Seresto flea and tick collar WARNING - Page 1

Pedigree Database


by dus10smith on 06 July 2015 - 17:07

PLEASE READ BEFORE PURTCHING I am morally obligated to share my experience. 

I got the Seresto flea and tick collar from my pet store after a recommendation from owner for being the best/most-expensive flea solution available. I like to give my girls the best care possible; Lola (2.5 year old Maine Coon) & Delilah (7 year old Boxer).

Day2: Activeness stopped, just took naps most of the day.

Day5: Realized both were not eating/drinking, that’s when I realized they were both getting sick. I googled the bad reviews for this collar, and I saw many reviews warning consumers not to use the collar because of sickness, seizures, and being allergic. So I took both collars off.

Day7: Took the girls to the vet because they were defiantly getting worse. $800 later; blood work,  iv’s for hydration, steroid shots, special food recommendations. Vet could not figure out the cause of illness. Figured it was the cancer for 7yo Delilah. No real idea for Lola. She did try to call Seresto to question toxins/poisons that maybe in the collar, but could not get past the automated answering service to talk to a real person. Sent us home, said to come back if things got worse/not-better.

Day13: Delilah is recovering slowly, but steadily. Lola was a little better, eating/drinking some/little, but still not active; and 2yo kittens are very active normally.

Day14: 5:30am, Lola (who could not walk more than a couple feet at a time the previous day), crawled off my bed and into the bath tub. I was woken up from her call for help, found her in my tub, and she was in so much pain! I immediately called the vet ER for locations, it was too late.  (I will not give the graphic details) On the phone, she went into a seizure and did not wake up after.  Something that nobody EVER should haft to see! Horrifically sadL RIP Lola

I am 100% convinced it was this collar! It may work for some pets, but can be tragic for others. How many for innocent, loved animals must did before a warning label is required?? If I could afford a lawyer to shut them down, I would

by Nans gsd on 06 July 2015 - 18:07

So sorry for  your loss but want to thank you for sharing your tragic experience which could possibly save others.  Hope this gives everyone a heads up.  Do  you feel they just got too much poison/toxins or what?  Did your vet offer any other info for you? 


RIP Lola, my condolences to you.  Nan


by AnaSilva on 06 July 2015 - 20:07

So sad... Seresto is relativily new in here, but in the school we train everione has it... my girl is a bit sensitive with her skin so we continue with what she is used to and didn't change on any of my dogs, mostly because it's really expensive. but I will be sharing your terrible experience with everione..

RIP Lola, my condolences to you...Cry Smile


by bubbabooboo on 07 July 2015 - 01:07

Main > warning on New Seresto Flea and Tick collar (14 replies)

by Yakira on 30 April 2013 - 09:04

Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 09:10 pm
I just wanted to share that my 6 Year old female shepherd had a 4 minute Seizure from the new Seresto flea collar.  I work for a vet and we have had other
dogs get lethargic from this product and we return the owners money.
I guess the more active the dog is the more of the chemical from the collar goes into the dogs system.
If you have had any problems report it to the bayer phone number on the back of the package.

Thank you,

by LKB123 on 07 July 2015 - 03:07

well i guess each pack of dogs are different.....i own two gsds.  one is 20 months intact and the other is 8 yrs and castrated.  not to turn this into a CafePharma blog site but in 2013, i was using an oral flea, tick and hw combo drug made by a competitor and my 8 yr old (6 at the time) developed oral squamous cell carcinoma and there were various other benign tumors present on my two small breed dogs as well that i had removed during that year.  my dog beat the cancer $3500 and 15 treatments later.  i have since switched back to ivermectin for hw prevention and this Seresto collar for fleas and ticks since we do herding, tracking, agility, obedience and swimming.  in Louisiana the bugs are relentless.  on my second set of collars, but no seizures yet and my silky terrier is 12 yrs old.  but i will surely be watching for any unexplained panting or other red flags.  ps. since the switch no more tumors-cancerous or non-cancerous. 



by bubbabooboo on 08 July 2015 - 02:07

Amazon has plenty of horror stories about Seresto in the feedback for the product.  It is a well known problem with the product which is one of those GeeWhiz marketing ideas based on profits not science that make lots of money for Bayer and Vets because it is a prescription only product.  Veterinarians make money because they get to write a prescription which Bayer pays them for writing and Bayer gets $60 or more for $1 worth of product.  So long as they only kill a few dogs (and make a lot more sick) and there is no class action since Republicans have taken away class action state by state from most Americans through laws limiting class actions the dance goes on.  This is a repeat of the business tactics and profits over safety approach of the Moxidectin injectible heartworm treatment (Prohart) that killed and sickened so many dogs because it made lots of money for the Vets and Fort Dodge.  If the cost of defending legal costs and paying for a few dogs lives (never mind those screwed up for life) at "market value" is not great enough to cause these large corporations pain they just kill our animals and keep on raking in the cash.  The general rule of thumb is that any product that is said to kill or repel pests for 6 months or more can make your animal sick for that long or longer if things go bad .. and for some individual animals that are hard to predict beforehand there will be bad things happening either seen or unseen.  Because the road to class action is now closed by political operatives friendly to big business every pet owner must go it alone against a deep pocketed corporation which means no protection  for pets that are limited in value to replacement value like a pig or a cow.  If your veterinarian lies to you then get a new Vet .. the time to get a new veterinarian is the first time it comes to mind.


by momosgarage on 08 July 2015 - 17:07

@bubbabooboo A while back I had an idea that "animal mortality insurance" could influence the outcomes of "police shooting pet dog" scenarios, if, people started taking out such insurance policies in larger numbers across the country.  Basically the idea was if police shoot enough dogs insurance at $5,000 or more, in large enough numbers, the policies to use lethal force on dogs would have to be altered (after all you don't see many cops bashing out the windows of Ferrari's and Mercedes).  I did contact a few companies and all were unsure how to proceed because of Law Enforcement and local government "Qualified Immunity", even a law firm that specialized in Pet Trusts wasn't sure how to structure the policy (they promised to get back to me but never did).  However, the "animal mortality insurance" strategy could work against pharmaceutical companies.  I will outline my idea below as posted on another forum, just replace Cop/LEO with pharmaceutical company:

Police shootings of service dogs are so common today, people need to start treating it like car insurance, basically a MANDATORY purchase, for dogs that have had any extensive training for sport or service.

Only MONEY, namely insurance coverage, can solve this problem.

American Buffalo, Cows and Crocodiles kill more people per year, than domestic dogs, when tracked as individual species; 4 times as many when combined.

BUT...a loose horse running down 11th Avenue, in Manhattan, is not dangerous enough to warrant it being shot by NYPD?

So what is the difference between a pet dog or service dog and a carriage horse?

The carriage horse is an "insured asset" and the police or local government WILL have to pay the owner of a shot horse, due to a process called "subrogation".

In contrast to dogs, you don't see many horses, cows, hogs or other livestock getting shot very often by law enforcement. I think the main reason why, is because they are an established commodity, with an insured value. If that same kind of insuring practice was done on dogs in larger numbers, I believe the "accidental shooting of pet dogs" by law enforcement will also decline.

To summarize my point, it will only take a few victim owners, with "insured dog", whom were carrying "Animal Mortality" insurance specifically, making claims of wrongful death and destruction of property, to get a broad policy change in place.

How many "insured dogs" shot by police, per year, do you think the insurance companies would tolerate, before they begin to put the screws into the legislators and LEO's?

If a dog has a set insured value, of say $10,000, and is then shot by police on private property, the owner would then file a claim against their "Animal Mortality Insurance" policy, which they had previously taken out on the animal. So, as with all insurance companies, the victims insurance will then subrogate the damages from the responsible party.

The subrogation process will happen, even against an LEO or their department. No insurance company is going to eat the $10,000 and not follow through on subrogation, simply because its an LEO. They are certainly going to attempt to subrogate the damages from another insurance company. The only questionable part is, if it will be the departments insurance or the individual cops policy (home owners etc) that will pay.

No insurance company on earth is going to eat the cost of payout, while forgoing the subrogation process.

The exact same scenaio would apply to a human whom was covered by a "Key Person" Insurance Policy, wrongfully shot by police, without a liable third-party present.

In the subrogation process, the individual cops insurance will be contacted by the "Animal Mortality" insurance company and the departments insurance will also be contacted by the "Animal Mortality" insurance company. After that process, the individual cop and/or the police organization itself would likely have their insurance premiums increased. Its highly doubtful many officers imagine such a scenario, when shooting someone, a pet or when damaging property, because most "people" and/or "things" are not insured individually in that manner (typically just home, renter or car insurance). For example, a wrongful death of a rich CEO carrying an "Executive Life Insurance Policy" would likely bankrupt an LEO department or local jurisdiction. Encountering an "insured dog" would likely take many departments by surprise, post shooting, when the insurance claim comes in.

LEO's and their departments will not be expecting it.

Also, since LEO's can be held personally accountable for a Title 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, a dog getting shot by an LEO can be deemed an "unreasonable seizure". So, when a dog "insured for a named dollar value" is shot, it can trigger an insurance claim to be made against the individual officers personal insurance policies (not always the department). Being personally liable, in an instance like this, could conceivably render the shooting officer uninsurable, OR at minimum, result with an increased personal insurance premium, due to claims being filed by any side.

Now to clarify further, the purpose in taking out an "Animal & Livestock Mortality" policy on a dog, is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the dogs death, by cop/LEO. The purpose is to make the insurance company's get involved on the legal side, once an "insured dog" is killed in a negligent manner by an LEO. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if an increasing number service dogs, across the country, shot by police, also happened to be covered by "Animal & Livestock Mortality" Policies. The insurance companies would likely begin to draw up real data, about police shooting dogs, to strengthen their court/arbitration cases.

To my knowledge, there have been no dogs shot, that were carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. However, there have been more than a few breeding show dogs shot by law enforcement and in those cases the Police departments settled for much more then the typical $300, plus immediate medical expenses. Imagine, for a moment, if those dogs had been insured individually, as well, with a specific dollar value and pay out schedule on the policy. The damages found in court would likely have been much higher at the end of the day. Also remember, the insurance covering the individual officer and the departments insurers will also be involved in the legal discussion about payout. Three insurance companies talking about a claim, involving a negligent cop whom shot an "insured dog", due to irrational fear, can't be good for continued institutional public policies that encourage officers to shoot civilian owned dogs on a whim. Imagine a scenario where a cop whom shoots dogs negligently becomes both uninsured individually and uninsurable departmentally.

Dog owners, at this point, should be teaching each other HOW to cause police departments additional logistical and paperwork headaches. I think the issue at this point, is not "awareness", people know this kind of unlawful shooting of pets is going on. "Activists groups" need to refocus and target potential loopholes in police policy, then HIGHLIGHT them for the public to us AND abuse.

Here is story about dog shooting by LEO's being deemed
“unreasonable seizure” by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:

>>> The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, for
example, ruled in favor of the Hells Angels in a case where police officers shot two dogs during a raid. Calling the shootings “unreasonable seizure”, the court chastised the police for failing “to develop a realistic plan for incapacitating the dogs other than shooting them.” The Hells Angels eventually received a total of nearly $1.8 million in a settlement <<<

As I said earlier, LEO's can be held personally liable in any Title 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, which includes "unreasonable seizure" (i.e.shooting someones secured pet dog, without a warrant or cause to enter a private property).

In another article link posted below, an LEO rhetorically asks, "Since when did it become a constitutional violation to shoot at an animal?":

It seems to me, that LEO's have taken the "unlawful seizure" rulings, linked to the wrongful shooting of civilian dogs, to heart, with the writer stating the following "TIPS":

>>> How to Minimize Your Risk of Violating the Constitution During a Potential Pet Shooting
-At a minimum, officers should document the basis for having contact with the animal. Was the officer called as part of a “dog running at large” report?
-Did the encounter occur during law enforcement operations—i.e., the execution of a search warrant?
-Officers should also report any known history of the dog. Did the complainant report that the dog had bitten people in the area before? Is the officer aware of previous dog bites or aggressive behavior?
-Officers should describe the dog’s actions before they made the decision to use deadly force. Was the dog growling? Exposing its teeth? “Bearing” down on all four paws? Did the officer observe the dog’s hair on its back stand up? Bark? Break away from a restraint?
-Finally, officers should document the type of dog and its weight, as well as the surroundings. A thorough recitation of the events in a police report will no doubt assist in the defense of these expanding claims <<<

Based on the above excerpts, it seems LEO's are activley looking for ways to not be held responsible. That should be more than enough evidence to prove that we have a problem as civilians. In my opinion, at this point, only legitimate insurance disputes will solve the issue of LEO's negligently shooting pets.

I would like police chief's & sheriffs, saying the following to the officers in their charge:

"Don't even think of shooting another dog while employed here, the last one killed by an LEO, was valued at $10,000 and it cost a department $1 million in estimated legal fees and damages. In addition, the offending officer had to pay $100,000 out of pocket, in both legal fees and damages and as a result, that particular officer, can no longer get a homeowners insurance policy"

Police shootings of service dogs seems to be common today and people need to start treating "Animal Mortality" polices like car insurance, basically a mandatory purchase, for dogs that have had any extensive training for sport or service (i.e. high dollar investment).

by LynOD on 17 July 2015 - 13:07

I can add to the Sorresto collar stories  My Papillion just had a bad experience.  The collars were working great for my pack a GSD, Border Collie, and my Pap, they have been wearing for about 1 month no reaction definately working on ticks.  Then all of a sudden I noticed my Pap becoming very lethargic took her to the vet did lymes test negative starting treating for lymes anyway.  But the same day I took her to the vet I had remembered someone saying about the collars causing lethargy so I took the collar off.  I mentioned it to my vet she suggested I call the 1 800 number on the pkg and speak to them.  I didn;t but it took a full week for my little dog to come back to her normal energy level. If it was Lymes the Doxy would have perked her up within 72 hours. Thank god I took the Damn thing off before something worse happened.  They all went in the garbage after reading this post and all of the other horror stories.

by joanro on 17 July 2015 - 13:07

Flea collar poison gets into the system of humans coming into contact with the dog and collar. Add that to glycophosate and is it any wonder the cancer rate is where it is these days ( people and dogs).

by Nans gsd on 17 July 2015 - 16:07

LynOD, you were very lucky with all the tragedies posted on here.  I tell you this forum can be a wealth of good info, and if I haven't thanked you all for that by now, well, thank you all.  Nan


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top