by GSD4dogs on 23 February 2018 - 15:02
by GSDMomma2 on 23 February 2018 - 15:02
by GSDMomma2 on 23 February 2018 - 17:02
by hexe on 23 February 2018 - 18:02
by Kaylee on 23 February 2018 - 18:02
by Western Rider on 23 February 2018 - 19:02
The person who took the pictures of the dead puppies is now afraid to come forward so they will be removed.
by GSDMomma2 on 23 February 2018 - 19:02
Due to the escalation of the situation and out of respect for the admin and community of PDB, I will request to remove the photos of the dead puppies. The purpose of the post was to inform the public of the situation. Those who want any updates on the current report with the Dept of Ag can obtain the information once it is closed because it is public information. I just want to note that it is very important to do your research and take caution as parvo as we all know is deadly and caustic. Information that is done from investigations will be available and chose your sources of information wisely.
As far as the pictures- due to the source of the pictures wanting to remain anonymous, I will not be able to disclose who took the actual pictures themselves. I can say that I know for certain those were taken on premises as I have been on the premises multiple times and know where they were taken.
If you have any questions or concerns, I would advise contacting Animal Control or IL Department of Ag to inquire for the true detail. Thank you.
by hexe on 23 February 2018 - 22:02
If someone is going to take photographs to document a situation, it’s imperative to ensure the camera used is set to digitally stamp the images with the time, date and GPS location to establish when and where they were taken. Without that, it’s as if the pictures don’t exist, because they could have come from anywhere or anytime.
The treatment protocol that was posted, to my eyes as a vet tech, is no different than what would be done for puppies with parvovirus which are admitted to a veterinary hospital to be treated. It is not unusual for a vet to have the owner administer the treatment at home, if they feel the owner is capable of following the directions of the vet—it is easier on the sick animals, and reduces the potential for spread of the disease, so there’s nothing negative to be construed by that information. There’s nothing on that document that indicates who those instructions were issued to, or when they were issued, and letterhead is easily manufactured or manipulated, so again this is information that could have come from anywhere and at anytime.
At the moment, then, there’s an inspection record that indicates no issues were found at this facility, and confirmation that two complaints had been phoned in anonymously. That tells us exactly one thing: one should use common sense and due diligence whenever visiting any breeder, or anyplace where dogs may be exposed to a pathogen shed by a sick dog (the vet, dog shows & trials, dog parks, training classes or groups, even places like Home Depot, Petsmart & farm supply stores).
Diseases such as parvovirus and distemper are still with us, and now we have two strains of canine influenza to watch for as well. An outbreak of any of these can occur in any kennel, and isn’t an indication of other than the fact that there are susceptible dogs (puppies & seniors, typically) at that location.
by momma on 24 February 2018 - 04:02
by Hundmutter on 24 February 2018 - 06:02
Well said, both Hexe and Momma.
I would like to suggest, though, that where ANY contagious disease, whether imported with the dogs or not, whether being adequately medically treated or not, rears its ugly head in any commercial kennel, the kennel owners really ought to make that fact* public; and shut down food & peripherals sales, boarding/grooming access, training classes, and anything else they are running which involves other people and their dogs coming onto the property, until there is an all-clear. Placing sick dogs in an 'isolation unit' (however well accomodated), and scrubbing floors, really isn't enough. This honest preventative approach is no more than we should rightly expect from the small 'hobby breeder'; IMO there's no reason not to expect a commercial kennel to comply in the same way. Profit isn't inviolate. What do others think ?
*@ the OP: I don't see a need to go into numbers affected, or the toll of how many pups have died, for this warning to be given.
You must be logged in to reply to posts