the people that take on a  'free to good home' older pedigree?

This "PDSA is committed to assisting prospective pet owners to make the right choice before they actually acquire their pet" is suggesting that the right choice is not to choose a pedigree :-(

I've never been sure about the PDSA service anyway, it's not something I give money to. Insurance can be bought fairly cheaply and if you can't afford that I'm not sure you should commit to a pet at all. However, I do understand that there may be people that have pets already and fall on hard times and need their help. I know the service is often abused - I have heard drivers in work saying that they get their unemployed friend/ relative to take their dog there :-(

I think you are right, Brainless, but I would also question the fact that you can register multiple pets and yet still receive charitable vet care. 
People benefit so much from animal owning but I am not sure they need to have more than one to do so.

Not that i have ever used them either but my guess is the new rule is to stamp out fraudulent ownership. i.e. handing your pet over to someone you know  on benefits so as to receive cheap/free treatment. I know of people who have done this. Like has already been mentioned what if you were to lose your job and fell on hard times.... do you give your pets up to be re-homed because you can't afford vet fees!

Ooops sorry chaumsong you've beaten me to it i didn't mean to copy what you'd written.

I believe it is a two pet limit here in Bristol, as an OAP neighbour has their staff and cat with them.

> This "PDSA is committed to assisting prospective pet owners to make the right choice before they actually acquire their pet" is suggesting that the right choice is not to choose a pedigree :-(
>
>

That may be a reflection of the kind of pedigree they deal with most frequently.

But surely how can you define a Pedigree Dog. What is stopping anybody saying yes it may look like a pedigree dog but I dont have a Certificate and so do not know the parentage and so is not a pedigree dog.

What about the people that have dosg on otehr registers.

It is a non sense and should be based on numbers of animals not whether it is pedigree or not

And what about if you save up to get as HEALTHY a dog as possible from a good pedigree breeder, THEN fall on hard times? Is it more responsible to already be unemployed, go out and get a mongrel who then develops all sorts of health problems as it wasn't carefully bred?

What if you take on pedigree rescues? 

And nowadays crosses like labradoodles etc cost more than pedigrees.

> And what about if you save up to get as HEALTHY a dog as possible from a good pedigree breeder, THEN fall on hard times? Is it more responsible to already be unemployed, go out and get a mongrel who then develops all sorts of health problems as it wasn't carefully bred?

and this is the important issue in my opinion. If someone goes out and buys a dog from a responsible breeder who health tests, and has done everything in their power to make the puppies as healthy as possible you are being penalised.
I think its the same with insurance companies, anyone can go out and purchase a GSD (i choose this breed as a recent thread about responsible breeders is still running) its from fully health tested parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc... tests have come back good, you have done the research and paid the money but you will get the same quote from the insurance company as the badly bred byb type.

> If someone goes out and buys a dog from a responsible breeder who health tests

I suppose the thinking would be you can expect such a breeder to assist you in rehoming anything over the one dog that you can get charitable assistance with.
Similarly anything adopted through breed rescue.

I suppose the thinking would be you can expect such a breeder to assist you in rehoming anything over the one dog that you can get charitable assistance with.

In that case you might as well say no more than one pet full stop, because you can always dump them on the RSPCA or Dogs Trust.......

> In that case you might as well say no more than one pet full stop, because you can always dump them on the RSPCA or Dogs Trust.......

You could but the RSPCA or Dogs Trust did not bring them into the world.

no, but someone did!  Basically what you're saying support irresponsible breeders rather than responsible ones!  We can all fall on hard times but why penalise our pets?  It's shockingly 'breedist' and blaming responsible breeders to sell to people who get eg made redundant is outrageous.  Just cos folk buy a cross breed (often at extortionate prices) doesn't mean they deserve help more given the same circumstances as someone who's make the effort to buy responsibly, from health tested stock.  There are poor breeders of pedigree dogs, but more poor breeders of cross breeds and mongrels I'd say!

> Basically what you're saying support irresponsible breeders rather than responsible ones! 

I'm not saying anything I am trying to understand what the PDSA might feel about how they might deal with a finite budget.  Pedigree pets might reasonably expect assistance from their breeders whereas non pedigree might be likely to just create need from other charities.

> Just cos folk buy a cross breed (often at extortionate prices) doesn't mean they deserve help more given the same circumstances as someone who's make the effort to buy responsibly, from health tested stock.

Don't forget they will assist with one pedigree pet.

You could but the RSPCA or Dogs Trust did not bring them into the world.

They might very well have done, seeing as how they insist on rearing everything even when logic dictates it would make more sense not to i.e. why rear a litter of orphaned newborn  (staffy cross) pups when they have adults and older pups needing homes.

Pedigree pets might reasonably expect assistance from their breeders whereas non pedigree might be likely to just create need from other charities.

But you're forgetting just how many pedigree pets come from irresponsible breeders, that will not help. What will happen to them? And quite apart from that, say a family has two pedigree animals, fall on hard times through no fault of their own, and they then have to be forced to rehome one of their family members ONLY because they cannot afford vet fees, but if they'd had one pedigree and one mongrel they could keep both?

> But you're forgetting just how many pedigree pets come from irresponsible breeders

I'm not and I suspect that is most of what they see, hence their experience of these dogs taking a greater proportion of their resources, but my comment was in response to this

>If someone goes out and buys a dog from a responsible breeder who health tests

However, I do think we have to consider what they are saying

>In recent years there has been a large and unsustainable rise in the number of PDSA PetAid hospital clients bringing more than one pedigree pet for treatment.

This is obviously the reality for them and if it is unsustainable they have to do something.  It would also appear to be the wishes of the majority of their donors without which nobody gets anything.

Just another reason why the charities such as the RSPCA and PDSA never get a penny from me. All my spare money for charity goes to my own rescue or to The two nature based charities I give to regularly. I also occasionally give to a local rescue centre wih a sensible policy on unhomable dogs. ie they will PTS dangerous dogs It is an insulting site to carefull pure bred dog breeders everywhere and I just hope that one of thier desission makers never finds themselves in a situation where by they have rescued a couple of "Recognised" breeds and then fall on hard times..(I would like to see them sort out the collie/colie crosses as there are so many who are pure bred but look awfully like crosses!)
Are they going to ask the RSPCA to stop re-homing pure bred dogs next? Or will the situation arrise when they refuse to help out if someone who has "responsibly" taken on a couple of ....lets say staffs... from the RSPCA and then had a change of circumstances and needs help. They should have a means tested way of deciding who's animals need help. As for still treating the "doodles" and the  "poo's " and insinuating that all pedigree's are unhealthy they are way out of order. Maybe I should start to have a host of little dogs in cages around the walls of my shed and breed these "healthy" crosses until the bitches cannot produce any more before I drop them off at the gates of the RSPCA. Sounds like a money maker to me and the big names seem to think it's OK to do as well !!!!
Those at the top of these charities need to remember who they step on on the way to the top...even they are not immune to loosing jobs and they will have to meet those they hurt on the way back down !
Aileen

well it will drastically cut the number of dogs they have to treat round here in Birmingham as its years since I've seen a mongrel. all low income families here have Staffies. those are the cheapest easiest to obtain puppy

It would also appear to be the wishes of the majority of their donors without which nobody gets anything.

Well Dogs Trust claimed the majority of their members had said they didn't want a presence at Crufts, yet nobody seemed to have actually been asked! So I'd take that statement with a HUGE pinch of salt.

Ditto Bristol

> all low income families here have Staffies. those are the cheapest easiest to obtain puppy

The mongrels are Staffie crosses too.

"PDSA exists to help owners when they are most in need. PDSA is no longer able to support people who actively acquire multiple pedigree pets without being able to commit to their long-term health and welfare needs. Sadly, pedigree pets often need high levels of veterinary care due to inherited illnesses and breed related conditions as a result of irresponsible breeding associated with certain pedigree matings. "

This statement says it all.   Anyone taking on any pedigree breed from any source is doomed to face mountainous veterinary treatement bills. It says 'high' not 'higher'. On one of the other threads discussing crossbreeds, there are some particuarly irresponsible crosses mentioned which are just as likely to suffer at least as many problems if not more than their pedigree parents. But according to the PDSA, because they are crosses then they must be healthier!

I can't see any mention that if you have the money to buy a pedigree dog, you shouldn't need the services of the charity, this is all about any mongrels/crossbreeds are healthier than any pedigree. End of story. And it does appear to imply that it is more irresponsible to buy a pedigree than a crossbreed.

"Hundreds of thousands of pet owners in need turn to us each year for help and this figure has increased by an incredible 50% over the past five years."

Presumably this is due to people who have lost their jobs and are not in the position that perhaps they were when they bought the dogs. It is IMO a very dangerous path to chose when a Charity decides which animals it wants to treat based on breeding alone. I would think it would be fairer to say they will not support people who chose to aquire further animals (of any description) once they are already in straightened circumstances as that is irresponsible. But I expect that wouldn't be 'PC'. I only hope that people who just happen to have pedigrees and have suddenly fallen on hard times are not forced into making horrible desicions based on this change of policy!

I'm not at all impressed with this latest development as it seems to send out the wrong message - "any crossbreed is healthier than a pedigree" thus fueling the market for these 'designer crosses', however peculiar they are. It is only a matter of time before some of these charities are actively recommending people buy a crossbreed/mongrel rather than a pedigree - how responsible is that?!
They won't be seeing any more donations from me I'm afraid.

> It would also appear to be the wishes of the majority of their donors without which nobody gets anything.
>
> Well Dogs Trust claimed the majority of their members had said they didn't want a presence at Crufts, yet nobody seemed to have actually been asked! So I'd take that statement with a HUGE pinch of salt.

It's in their interest to find out what their wishes are and act upon them.  They cannot do as they please when they must please donors.

I had the unfortunate experience of visiting a PDSA vets in London just after New Years as my OAP Dad insisted on having his BC treated by them (even though I'd offered to take him to my vets and pay for the treatment).
I found the whole thing very depressing, the vets were extremely jaded, I felt I couldn't give my opinion of what was wrong and they didn't seem interested in what my Dad was telling them.
Poor dog ended up having 3 teeth removed when all along he'd had a major inner ear infection! It was only when I decided to bite the bullet and say that I wasn't happy with his original diagnosis that he got the proper treatment.
On the 5 visits to their surgery all the other dogs I saw in there were Staffy types, with one DDB. The staff try their best but I witnessed one episode where a woman, having been advised to have her "American Bulldog" speyed, told the whole waiting room that she intended breeding from her as she wanted a pup and "anyway she was going to sell the pups cheap so they went to good homes!" She was made to sign a statement in the waiting room confirming that she understood she would receive no help for pregnancy related problems.

Chances are that the cost of the stud fee would have covered the cost of a years insurance !!! but hey who am I to suggest she spends her money more wisely!!!! I have different priorities. Funny how so many of those who claim poverty have the biggest TV's, best iPhones (Or whatever they are), smart cars etc.. yet cannot afford some basic pet insurance. Pet lovers Eh !!! I think not, more like Animal keepes.
Aileen

My father donated to the PDSA for years, then when he eventually needed help as an OAP with his elderly rescue Cairn he was informed that he was "out of Catchment"   This was the same area as he had been donating in for almost 20 years!!!  They were able to demand donations in the area but had a different 'treatment area' 

I took him to my vet and used the credit card.

These companies sicken me they are now so far from Charities as to be unrecogniseable.   They receive donations from the GP yet seem to have no sense of responsibility for how the money is spent - otherwise they would refuse to treat the animals of people who are clearly making money from their pets.

I don't use the PDSA but this new thing bothers me, for reasons everyone has given.

Far as I can tell it seems to be a double wallop aimed against people who pay out hundreds of pounds for a pedigree pup but then want charitable help with vets bills; and discouragement of pedigree dogs on health grounds.

Problem is, people may be well off when they buy the dog but then fall on hard times; or they may spend hundreds on a designer crossbreed and then want charitable help which would be allowed.  And of course buying from a responsible breeder gives the pup a better chance of being healthy, which most of the BYBs don't bother doing.

It would stuff me if I used them - I have 4 purebreds, only one of them from a pup (and he is the healthiest!) - the other 3 are all rescues and cost me nothing.  Why (hypothetically speaking) should I be penalised for giving a home to unwanted dogs, just because they are purebred?

As I say entirely hypothetical - but it just smacks of breedism to me and that irritates me, given the effect it's having on breeding/rescue and so on.

> Why (hypothetically speaking) should I be penalised for giving a home to unwanted dogs, just because they are purebred? As I say entirely hypothetical - but it just smacks of breedism to me and that irritates me, given the effect it's having on breeding/rescue and so on.

Hear, hear! It's a form of Breed Specific Legislation.

We don't have a PDSA hospital where I live, but we have a PDSA VetAid scheme run with participating local vets. You are allowed to register only ONE pet with them. It doesn't say whether that scheme is included as well, so presumably my 'one pet' could be pedigree? or not?

It seems like yet another way to encourage designer cross breeding. However i do know of someone who has 4 current young show dalmatians and one older non-show dalmatian that are registered with the PDSA, obviously not all of them are registered as they are only allowed 3, but the older one now comes to us as the PDSA refused to treat him any more. Maybe this is the sort of thing they are trying to stop.

> It seems like yet another way to encourage designer cross breeding.

The PDSA have specifically stated they do not encourage such breeding

>'Designer dogs' are not classed as pedigrees. However, pet owners deliberately breeding from any species for profit, and without considering the health and wellbeing of the pet, would be stopped from using PDSA services.

I don't think we can argue with their findings of a disproportionate amount of resources going on the 7% of clients owning more than one pedigree and they do seem to recognise there is responsible breeding and non responsible breeding

>Sadly, pedigree pets often need high levels of veterinary care due to inherited illnesses and breed related conditions as a result of irresponsible breeding associated with certain pedigree matings.

My bolding.

This is all in the link posted by the way :)

'It would also appear to be the wishes of the majority of their donors without which nobody gets anything.'

The RSPCA claim the majority of dog owners support bringing back the dog license ......I take that with a whole cargo container of salt.

I know someone who has recently had to choose which of her two dogs to keep with the PDSA. She has owned them for years but due to having MS can no longer work. Both she and I regularly pounded the streets, knocked at doors, held events..all proceeds to PDSA.

Never again, she obviously gave up helping some time ago due to the MS, and as of a months ago and because of this policy I will never again help or donate to the PDSA.

At the bottom of the article it states :
   'A decision based on veterinary evidence and supporter feedback
91% of PDSA donors and supporters said that we are right to be concerned about the numbers and types of pets some people are acquiring and presenting for charitable treatment, of which 88% said they would support the change in our policy'.

I would say that the above statement suggests that the questions asked of supporters were carefuly structured..the question in all probability was not "do you think pedigree dogs should be restricted' ..of course people will be concerned about numbers and types and people may well agree to support the PDSA re policies because they trust them. That does not mean they agree pedigrees should be targeted in this way. I'd love to  know the specific terminlogy used.

As for 'veterinary evidence' I'd like to see that too..wonder if it was some guy called Evans! wonder what the Kennel Club chairman makes of this?

Do you know I think maybe we're all on a different planet here to the rest of the world, everyone seems to be shouting pedigree dogs are unhealthy, one of my nieces currently on an animal diploma course had that rammed down her throught a while back and she was totally unheard when she tried to offer a defence, the other day she had a video telling her that Chihuahua's all need c-sections as they are too small to give birth naturally now.

Are we on a different planet it feels like it? I think the responsible breeder really appears to be a minority group, a very small minority, we know bad breeding practises are going on all the time BYB's and the irresponsible are damaging pedigree dogs, perhaps even more so than we think or wish to believe, we all live in a small bubble as breeders ourselves and knowing acquaintences who breed for quality perhaps we are very blinkered to what is going on out there.

For even the PDSA to now join the band wagon against pedigree dogs due to inherinent problems and cost of care, I have to say I'm worried.

> I think the responsible breeder really appears to be a minority group, a very small minority

Exactly, so it is so surprising that the PDSA have found themselves faced with the majority who are not so responsible.
What are the statistics for cesearian section in Chihuahuas I wonder?

>What are the statistics for cesearian section in Chihuahuas I wonder?

Depends where they come from.  I have spent many years working on my self whelping line.  It takes a long time, as the average litter is 1-3 pups.  Any bitch that has inertia - all pups go for pet.  I learned years ago that inertia is very often passed on.  So, the bitch gets spayed, and stays as an auntie (I don't get rid),  and pups are carefully homed as pet, with promise of neutering.

So,,,, it isn't a short term thing.  Any bitches that need a section are spayed, and, again, pups go to pet homes.   I started by using bitches way over the breed standard for size, but soon learned that even a 9lbs bitch can have a narrow vaginal canal. 

In 2010 I actually mated my smallest ever bitch (within the new breed standard for size.)  She was taken back to the vet 3 times prior to mating, as I was worried that she may need a section.  3 times he advised me that her pelvis was fine for whelping.  He was right.  I have never had a bitch whelp so easily.  So, her one bitch puppy stayed.  As I said, it is a long term thing - it is not unusual to have an all male litter, so that sets you back timewise.

But I have proved that it is possible to breed a bitch for the show ring, that can also be used for breeding.  Many Chihuahua bitches that have done well in the show ring, have never been used for breeding, because the exhibitor knows that a self whelp is hugely unlikely.

It's a shame, but it's the truth.

It is my opinion that some show people would rather have a guarantee of pups for the show ring, even knowing a C-section will be needed.

That is very interesting Jean. Do you look t the boys lines too and use suds from self whelping dams? or have you not found that makes a difference?

Correct me if I'm wrong as I didn't retain the figures serving by memory alone here which is getting worse year by year.

But was it only 2% of the breeding population comes from people who show?

So if only 2% which may even be 1.5% of Chi breeders do it properly and responsibly, that probably leaves 98.5% of other Chi breeders who may continue to use bitches which genetically are not clear and may not self whelp, so that could leave a huge population of problem births maybe as much as 50%.

I feel a plonker now as I venhemently told my niece what a load of codswallop that was but perhaps it isn't anymore.

The GP need to really source their breeders more so now than ever if this is also an indication of every other breed out there, I am beginning to see why vets are all so staunch in their beliefs I couldn't see it before as I've never had a dog with any genetic problems neither have my family in 40+ years and we've had a lot of dogs and know a lot of dog people, but it is a small pocket of the dog world isn't it?

Very frightening..........

Jemima H for goodness sake spread the word about sourcing good breeders if you really want to save pedigree dogs. I will sit happily in my bubble of good and decent breeders, the only ones I have ever known.

>Do you look t the boys lines too and use suds from self whelping dams

100% yes.  And nobody will convince me that this exercise will not be worthwhile.  So, I will tootle along, continuing to improve the breeding abilities of my dogs, just because I feel so strongly about welfare issues.

And I fully appreciate that some people feel that it takes so long, as litters are so small, but, hey, I've already proved that I'm patient!  :-)