Just wondering how many on here do the shots or the titer test?

Moose has her puppy shots all up to date, She turns 1 yrs old October 2nd- her next ones will be the 3 yr annual and the 3 yr rabies. I compared her
record with Junior's and they are the same- but of course Junior has had them all up to 8-9 yrs- then I stopped and he'll be 13 yrs at the end of February.

My question is should I get these shots on Moose or should I just do the Titer test to see if she is still immune?

Are the puppy shots any different then the adult shots?

I don't want to over vaccinate her if she doesn't need them- but not sure if they are all the same or not.

At a Loss :-(

Thank you :-)

I've been re-thinking annual boosters a lot lately, specially after reading a number of papers by Jean Dodds. However, my understanding is that it is really important to have the 1 year vaccinations, even if you titer test following years.

ditto

I agree.  1 year boosters.  Then you can stop or titre test, as you prefer.

I would just carry on with whatever programme your national veterinary governing body advises.  It will have been well researched in consideration of what is both best for your dog and the dog population as a whole, which we should all care about, and will carry very little risk.

I'm having this dilema at the minute too.  I do puppy vaccs and then first year booster and that's it.  Always done it the same way and really don't want to change it from a health point of view but I can't get my lot into kennels without them.  My OH is adimant that we take 1 week every year without the dogs now so I need the kennels but I really don't want to vaccinate just for that 1 stupid week!!  And I need to get my 5 yr old puppy vaccinations all over again cos I have 'lapsed' on her booster my vet has told me!!ARGH!
So I will watch this post with interest.
If you didn't need to kennel or anything, definately titre.

cracar some kennels will take titre test results now ive read, might be worth calling around and see if any by you will.

Ive read you should do the puppy one, a boster at a year then once every 3 years.

Ill be getting my girl titre tested when she is due her bosters. My vet normaly do the 3 yearly plan but as she has had problems with her vacs they want to do her every year as they say she may not hold her imunity as long as other dogs so ill be testing fist. My problem is i know she isnt fully covered for distemper but i dont want to risk overloading her with them.

>Ive read you should do the puppy one, a boster at a year then once every 3 years.

That's nearly right; what's recommended is the puppy course, a full booster a year later and every three years after that, with the intervening years having just the lepto part of the booster (and kennel cough if you want that done).

I'll get her next shots which will be her adult ones but they are good for 3 yrs. Then when she is due again I'll just do the Titer test.
I asked the lady at dog class and all she said was as long as I have proof that the Titer tests are good then I am fine- just must show proof
from my vet. Hopefully our kennel is the same.

I am just thinking we don't over load our children with shots so why should our animals be any different- just putting money in the vets
pockets- who else would bring in a perfect healthy animal- reason for shots to get their patience in every 1-3 yrs.
I think the Titer test should be cheaper and in with the annual (1-3yrs) exam to decide if your dog needs the vac or not- Just My Opinion.

Gonna look up Jean Dodds and do some reading :-)

> I am just thinking we don't over load our children with shots so why should our animals be any different-

Vaccinations are all different.  Not all human ones are lifelong.  The optimum revaccination periods are determined by research.

>just putting money in the vets pockets

Vets are a business. All treatments are profitable to their business.  Titre testing can be just as profitable.  If vets did not make a profit we would have no vets.  I doubt anyone would do it as a hobby.

>who else would bring in a perfect healthy animal-

Someone seeking preventative medicine to keep their animal healthy?

Yes but I mean to say a dog must come back every 1-3 years for shots when in reality you don't no if these shots need to be done every 1-3 years.
The dog could still be immune and giving the shot again could be doing a lot more harm then good- reason why I am reconsidering it- I don't think my furkids
need to be over vaccinated if they truly do not need it.
That's why I think yes bring ur dog for a yearly exam (1-3yrs) and in that the dog should be tested to see if he/she is still immune and if not then by all
means have the shots done.

Why give more shots how healthy is that? Is it not better to make sure the animal needs them 1st- could be doing a lot more harm then good.
Like I said Just my thinking :-)

Vets are a business. All treatments are profitable to their business.  Titre testing can be just as profitable.  If vets did not make a profit we would have no vets.  I doubt anyone would do it as a hobby

I never said as a hobby-  I was saying vets say the animals need these shots with out a doubt so people bring them every year whether in reality do these animals need these shots every
single year? Prob not reason for the Titer test. I would feel much better doing the Titer test to find out my animal really does not need them then to over load them with unnecessary shots.

My bostons I do not bring in every year cause I no they are fine- but when I notice something then yes I bring them in. Junior he was in last year cause he needed some dental work. T-Bone due to an
ulcer on her eye's. No I don't run my dogs to the vet every year for an exam- thats me :-)

I just looked the Dr dodds up and this is what I found: http://www.weim.net/emberweims/Vaccine.html
Of course going to do more research.

> I would feel much better doing the Titer test to find out my animal really does not need them then to over load them with unnecessary shots.

That's fine, it's your dog :) but that is a little different to suggesting it was all about the vets pockets :)

> I was saying vets say the animals need these shots with out a doubt so people bring them every year >whether in reality do these animals need these shots every
> single year?

In the UK they invite people back every year because their governing body advises that some vaccinations should be repeated every year to provide the optimum cover for the population.  Some will still be covered but some will not.  You could test but venepuncture is not without risk, or cost if that is the issue, so for my mind you may as well continue with a programme that has shown very little risk for the benefit provided.

That's fine, it's your dog :-) but that is a little different to suggesting it was all about the vets pockets :-)


I truly didn't mean that- sorry guess I should of re-read what I wrote- apologies :-)

:)

> And I need to get my 5 yr old puppy vaccinations all over again cos I have 'lapsed' on her booster my vet has told me!!

That is rubbish and something many vets try on.  A booster is a booster is a booster no matter the time interval.  If a dog has had a full course at some point in it's life it only needs a booster.

This whole topic makes me so angry I might be unable to type as I might need to throw my keyboard across the room.

In fact, if I suddenly stop typ

> if I suddenly stop typ

LOL

Sorry, have collected keyboard again now.

There is no such thing as 'all vets' 'vets do X' 'vets do Y' - there are many vets as there are, I don't know, driving instructors.  And there are knowledgeable and good vets and crap and unknowledgeable vets. 

So any sort of 'it must be ok, because vets do it, and vets have our animals' lives at heart and wouldn't do something if it were not for the animal's best interests' is silly.  Because 1) there is nothing which all vets do.  Therefore, when some vets do one thing and other vets do another, and they conflict, how can all vets have our animals' lives at heart?  2)  Just because a vet believes something is for the best, doesn't mean it is.  Just like any other profession it depends on the knowledge and skill of the individual, not in any sort of [insert robot voice] 'vet-does-it-therefore-must-be-good' unthinking conclusion.  3)  Sadly, vets have other interests besides the welfare of animals.  They also have their own survival and profit and they also adhere to the guidance laid down by vaccine manufacturers who produce and licence vaccines.  If they didn't, they would risk being sued for not vaccinating an animal according to the licence if that animal subsequently became ill.  Because then, legally, the buck stops with them and not with the vaccine manufacturer.  If they do as they're told by manufacturers and THEN an animal becomes ill, then the buck stops with the manufacturer and the vet is relieved to know that...

> Therefore, when some vets do one thing and other vets do another, and they conflict, how can all vets have our animals' lives at heart? 

This is why it is best to look to their governing bodies where the collective opinions will have been perculated into evidence based best practice.

>If they do as they're told by manufacturers and THEN an animal becomes ill, then the buck stops with the manufacturer

So it should.

>This is why it is best to look to their governing bodies where the collective opinions will have been perculated into evidence based best practice.

But manifestly that hasn't happened.  Since evidence tells us that dogs don't need an annual vaccination, and yet the majority of vets are still giving them - plus your average pet owner isn't going to go out and consult the relevant 'governing body' before taking their dog to the vet for the annual jab it's had all its life.

> Since evidence tells us that dogs don't need an annual vaccination, and yet the majority of vets are still giving them

Majority?  The impression I have from posters here is that most have the core vaccines three yearly with just the lepto annually.

>most have the core vaccines three yearly with just the lepto annually.

It seems clear that most people don't read the vaccination book to see what their pets are actually given.

Bacterial infections (leptospirosis, bordetella etc) need annual vaccination; vaccinations against viral infections (distemper, hepatitis etc) are proven to last longer.

>Majority?  The impression I have from posters here is that most have the core vaccines three yearly with just the lepto annually.

Where I live - which is a large city, with several vet practices - all the big vet practices are vaccinating for everything, every year.  Not every 3 years.

It may be an economic decision arising from the cost of buying various packages from their suppliers, which in turn will be reflected in what they are able to charge the customer.
As long as it wasn't making it unecessarily expensive it would not unduly worry me as we vaccinated our dogs for decades for everything annually without any noticable higher level of risk.

> it would not unduly worry me as we vaccinated our dogs for decades for everything annually without any noticable higher level of risk

Umm, I thought you said that vets should follow what is laid out as best practice?  This is not.  And it may not worry you to vaccinate for everything, every year, but it worries me and a heck of a lot of other people too.

> I thought you said that vets should follow what is laid out as best practice? 

I don't believe I did :) I suggested Dollface may wish to follow the protocol as she appears to be worried about these things.  I don't, for the reasons stated.

What are 'the reasons stated'?  I can't see any reasons you've given...

This paper will be of interest, I'm sure.

> What are 'the reasons stated'?  I can't see any reasons you've given...

>as we vaccinated our dogs for decades for everything annually without any noticable higher level of risk.

Cracar,would you be able to get a house/petsitter for your week away?Ive no idea how it would compare with kennel fees,though.

Kennel fees are £7 per day per dog.  Although I get discounts as my lot share kennels and I take my own food over rather than use whatever the kennels use(who does that!!).  So it would probably average out, I suppose.  Just dunno if I fancy a stranger in my home looking after my dogs.  Don't know if they do either!!lol.  Might just need to stay home and send the family away without me!!!hehe

Its funny,isnt it,I absolutely loathe leaving my dogs,and wouldnt mind not going away at all,for that reason.But my friend Jim,bless him,pays for me to go to cornwall for a week in summer,and its heaven!I can take one dog,but the two youngest are farmed out with my two daughters,one each,and seem fine when I get back,talk about a mixed blessing,though!

Colliepam, we are sad aren't we?lol.  My OH made me go away for a week last year and my dogs were divided between my mum and my cousin.  I was devastated and called everyday.  I also stalked people on the campsite with dogs.  I think people started walking their dogs down different ways to avoid me!

Just dunno if I fancy a stranger in my home looking after my dogs

Cracar, we use a dg sitter and looked long and hard before settling on her, She is now part of the family as far as the girlies are conserned, (and us !) we did meet and greets first and she has become a friend. Get the right one and they are worth thier weight in gold!
Aileen

Just dunno if I fancy a stranger in my home looking after my dogs

Cracar, we use a dg sitter and looked long and hard before settling on her, She is now part of the family as far as the girlies are conserned, (and us !) we did meet and greets first and she has become a friend. Get the right one and they are worth thier weight in gold!
Aileen

>This paper will be of interest, I'm sure.

You'd think, wouldn't you Jean?! 

One idea for leaving dogs at home is a dog walker who takes them out on both dog walks with them, feeds them, and drops them home till dinner time, then does a pet visit at dinner time.  And another pet visit before bed.  I've done that a few times when I'm away for a few days.  Not sure I'd want to do it much longer unless I could find someone to sit with them in the evenings (neighbour, friend?).  I think, cobbling together different forms of professional help, there are more options these days than there used to be.

Me too rabid. I 've just had an email from a puppy buyer from my June litter. My vet did the first vaccination and health check at eight weeks. I explained in writing that all vaccines are compatible and that the second vaccination should be done by the new owner's vet at 11-12 weeks and guess what.. ?? Her vet said the vaccine was not compatible and restarted the programme. Am outraged ! Unnecessary foreign protein introduced to young puppy with risk of compromising immune system. Have suggested she change her vet.

I get this all the time with puppies coming to class.  Well-meaning breeders give pups 1st jabs, thinking it will get them ahead and speed up the process - and then vets insist on restarting the course.

The reason for this is because the vaccines have only been tested with the same brand used as a booster, by the vaccine manufacturer.  So the vaccine manufacturer then advises the vet to use the same brand.  Of course, it's also in their interests to advise the vet uses the same brand because then it means selling more of their vaccine...  Then the vet (like a robot, not wanting to be sued and have the buck stop with them) follows the advice given by the vaccine manufacturer. 

In all honesty, breeders shouldn't give the 1st jab because it's the easiest way to avoid this situation.

If they really want to give the 1st jab, then they should tell the puppy owners in advance that they must find a vet which uses the same brand of vaccine.  Owners will then need to phone around vet surgeries in their area to find one which uses that brand.  They can always return to their preferred vet for all other treatment and boosters. 

But once a new puppy owner has got to the vet for the 2nd jab, and the vet says 'no, this must be the 1st jab', it's pretty hard for them to walk out of there and prevent the vet from giving it - that would need to be some assertive and knowledgeable puppy owner.

Thank you rabid. And apologies that my post was a bit of a non sequitur -I was responding to the post in which  computer was in danger of being hurled across room in outburst of justifiable vaccine rage.

Thing is, I had discussed this with all my puppy buyers and told them to advise their new vet that the breeder would do first vaccination and that only the second should be given because it is not in the puppy's best interest to have more than two jabs. I suggested that their vet telephone my vet in case of uncertainty.

I will not be doing first vaccination again. I'm now very anxious that all other advice , especially that regarding leaving dogs entire until maturity at least, will just be ignored. No doubt they will be persuaded by the vet to to spay/neuter asap! The sales contract forbids this but I'm not sure whether it would be upheld in law.

> In all honesty, breeders shouldn't give the 1st jab because it's the easiest way to avoid this situation.
>
>

My pups go without vaccination or if they are unhomed by 8 weeks/staying past 10 weeks will have both, and the owners will have to wait to have them, after the second one.

Have just read Jeangenie's vaccination paper. V. interesting and am rethinking vaccination policy for my puppies

Pup Vaccination and the 12 Month Booster
Most pups are protected by MDA in the first weeks of life. In general, passive immunity will have waned by 8-12 weeks of age to a level that allows active immunization. Pups with poor MDA may be vulnerable (and capable of responding to vaccination) at an earlier age, while others may possess MDA at such high titres that they are incapable of responding to vaccination until ≥12 weeks of age. No single primary vaccination policy will therefore cover all possible situations. The recommendation of the VGG is for initial vaccination at 8-9 weeks of age followed by a second vaccination 3-4 weeks later, and a third vaccination given between 14-16 weeks of age. By contrast, at present many vaccine data sheets recommend an initial course of two injections. Some products are also licensed with a '10 week finish' designed such that the second of two vaccinations is given at 10 weeks of age. The rationale behind this protocol is to permit 'early socialization' of pups. The VGG recognizes that this is of great benefit to the behavioural development of dogs. Where such protocols are adopted, great caution should still be maintained by the owner - allowing restricted exposure of the pup to controlled areas and only to other pups that are healthy and fully vaccinated. The VGG recommends that whenever possible a third dose of core vaccine be given at 14-16 weeks of age.

Why are we not being generally give this advice?

My most recent pup I had vaccinated at 10 and 12 weeks, as was not happy with the Mum's previous litter some pups had reactions to the puppy vaccs given at 8 weeks.

I think perhaps to cover more basis re waning of maternal antibodies ti would make sens to have a longer gap between 1st and 2nd vaccination, as the second is primarily given as a back up in case the first one didn't take?  So compromise and jab at 9 and 12 weeks.

Brilliant Synopsis of VGG  paper -thank you Brainless ! Like  you, I cannot understand why we haven't been given this advice before. I should have been more aware because my Hungarian import , Clemmie, had the VGG recommended protocol in Hungary . I just assumed that was what they do and never questioned the science behind it .