PDA

View Full Version : Deadly virus @ Munroe County SPCA


Sheelagh >o
September 1st 07, 02:50 PM
Time to make sure those vaccinations are all up to date!!

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070901/NEWS/709010310

Sheelagh>"o"<

Gandalf
September 2nd 07, 12:10 AM
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:50:43 -0700, "Sheelagh >o<"
> wrote:

>Time to make sure those vaccinations are all up to date!!
>
>http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070901/NEWS/709010310
>
>Sheelagh>"o"<


Why the HELL aren't incoming animals being PROMPTLY immunized?

THis is negligence in their practices.

Feline distemper is known to be highly transmissible, with the virus
being able to survive for approx. 1-2 *YEARS* in the environment.

One sick cat, months ago, could have been responsible for the source of
the virus.

But by choosing NOT to quickly immunize cats on intake, the facility is
directly responsible for the deaths of sick cats, and for the 'deaths'
of the innocent, probably non-infected cats they murdered, to try to
stem this preventible disease in their facility. IMHO.

There is NO EXCUSE for allowing this to happen. Those responsible should
be investigated, and fired. IMHO.

Cheryl
September 2nd 07, 03:16 AM
On Sat 01 Sep 2007 09:46:07p, cindys wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
>:

>> Why the HELL aren't incoming animals being PROMPTLY immunized?
> ----------
> They may very well be, but I think the vaccination takes a while
> to work, and it's not going to help a cat who already has the
> disease. When I boarded my cat this past spring, I did not want
> him immunized because he is elderly and has renal disease and I
> felt the risk of complications from the vaccination were greater
> than the risk of his getting distemper. The director argued with
> me a little but then let it go. Our veterinarian subsequently
> explained that even if I had had him vaccinated, he would not
> have been protected since it takes a while for the cat to build
> up the antibodies in response to the vaccine.

Friends of mine with dogs tell me they have to have them up to date
on vacs a month before boarding them if they have to, or they
aren't able to board them there.

On the problem with the shelters, I've seen a case where they just
don't have the correct quarentine spaces, and one litter of kittens
wiped out a lot of semi-healthy kittens, and even adult cats, with
panleuk. That incident made me quit that rescue group. I couldn't
deal with it. I couldn't change it, so I had to step back. I prefer
now to help others who have the guts to deal with the heartbreak. I
admit I close my eyes to some of it. I just
can't........................

--
Cheryl

Sheelagh >o
September 2nd 07, 05:53 AM
On 2 Sep, 04:14, "cindys" > wrote:
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Sat 01 Sep 2007 09:46:07p, cindys wrote in
> > rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> > >:
>
> >>> Why the HELL aren't incoming animals being PROMPTLY immunized?
> >> ----------
> >> They may very well be, but I think the vaccination takes a while
> >> to work, and it's not going to help a cat who already has the
> >> disease. When I boarded my cat this past spring, I did not want
> >> him immunized because he is elderly and has renal disease and I
> >> felt the risk of complications from the vaccination were greater
> >> than the risk of his getting distemper. The director argued with
> >> me a little but then let it go. Our veterinarian subsequently
> >> explained that even if I had had him vaccinated, he would not
> >> have been protected since it takes a while for the cat to build
> >> up the antibodies in response to the vaccine.
>
> > Friends of mine with dogs tell me they have to have them up to date
> > on vacs a month before boarding them if they have to, or they
> > aren't able to board them there.
>
> --------
> It was interesting because the place where we boarded our cat (which is a
> large veterinary office/hospital where we were clients for 15 years)
> ostensibly has the policy that all animals which are boarded there must be
> vaccinated. If an animal is not vaccinated, they will vaccinate it at the
> time of intake, which is quite useless, as both of us have said. The way the
> events went down regarding Alex were rather interesting.
>
> As I am remembering this... I misspoke (or miswrote) when I said I was
> unwilling to have him vaccinated. I was actually willing to have him
> vaccinated (although I wasn't happy with the idea). What I was really
> objecting to was that I didn't want him to have the $40 medical exam before
> the vaccination since had already been examined two times in the preceding
> six months at that facility and once at their sister facility for a second
> opinion. So, when I phoned in the reservation, I told the secretary that I
> really didn't want the cat vaccinated but if that were the policy I would go
> along with it, but I was mostly unwilling to pay $40 for his fourth medical
> exam in six months. She told me I would have to speak to the director when
> the time came.
>
> When the day arrived, we dropped off the cat, and we had another
> conversation with the secretary where again we were told that we would need
> to speak with the director, but the cat was accepted for boarding. Several
> hours later, the director phoned us at home and told us that the $40 exam
> was required before they could vaccinate the cat. We said no because our cat
> had already been examined three times in the preceding six months, twice at
> that facility and once at the sister facility. Then, he started questioning
> us about why we had taken the cat to the sister facility. After some
> discussion on that topic, he finally said "Well...how about the mini-exam?"
> We said "How much will that cost?" He said "$33." We said no. Then, he got
> mad and said that if we didn't agree to an exam, he would not vaccinate the
> cat. We said that was fine by us since we never wanted the cat vaccinated in
> the first place. Then, he was insisting that he couldn't take responsibility
> if our cat got distemper. We asked him how could our cat get distemper if
> all the other cats were vaccinated? He then babbled something about how our
> cat could pick up other respiratory diseases. We told him we would take our
> chances. It was obviously just a money-making thing because, as you stated,
> even if we had gone along with the vaccination, our cat would not have
> developed the antibodies until a month later, but we would have been out an
> extra $75 in the meantime ($40 for the exam and $35 for the vaccination). I
> am happy to report that our cat did not develop distemper or any other
> respiratory diseases.
>
> FTR, we now see a vet at the much smaller, more personal sister facility,
> and we are much happier.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Excellent. I am ever so pleased to hear this. when you are boarding
your cat, you want to know that your cat is in the best possible
situation whilst you are away, so that you have a stress free break.
Trying to wring you out for another $75, which is no measely some when
you count that together with the prior 3 examinations too. now, that
really is a money spinning idea, & the director should have known
their facts before launching into conscience - control with you! it's
your cat & your decision ultimately, isn't it?

I am so glad that you held out in the end. If there was nothing to be
gained in the short term, it would have been a total waste of money.
as for admitting there was next to no chance that your cat could
contract the disease during the cats stay there. Ridiculous really!!
Sheelagh >"o"<

Sheelagh >o
September 2nd 07, 06:10 AM
On 2 Sep, 00:10, (Gandalf) wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:50:43 -0700, "Sheelagh >o<"
>
> > wrote:
> >Time to make sure those vaccinations are all up to date!!
>
> >http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070901/NEWS/...
>
> >Sheelagh>"o"<
>
> Why the HELL aren't incoming animals being PROMPTLY immunized?
>
> THis is negligence in their practices.
>
> Feline distemper is known to be highly transmissible, with the virus
> being able to survive for approx. 1-2 *YEARS* in the environment.
>
> One sick cat, months ago, could have been responsible for the source of
> the virus.
>
> But by choosing NOT to quickly immunize cats on intake, the facility is
> directly responsible for the deaths of sick cats, and for the 'deaths'
> of the innocent, probably non-infected cats they murdered, to try to
> stem this preventable disease in their facility. IMHO.
>
> There is NO EXCUSE for allowing this to happen. Those responsible should
> be investigated, and fired. IMHO.

Whilst I agree with you, if it is the case that the injection wouldn't
have caught the offending cat/ kitten somewhere along the line, one
wonders if there was anything that could have been done to prevent it?

I would like to think that all cats were immunized the moment they
reached the safety of the door, but if this one cat had the disease up
to 6 months ago, is there any point in recriminations?

I have a feeling that this should serve as a reminder to all, to
insure that if their cats are outdoor cats as well, then they should
be immunized the moment that they are old enough to be, unless of
course there is a valid reason not to inject of course!?
I feel so sorry or the animals that suffered as a consequence of this
terrible tragedy. Purrs to them all, shelter staff & cats, & cat
slaves alike!

It is entirely possible that the scenario that you portray is most
probably the cat responsible has affected no end of other cats- who
knows? :o(
Or, to view it from another point, @ least they came clean about it
asap! ( then again, who would we know if they didn't?)

Sheelagh >"o"<

MaryL
September 2nd 07, 02:56 PM
"Sheelagh >o<" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On 2 Sep, 00:10, (Gandalf) wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:50:43 -0700, "Sheelagh >o<"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Time to make sure those vaccinations are all up to date!!
>>
>> >http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070901/NEWS/...
>>
>> >Sheelagh>"o"<
>>
>> Why the HELL aren't incoming animals being PROMPTLY immunized?
>>
>> THis is negligence in their practices.
>>
>> Feline distemper is known to be highly transmissible, with the virus
>> being able to survive for approx. 1-2 *YEARS* in the environment.
>>
>> One sick cat, months ago, could have been responsible for the source of
>> the virus.
>>
>> But by choosing NOT to quickly immunize cats on intake, the facility is
>> directly responsible for the deaths of sick cats, and for the 'deaths'
>> of the innocent, probably non-infected cats they murdered, to try to
>> stem this preventable disease in their facility. IMHO.
>>
>> There is NO EXCUSE for allowing this to happen. Those responsible should
>> be investigated, and fired. IMHO.
>
> Whilst I agree with you, if it is the case that the injection wouldn't
> have caught the offending cat/ kitten somewhere along the line, one
> wonders if there was anything that could have been done to prevent it?
>
> I would like to think that all cats were immunized the moment they
> reached the safety of the door, but if this one cat had the disease up
> to 6 months ago, is there any point in recriminations?
>
> I have a feeling that this should serve as a reminder to all, to
> insure that if their cats are outdoor cats as well, then they should
> be immunized the moment that they are old enough to be, unless of
> course there is a valid reason not to inject of course!?
> I feel so sorry or the animals that suffered as a consequence of this
> terrible tragedy. Purrs to them all, shelter staff & cats, & cat
> slaves alike!
>
> It is entirely possible that the scenario that you portray is most
> probably the cat responsible has affected no end of other cats- who
> knows? :o(
> Or, to view it from another point, @ least they came clean about it
> asap! ( then again, who would we know if they didn't?)
>
> Sheelagh >"o"<
>

Our local animal shelter (not the rescue group with Adopt-a-Thons that I
have been discussing in another thread) immunizes all cats and dogs, and
they also have a "sick room" where animals are quarantined for awhile before
bringing them into the viewing room where the "general population" is kept.
This reduces the probability of spreading disease but cannot completely
eliminate it. Ironically, it also reduces the number of cats and dogs that
can be accepted because that takes more space and personnel.

MaryL

Sheelagh >o
September 2nd 07, 03:21 PM
On 2 Sep, 06:39, "cindys" > wrote:
> "Sheelagh >o<" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
> snip
>
> > Excellent. I am ever so pleased to hear this. when you are boarding
> > your cat, you want to know that your cat is in the best possible
> > situation whilst you are away, so that you have a stress free break.
> > Trying to wring you out for another $75, which is no measely some when
> > you count that together with the prior 3 examinations too. now, that
> > really is a money spinning idea, & the director should have known
> > their facts before launching into conscience - control with you! it's
> > your cat & your decision ultimately, isn't it?
>
> > I am so glad that you held out in the end. If there was nothing to be
> > gained in the short term, it would have been a total waste of money.
> > as for admitting there was next to no chance that your cat could
> > contract the disease during the cats stay there. Ridiculous really!!
>
> ----------
> Oh, let me tell you, Sheelagh, when I asked that guy how could my cat get
> distemper if all the other cats were vaccinated?...he started sputtering and
> spewing because I caught him completely off-guard, and he really didn't have
> an answer. But the best part was when he was questioning me about why the
> cat had been seen at the other facility. We had been clients at his facility
> for 15 years (as I stated). The vet we had been seeing for most of that time
> (whom we loved) went to a different practice for reasons she didn't divulge,
> but after speaking to her, I think she simply didn't like the way he was
> doing business. She said that the first place was just "too big and too
> busy." (At any given time, there are at least a dozen veterinarians on
> staff).
>
> So, then, we were lucky enough to find another vet in the same facility whom
> we also liked a lot. She was our vet for about a year and a half. She was
> the one who diagnosed Alex's renal disease, but we sought a second opinion
> (on Phil's advice) because we were questioning some aspects of the treatment
> plan. The second opinion was from a sister facility (which we didn't know at
> the time), and we really liked the veterinarian and the fact that it was
> only a two-person practice. When our vet at the big facility suddenly quit
> ("for personal reasons"), we were over at the two-person practice almost
> instantly.
>
> Getting the records transferred took quite a bit of effort too. It involved
> two phone calls and my signing a consent form, and then they transferred
> only Alex's record (not the other cats' records) and only a few pages of it.
> We have five cats, two of whom are seniors, and one of whom has a heart
> murmur, diabetes in remission, and renal dysfunction. Of the younger ones,
> one of them needed a lot of expensive dental work, and another needed a
> routine cleaning. Add all of this to annual checkups for five cats, not to
> mention any other medical needs they find along the way, and this amounts to
> big bucks flying out the window.
>
> The way I finally got the records was that I gave them a choice (it's always
> good to give people choices): They needed to have ALL the records for ALL
> five cats photocopied and ready to be transferred to the new practice by the
> following afternoon. They could either send them via messenger service or I
> could pick them up and hand carry them. And if they weren't ready, then I
> wanted the originals to make photocopies myself to hand carry. They agreed
> to photocopy everything and send it by messenger. The new practice confirmed
> that they were in receipt of the records the following day.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.

> Oh, let me tell you, Sheelagh, when I asked that guy how could my cat get
> distemper if all the other cats were vaccinated?...he started sputtering and
> spewing because I caught him completely off-guard, and he really didn't have
> an answer. But the best part was when he was questioning me about why the
> cat had been seen at the other facility. We had been clients at his facility
> for 15 years (as I stated). The vet we had been seeing for most of that time
> (whom we loved) went to a different practice for reasons she didn't divulge,
> but after speaking to her, I think she simply didn't like the way he was
> doing business. She said that the first place was just "too big and too
> busy." (At any given time, there are at least a dozen veterinarians on
> staff).

ROFLOL I can just imagine you with hands on hips, doing the naughty
boy look @ him. I bet he was stumped & stuck to the spot umming &
Erring?!!
Lesson one in spouting, is : "Be ready to take it if you throw it"!!
Also, if you had been with the practise for over 15 years, you would
think that they had got to know you personally & know each of your
cats by name too....


> So, then, we were lucky enough to find another vet in the same facility whom
> we also liked a lot. She was our vet for about a year and a half. She was
> the one who diagnosed Alex's renal disease, but we sought a second opinion
> (on Phil's advice) because we were questioning some aspects of the treatment
> plan. The second opinion was from a sister facility (which we didn't know at
> the time), and we really liked the veterinarian and the fact that it was
> only a two-person practice. When our vet at the big facility suddenly quit
> ("for personal reasons"), we were over at the two-person practice almost
> instantly.

That is reasonable of course, & I would have done the same too. What I
find astounding, is the fact that the director of the facility had
absolutely no idea what you were talking about?!! It is a bit like a
doctor's practise with Doctors who don't speak to one another. Hasn't
this practise worked out what case conferences are all about yet? It's
almost unbelievable isn't it?

> Getting the records transferred took quite a bit of effort too. It involved
> two phone calls and my signing a consent form, and then they transferred
> only Alex's record (not the other cats' records) and only a few pages of it.
> We have five cats, two of whom are seniors, and one of whom has a heart
> murmur, diabetes in remission, and renal dysfunction. Of the younger ones,
> one of them needed a lot of expensive dental work, and another needed a
> routine cleaning. Add all of this to annual checkups for five cats, not to
> mention any other medical needs they find along the way, and this amounts to
> big bucks flying out the window.

How gracious of them!
This practise sounds like a brewery that couldn't organise a drinks
party!!
I am so pleased that you got away from the place. It doesn't sound
like a place where I would like to leave my cats in their care either.
The notes transfer fiasco is a farce really. This could potentially
have cost the cats, their life had the wrong thing happened at the
wrong time & you would have had grounds for a law suit there. I know
that you wouldn't do that unless you were pushed right up against the
wall, but, the point is that they knowingly dragged their feet over
the whole process. I guess they didn't like to see that profit margin
jumping ship. It is entirely their own fault here though.

Had he not questioned the silly fee in the first place, this would
never have come o this. Having said that, things sound like you were
becoming slowly disenchanted with them over a space of time, would
that be right to say?
>
> The way I finally got the records was that I gave them a choice (it's always
> good to give people choices): They needed to have ALL the records for ALL
> five cats photocopied and ready to be transferred to the new practice by the
> following afternoon. They could either send them via messenger service or I
> could pick them up and hand carry them. And if they weren't ready, then I
> wanted the originals to make photocopies myself to hand carry. They agreed
> to photocopy everything and send it by messenger. The new practice confirmed
> that they were in receipt of the records the following day.

This is one of the worst excuses of sour grape syndrome that I have
ever heard. I had a similar experience when we rescue Lilly &
transferred all of the cats to a practise 10 miles away. It is
infuriating isn't it? Such a simple task, yet the sour grapes must
have turned to vinegar in their mouths?!!! Hardly a friendly nice
environment to leave your cats with, & also confirms your feelings of
incompetence to the first degree...
I'm pleased you took your cats out of their care Cindy. I think you
did the right thing there. It allows you to sleep @ night when they
are in their care, doesn't it?
It's good to hear that all went right in the end & we do have a happy
ending here. Way to go Cindy, (high five:o)
Sheelagh >"o"<

cybercat
September 2nd 07, 06:19 PM
"Cheryl" > wrote>

>I prefer
> now to help others who have the guts to deal with the heartbreak. I
> admit I close my eyes to some of it. I just
> can't........................

We're the same this way.