Can you believe it .............

skinnydipper said:
ETA I've had a look on Facebook, there are several Brucella Canis support groups with similar names. Could you post a link please.
Click to expand...


brighteyes said:
Yes, it’s that one and it’s for anyone with an imported dog or UK bred one which is taken abroad on holiday. Mostly correcting false and outdated information given to unsuspecting owners and finding alternative vet practices who are willing to treat untested, asymptomatic dogs/continue to treat BC positive ones. The disparity between practice policies is vast. Vets originating from Europe, not surprisingly, seem perfectly happy to deal with imported dogs as are some UK vets who have weighed up the risks.
Click to expand...

Which one? There are several.

Please could you post a link. Thank you.
 
skinnydipper said:
Why the reluctance to test?
Click to expand...
Due to the preponderance of vets who quote euthanasia as the only option if the results are positive. The group supports owners unaware of the condition who are given what I’d imagine is a very upsetting ultimatum. The government has taken what I’d say was a fairly relaxed stance on the disease, compared to Rabies, FMD, Bovine TB and Brucellosis so I’m left wondering why. The HAIRS guidance seems to say risk of infection via non-reproductive fluids from asymptomatic, neutered animals is extremely low.
 
CorvusCorax said:
A friend of a friend is having to spay and retire their very promising competition dog and medicate it for life because someone else brought a positive dog to a major event.
The FOAF's dog has tested positive four times, the owner of the dog suspected as being the source either refuses to test or will not disclose the results.
Click to expand...
Not that I doubt you, but how on earth? And what medication, as nothing is effective? What symptoms does the dog have? European dogs travel untested and as such unregulated into Crufts…
 
brighteyes said:
Due to the preponderance of vets who quote euthanasia as the only option if the results are positive.
Click to expand...

brighteyes said:
And what medication, as nothing is effective?
Click to expand...

So no treatment is effective. Owners of infected dogs have no wish to euthanise. What do they do then? Do they keep them under house arrest or take them out and about and risk infecting other people's dogs.

Or of course, not test.

Great.
 
Last edited:
CorvusCorax said:
A friend of a friend is having to spay and retire their very promising competition dog and medicate it for life because someone else brought a positive dog to a major event.
The FOAF's dog has tested positive four times, the owner of the dog suspected as being the source either refuses to test or will not disclose the results.
Click to expand...
And why hasn’t the FOAF had their dog euthanised? Just curious 🧐
 
Well as I said last year on this thread I had my imported stray rehome dog tested, he was negative. It was helpful because this year he had to go to a referral practice. One of his physios was pregnant so it was good to be able to say Moti was negative. My vets were very encouraging with testing and gave me shed loads of information about possible outcomes etc. I for one am glad I know for sure. It cost less than £100. I think
 
Just been reading the gov.uk update dated 12June . This caught my eye “ Neutering reduces transmission risk but has not been proven to eliminate risk. Veterinary staff should be aware that neutering an infected dog has a risk of exposure to B. canis for those carrying out the procedure and appropriate precautions should be taken. There may be a risk to staff health from other treatments and procedures.”
 
I think it's a bit much for people to import these dogs and expect everyone else to accept the risks.

Someone with an infected dog or someone who has chosen not to have their potentially infected dog tested, should not have the right to decide if its an acceptable risk for my dog. That should be my decision, not theirs.
 
skinnydipper said:
I think it's a bit much for people to import these dogs and expect everyone else to accept the risks.

Someone with an infected dog or someone who has chosen not to have their potentially infected dog tested, should not have the right to decide if its an acceptable risk for my dog. That should be my decision, not theirs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I’d be livid if my dogs were infected by one that the owners were in denial about. I was really worried when next door imported a rescue. When I spoke to them they thank fully went and got her tested. (Negative).
It’s like people with STD’s still refusing to use effective disease prevention, it’s pure selfishness and would only be practiced by seriously selfish individuals.
 
skinnydipper said:
I don’t follow the page Brucella Canis RVN on Facebook (Louise’s page, the vet nurse who posted on this thread) but when you made a comment about me on this thread on Saturday - which you later deleted, you reminded me about it.

The Brucella Canis support and advice group, I'm assuming that's a group for people whose dogs are infected with Brucella Canis. Is it a members only group or can anyone view their page?

ETA I've had a look on Facebook, there are several Brucella Canis support groups with similar names. Could you post a link please.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
skinnydipper said:
Thank you. I see it's a members only group but I read the 'about info'. I see that Louise herself has a Brucella Canis positive dog.

She has land on which to exercise her dog. What is her advice regarding exercise for people who have a BC +ve dog who have a small garden, yard or no outside space?
Click to expand...
Can we guess?
My guess is other people should get over themselves and not be so silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top