Well, some recent threads on here (including one I recently started) have given me food for thought about dog problems relating to irresponsible ownership. I did mention dog licensing but generally most people seem to think that isn't workable.  But thinking further, I have started to wonder why there couldn't be a compulsory license to breed. Obviously the simply for profit breeding is a huge problem, contributing to producing far too many dogs for the available 'good homes' which may have less than the best care gone into selecting healthy sound stock.  So, I started to think, perhaps such people could be less inclined if they had to pay for a license, perhaps an initial fee and then a yearly maintenance fee, they would then be issued with a license number which would have to feature on any adverts for puppies. The fee could be used to pay for perhaps one enforcement officer in each district (would spot check to follow up ads etc) and funds could also be generated through fines to non complyers like with TV licenses. Would be easier to enforce than for all dogs, might help stamp out puppy farming and could save a fortune in rescue costs to help pay for itself!!  I'm sure this needs a lot more thought which is why I am interested to hear other opinions but I am certainly alarmed at the many puppy ads I see which are at best ignorant breeding and at worst just puppy farming!!!

If you breed from a certain number of bitches you are subject to local authority licensing already.

I think it would possibly be workable if every bitch to be bred had to be licensed - that would not only drive up the cost of breeding for the puppy millers, but would affect every person who wanted to breed as well.  The licence itself could do with reviewing - say, a person would have to meet criteria in order to breed, such as not breeding solely for a profit etc.  Of course some would slip through as in all walks of life but I reckon it'd help a great deal.

And for those that still breed regardless - well, chances are they'll have to advertise somewhere, and could be followed up from there.  If they didn't, then I shouldn't think it'd take long before word of mouth stops finding enough homes and they end up unable to shift pups, and stop breeding.

It's one of those things that needs a LOT of thought, but I for one think it would be well worth it.

>such as not breeding solely for a profit etc.

The trouble with that is, although we don't like it, there is no law against it that could be used in order to get someone excluded from holding a licence.  You can, of course, use existing welfare legislation but excluding people from making a profit would probably land you in a "human rights" case :)

As I actually agree with you that all dogs should be licensed, and their owners have to show vaccination certificates, and puppy training class attendance etc for the licence to be renewed, i obviously think at least this would be a good idea if the first were not workable. In some ways, though it would be easier if all dogs had to be licenced, you could be asked to show your licence or give the number for checking when you are out with the dog or they could visit your home, whereas how will the inspection officer know who is planning to breed, except by chasing up all adverts (quite alot of work to chase them all).

>As I actually agree with you that all dogs should be licensed, and their owners have to show vaccination certificates, and puppy training class attendance etc for the licence to be renewed, i obviously think at least this would be a good idea if the first were not workable. In some ways, though it would be easier if all dogs had to be licenced, you could be asked to show your licence or give the number for checking when you are out with the dog or they could visit your home, whereas how will the inspection officer know who is planning to breed, except by chasing up all adverts (quite alot of work to chase them all).

Why should I have to vaccinate my dogs who do not need vaccinating ? Why licence the dogs ? better to have to qualify for a dog owners licence before you get a dog by proving you have knowledge of dogs & especially any breed you might be interested

They have a law requiring all dogs to be licensed in N Ireland & it doesn't work

Why do your dogs not need vaccinating?

I also think that the owners should be licenced rather than the dogs. If you had to demonstrate a particular level of understanding of canine issues and understanding of what being a responsible owner entails it would be a start towards educating people as to the commitment involved in owning and caring for a dog. Anyone can own a dog but caring for it in a responsible matter is a different thing.

I think it would also put off large numbers of people who get a puppy/dog as a spur of the moment decision. The effort and cost involved with having to undertake some form of recognised licence would, after all, be far less than the effort and cost involved in being a responsible owner.

And if that education could involve sourcing your puppy from a reputable breeder it would make puppy farms less attractive to the unwitting buyer :)

Because I titre test them & I've never had a dog that needed vaxing again

I had one dog that never needed even the initial vaccinations

I titre test before I have my dogs vaccinated

My parents Cavalier died from the reacton to a lepto vaccination booster, he went to vets because ill in the reception area & was dead three hours after he was injected. A subsequent PM showed it was a reaction to the lepto vax

I'm no less an owner because I don't vaccinate.    Just because you have money to pay for all these weird & wonderful schemes doesn't make you a better owner.    

I don't think vaccinating dogs is weird and wonderful, or only for the rich. I believe most responsible owners do it because they want to keep their dogs safe from illness.
I am waiting to hear about how we can avoid unnecessary vaccination, but to say it is weird and wonderful and only for the rich is rather extreme IMO.

Vaccination as for people is a choice and should not be compulsory, there are pro's and increasingly we are seeing negative results for some dogs of vaccination. 

What do you mean, negative results?

Side effects

I don't understand why side effects would be increasing, vaccinations have not changed in fact they are administered less often.

Yes but we can choose wether to risk the side effects or not at present as vaccination is not compulsory.

Yes, we can :) it was the bit about side effects increasing that I was questioning :)

incresingly we are realisign that there are side effects, not that these are increasing just oru awareness of the link between vaccination and problems.

I don't think it is a particularly new phenomenon of associating illnesses with a recent vaccination the research suggests otherwise though.

I think the general public are only recently becoming aware of this issue re vaccinating pets.

I think it is a subject that has been well publicised since the MMR debacle pushed it to the fore many years ago now.  If anything I see a shift in people being more aware of the need to view it scientifically again perhaps because of the outcome of the MMR debacle but I suppose either of our perceptions could be correct :)

What is titre testing?
It sounds like a good idea to check whether your dog needs vaccinations first, i didn't know it was even possible.

If you use the search facility you will find several lengthy threads on the subject :) I think it is safe to say there is some controversy over its efficacy in ensuring your dog is fully protected at all times.
The BVA recommendation is to vaccinate regularly and if a licence system was to be used to ensure welfare as well as responsibility I think it would have to at least ensure dogs are evaluated by a vet at regular interviews, probably annually, where it can be determined and certificated whether it is appropriate to vaccinate, or not, an individual.

Titre testing can be done via your vet. They take a blood sample & submit it to a testing lab such as the one at Glasgow University. The lab will produce a report & based on what the results show a correct decision can be made regarding vaccinating or not. The price list gives a break down of the tests offered.

I find it hard to believe that whilst it is accepted that a dog is covered for 2-3 years by a rabies vaccination via a blood titre test,titre testing for the other diseases that dogs are vaccinated against is never offered by vets as a matter of course. The only vax my current dogs have(& it's only Rjj the BC at this time)is the rabies for his Pet Passport.

It is interesting that for cats the manufacturers recommend blood testing before vaxing for Feline leukaemia virus !

Obviously routine vaxing dogs is big money business for vets & vaccine manufacturers

That price list puts titre-testing as being more expensive than boostering, so I don't think vets should be accused of profiteering from vaxing - they'd make as much money taking the bloods and organising the tests, and the owner would pay more, because they'd have the cost of the test on top of the vet's consult fee and blood-sampling.

...and if the test shows a low result, the cost of a vaccination on top.

The vets of course don't get any profit from the actual titre test(unless they add £'s on as their "costs")

On the other hand they charge well over cost price for vaccinations which even for a full puppy course cost under a fiver(including VAT)& the more they buy the lower the cost

So any vet charging £20 or more is making profit & most vets charge over £40 & not all can be put down to overheads & vaccination clinics charge much less

My Rjj's initial vax cost over £50 ! but blood taking only costs me £9.99(including VAT )plus the cost of postage & the cost of the test. In the case of my Giff he never needed vaxing so I saved an awful lot of money & far more important to me I never overloaded his immune system by vaxing him unnecessarily

I have autoimmune disease caused by over vaccination & I would not wish that on my pets

I'd expect a vet to charge at least a consult fee for taking the blood sample (between £20 and £25). A full puppy course where I work costs just over £40, and that includes both appointment fees.

In that price list are the tests for all the various antibodies charged separately? That would add up to a heck of a bill.

The vaccination cost covers the consultation fee for obtaining their professional opinion in assessing the animal and deciding if the vaccination is appropriate as well as adminstering it.  Whilst you may decide a health assessment is not necessary if you are not considering vaccination at that point (although I can't see the point of titre-testing unless you are going to consider that possibility) I think your vet is being very generous is not charging you a profession fee for his time taking the sample.  I'm not sure all vets would be as generous.

>In that price list are the tests for all the various antibodies charged separately?

Anyone know?

It is interesting that for cats the manufacturers recommend blood testing before vaxing for Feline leukaemia virus !

But that isn't because they may already be immune -that is to check the cat isn't already INFECTED. Also there is no need for FeLV vaccinations for indoor cats that don't mix with cats that have been outdoors. It can only be transferred via saliva.

Why do the vaccine manufacturers recommend testing before vaccinating?

The manufacturers of FeLV vaccines recommend that cats and kitten to be vaccinated should first be tested for FeLV. This is not because vaccinating a positive cat would be harmful to it, but because positive cats derive no benefit from vaccination. If you do not know whether your cat was FeLV positive or negative before (s)he was vaccinated then, if later (s)he is found to be FeLV positive, you do not know whether or not the vaccine failed. And if your cat is vaccinated but untested then you do not know whether it is safe to introduce another cat into your house, because you do not know if your cat is excreting FeLV or not. Similarly, new cats should always be tested before being introduced to your own cats.

Isn't that what Marianne said? :)

Yep it was. :)

I have to add, after my 3 year old dog after his annual vaccination, the vaccine manufacturer (Virbac) wrote to me and said, 'in a perfect world every dog would be titre tested to establish whether or not they need a booster'! 

So titre testing has to be a safer way forward.

As Spanglers illness appears to have most probably been caused by ingress of bacteria at the time of the injection, I would say extra venepuncture would actually increase the risk.

Spangler's illness and death that followed was caused by the vaccine - even the vet and Virbac agree on that Isabel, funny how you seem to have a different opinion than the experts for a change :rolleyes:

Your own website only has that as one of three possible causes, Maria - but this is neither the time nor place to go into that, because it is way off-topic.

Indeed, if RReeve chooses to look into the whole business of vaccines and titre testing using the Search facility they will find several posts where this has been discussed at length.

I didn't go way off topic, I was suggesting titre tests to establish whether boosters were necessary.  It was a question brought up on one of the posts and I responded to that, I think you will find it was Isabel that decided to go way off topic! 

And to clarify, the vaccine was the most likely cause JG. 

But as you rightly say, it is not the time or the place to go into that. 

I'm on the same topic as you, Maria :), you brought up Spangler's history as evidence that titre testing was safer.
From the history given on your web site it is not apparent at all that the vaccine in the most likely cause.  It is one of three and, by my logic at any rate, the least likely of those.

I'm answering the questions asked on this thread, but you seem to want to point out that Spangler died from something other than a vaccine.  I'm putting you straight without going way off topic as JG advised. Spangler died through an illness which was caused by his booster, and it was the lepto vax  which was the one in question.

It is one of three and, by my logic at any rate, the least likely of those.

Logic is obviously not your forte Isabel!

In Spangler's case, both the vet and vaccine manufacturer confirmed that it was the vaccine.  I'm surprised that you seem to have so much knowledge of something you had no involvement with!  I don't have the time or desire to go into one of your long heated debates so that is all I'm saying to you on the subject Isabel :)

The only knowledge I have is your web site in which you state what happened and three possible causes.   Logic may not be my forte :) but ingress of bacteria from the skin still looks the most logical to me. Perhaps if you placed a copy of the manufacturers letter on your web site, as you once said you would do, I might have a better appreciation of why you think they are saying the vaccine was the cause.

But wasn't there a requirement that all dogs be licensed here a few years ago that was scrapped? I remember my mum buying a dog license from the local council each year when I was young, and I have to say there were a lot more strays then than I see around now. I think that a license to breed from a bitch and sell the puppies would be more workable as anyone advertising pups (or trying to register pups with KC) without a license number can then be dealt with by whatever means necessary - (forfeiting any money charged for puppies?).

Yes the dog licence was still around when we bought our Springer in 1985 and hardly anyone bothered buying it and yes the amount of strays seen then was far more than you ever see now.  I haven't seen a dog out on it's own in ages come to think of it.

the people causing a problem wouldn't pay.  How would you know who the straying dog causing a problem belonged to, even if they were chipped the owner could just deny it belonged to them if there was a problem.  So good owners would be paying for the bureaucracy.

As for breeding there are already laws about this that are rarely enforced and quite rightly hobby breeders (like most reputable ones) are exempt.

I wasn't referring to straying dogs, was talking about anyone who breeds puppies (quite easy to prove I would have thought eg adverts to sell them) and also I do not mean any exemptions for 'hobby breeders'. Not entirely sure what that term means but I reckon anyone breeding a litter needs to take the same responsibility, and those who care about welfare would surely have no objections, only those for whom profit is the motivator. 

Not everybody advertises pups though, do they. Lots are sold through word of mouth. It'd be impossible to police.

Okay but there are always some folk who don't comply with TV licenses or car tax, but most do through fear of being found out and fined etc.

And it's the ones who don't which cause all the trouble, so in effect the law-abiding people are the ones being penalised. What do you do to people who break this rule? If a law can't be enforced it's a bad law and should never be passed.

Even the most horrendous of puppy farms can be licensed and still continue trading.