|
Letters To The Editor Server Side
|
|
Letters
to the editor are one of our most-read features! Open subject...
DoodleDog's
nose is permanently bent out of shape so keep your letter succinct or
he'll bury it! He likes your letters signed but if he knows you, and
if you toss him a
bone, our editor says he can withhold your name. The Dog Press
readers are the most informed dog owners in America so...
|
Hale Horrified
after reading Fred Lantings new article "Common
Sense Grooming" Part 3 - Teeth and Toe Nails. I
wouldn't give this advise to an experienced Vet Tech let
alone the average dog owner. The potential for injuring
your dog is astronomical! Fred seems more interested in
using tools from his tool cabinet than providing safe
grooming. I wouldn't be one
bit surprised to find Fred Lanting advising the use of
motor oil when treating demodex mange or using a match
to remove ticks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Patti Hale
[mailto:mzpatti@att.net]
We always appreciate respectful criticism
and while this falls short of that, I have to laugh, you
are obviously a relatively new dog owner. Less than 30
years ago, burnt motor oil was the most effective way to
kill demodectic mange and nearly as safe for the dog as
today’s prescriptions. Never heard of the match trick;
we just pulled them off and dabbed with antiseptic :)
I found a (ridged) dime to be very effective in scaling
my Akita’s teeth, much safer than anesthesia. Editor
|
Grooming Annette:
I subscribe to the Dog Place but after reading about Fred's
grooming practices … I don't want to even see another article
from your site. I am also in rescue work. And I have seen so
many dogs abused and mishandled … I will never recommend your
article or subscription to anyone. (name withheld according to
her demand, some of her less measured radical comments and those
of her "rescue" friends, withheld for reason...
|
|
Let
200,000 interested readers know what's on your mind and what we need to
cover |
|
Special Treatment:
I
was amazed to learn that the AKC is now planning to underwrite shows for
clubs having difficulty locating and affording a show site. A few years
back my club was in some financial distress and was looking for a show
site. We found one that we could afford on our own and was already
being used by several other clubs. When we had received permission from
the club whose grounds they were and submitted our application, the AKC
said the grounds were not suitable unless we spent more money on
temporary improvements, an added cost to the grounds for the club. The
AKC never offered to help the club monetarily or any other way.
Why
now are these clubs being given special assistance that no other club in
the history of the AKC, as far as I know, ever been given before? Are
these clubs more important than any other member or licensed club?
Besides the fact that the AKC is violating the terms of its own charter
they are now going to use funds to secure show grounds for clubs without
the approval of the delegate body, whom needs to approve most actions of
the AKC even though the Staff and Board have ignored this in the past,
remember the Petland fiasco. If they have whatever amount of money it
would cost to rent the Javitts Center for other organizations to use,
why do we constantly hear that they need to find ways of making up the
revenue from decreased registration, etc.?
(the
shows) are also to be run by the AKC employee who has proven to not have
the best interest of the exhibitors and their dogs in mind … at the 2009
AKC/Eukanuba Invitational (Agility was) subject to the ground flooding
and leaving them exposed to electrocution dangers and other hazards,
their solution was typical of AKC… Evidence can be seen at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXk1e0NgUGc
When
is the hypocrisy and stratification of clubs and individuals going to
stop? For years now and even more so under the current regime we have
seen different sets of rules for different people/clubs. Rules and
regulations have even been changed to accommodate some but not all.
It’s time for a hard look at the way the AKC conducts itself and may
even be time to involve the legal system. - A concerned member of the
dog show community |
|
Veterinarian On Vaccines:
I have been a practicing veterinarian for 37 years. The past 30 years
have been dedicated to providing quality Integrative veterinary
modalities to my patients, clients and readers. The incidence of cancer
has gone from around 5% when I started my career in the early 1970's to
55% in the 21st century. My observation as a scientist and clinician is
the reason for the increase in cancer and also the rise in auto immune
disease in animals and people is due to vaccinations, drugs and
chemicals.
I
have spent the better part of thirty years discovering the truth about
the dangers of vaccines, drugs and chemicals and shared them with all my
clients and readers around the world. Thirty years ago people were not
aware of what I was discovering and felt threatened by it as they are
today. However with the information network we have today, people are
more informed and aware of these dangers. The unfortunate part of this
story is the medical community is not owning up to this truth.
When
a body of medical professionals know that rabies vaccines can cause
terminal cancer in the cat for 20 years and do nothing about it, we have
a problem. Instead of removing the vaccine from the market place,
they tell the veterinarian to inject it in the rear leg of the cat so
they can cut off the limb more easily. This is a sad story but true. I
have yet to meet a new client with a cat who has been warned about this
danger with Rabies vaccine and Leukemia vaccine by their veterinarian.
I
had one of my readers tell me that after going to the same veterinarian
for 10 years, vaccinating annually for rabies her cat developed a tumor
on its neck. When examined by her long term veterinarian, he immediately
told her it was an injection site fibrosarcoma just looking at it. She
asked him what caused it and he candidly said, "From his rabies shot."
She then asked him why he hadn't told her about the possible danger of
vaccinating her cat for rabies. His reply, " I didn't want to worry
you." This is a highly educated individual and this is his scientific
explanation for not providing INFORMED CONSENT. This is very sad to say
the least.
Unfortunately it doesn't stop with vaccines. The topical flea and tick
products contain carcinogens and or neuro toxins which are absorbed
through the skin of the pets. A worse problem arises when the children
and family members who touch the pet and absorb the toxins into their
bodies. No testing has been done to see what the effect these chemicals
have on humans or the long term effect on animals.
My
concern is pet caregivers are not being provided informed consent
options about the treatment regiments they are being told are necessary
for the care of their pets.
The
time will come when man looks back on where medicine is today and say,
"Can you believe people believed in injecting toxic substances into
living beings and called that healing?"
Thank you for providing this site to help inform pet caregivers of their
options and they do have a choice. Sincerely yours,
Stephen R. Blake,
DVM, CVA, CVH |
|
Toxic Grapes:
My
1.5 year old Daschund, Daisy, recently ate 4-5 ounces of fresh grapes.
(She is app 10 lbs) She ingested them around 10 am. Began throwing up
around 8 pm. Took to the emergency clinic, ran urinalysis and blood
work. All of her blood values were slightly elevated. Began IV fluid
treatment. Next evening we ran the same tests. All levels were over
triple the normal values. No urination for 12 hours. Slowly, she began
producing urine, numbers crept down over three days. IV fluids for 4
days. Began slowly eating and taking in small amounts of food. The BUN
number is still elevated (37) but other values have returned to normal.
I
understand the desire to debunk a "hoax", but if your son was deathly
allergic to peanuts, you wouldn't think that peanut allergy awareness
was overkill. If only a few dogs are allergic to grapes, it is still a
good idea to make that known so people can be careful in what they feed
their pets.
By
the way, as I searched for answers as my dog was going into renal
distress, I found that she presented exactly as was predicted. Also,
the published toxic dose for dogs is app 1.1 oz per kg of dog. A 70 lb
dog would have to eat app 35 ounces of grapes to get to that level. Who
knows, if humans ate half of their kg weight in ounces of grapes, we
might get pretty sick too. Thanks, DJ Harry |
|
Open forum, any subject,
just keep it short! Send your:
Letter
To Editor. |
|
|
|