PDA

View Full Version : Feline shots question


kraut
August 14th 08, 09:34 PM
I have a question regarding immunization for cats and hopefully
someone can help me out with the answer here.

I recently thook a stray adult male in that people left behind when
they moved (to where-ever) to be nuetered. While there I had them
immunize him.

There gave him a rabies shot which is good for a year as well as shots
for FVRCP and FelV. For the last 2 they said in 3 weeks he would need
(FVRCP and FelV) again (Booster or whatever).

Question that I have is that I asked why they could not give him the
full dose shot or whatever and they said the shots were the full dose
or regular shots but where we did not know if he had shots before he
would need them again in 3 weeks. My question is why?!?!? Please
explain in laymen's terms.

I feel that if they are regular shots they should be good for a year
whether he had shots before or not. Or is this just another way for
vets to make money??

Thanks for reply.

Rene S.
August 14th 08, 09:44 PM
I am not a vet, but my understanding is that kittens need boosters to
build up immunity to the disease. Since this is an adult cat that may
have been previously vaccinated, I do not feel that you need boosters
either. If it were my cat, I would not get them. If your vet is really
concerned about the cat's immunity, he/she can do what's called a
titer panel on the cat. It's a blood test that measures immunity to
major diseases and costs about $90.

---MIKE---
August 14th 08, 11:45 PM
Many people feel that yearly shots are unnecessary (except rabies in
some BUT NOT all cases). Many vets recommend every three years. Even
that often may not be necessary if the cat never goes outside.


---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Phil P.
August 15th 08, 05:11 AM
"kraut" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I have a question regarding immunization for cats and hopefully
> someone can help me out with the answer here.
>
> I recently thook a stray adult male in that people left behind when
> they moved (to where-ever) to be nuetered. While there I had them
> immunize him.
>
> There gave him a rabies shot which is good for a year as well as shots
> for FVRCP and FelV. For the last 2 they said in 3 weeks he would need
> (FVRCP and FelV) again (Booster or whatever).
>
> Question that I have is that I asked why they could not give him the
> full dose shot or whatever and they said the shots were the full dose
> or regular shots but where we did not know if he had shots before he
> would need them again in 3 weeks. My question is why?!?!? Please
> explain in laymen's terms.

Adult cats don't require the FVRCP vaccination series- its only for kittens.
The kittens' maternal antibodies (antibodies received from the mother via
colostrum during nursing) will inactivate the vaccine. The FVRCP series was
designed to "break through" the maternal antibodies and immunize the kitten
as the maternal antibodies wane. Since there's no practical way to determine
exactly when a particular kitten's maternal antibodies will wane enough to
let the vaccine get though, the vaccinations are given 2-3 weeks apart until
the kitten is 12-15 weeks old. Maternal antibodies usually dissipate by
then. Cats over 15-16 weeks no longer have maternal antibodies to interfere
with immunization. So, your cat doesn't require a 2nd and 3rd vaccination.
Actually, he probably didn't even require the 1st- maybe just the FVRC- if
that. Your cat will not need another FP vaccination for at least *9* years
if not never again. Adult cats *very* rarely get FP- and when they do its
almost always subclinical. The FVRC component of the vaccine is good for at
least 3-4 years. Neither component prevents FHV & FCV, they only reduce the
severity of symptoms if you cat contracts the viruses.

If you'd like more information, go to my site:
http://maxshouse.com/feline_panleukopenia.htm The page was written by the
virologist at Cornell, Fred Scott, who discovered maternal antibody
interference in kittens and developed the FVRCP Series that is followed
today around the world.

The FeLV vaccine probably wasn't necessary, either.

Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just plain
soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a vet I'd trust
with my cats' lives.

Phil

kraut
August 15th 08, 02:04 PM
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:11:22 GMT, "Phil P." >
wrote:

>
>"kraut" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> I have a question regarding immunization for cats and hopefully
>> someone can help me out with the answer here.
>>
>> I recently thook a stray adult male in that people left behind when
>> they moved (to where-ever) to be nuetered. While there I had them
>> immunize him.
>>
>> There gave him a rabies shot which is good for a year as well as shots
>> for FVRCP and FelV. For the last 2 they said in 3 weeks he would need
>> (FVRCP and FelV) again (Booster or whatever).
>>
>> Question that I have is that I asked why they could not give him the
>> full dose shot or whatever and they said the shots were the full dose
>> or regular shots but where we did not know if he had shots before he
>> would need them again in 3 weeks. My question is why?!?!? Please
>> explain in laymen's terms.
>
>Adult cats don't require the FVRCP vaccination series- its only for kittens.
>The kittens' maternal antibodies (antibodies received from the mother via
>colostrum during nursing) will inactivate the vaccine. The FVRCP series was
>designed to "break through" the maternal antibodies and immunize the kitten
>as the maternal antibodies wane. Since there's no practical way to determine
>exactly when a particular kitten's maternal antibodies will wane enough to
>let the vaccine get though, the vaccinations are given 2-3 weeks apart until
>the kitten is 12-15 weeks old. Maternal antibodies usually dissipate by
>then. Cats over 15-16 weeks no longer have maternal antibodies to interfere
>with immunization. So, your cat doesn't require a 2nd and 3rd vaccination.
>Actually, he probably didn't even require the 1st- maybe just the FVRC- if
>that. Your cat will not need another FP vaccination for at least *9* years
>if not never again. Adult cats *very* rarely get FP- and when they do its
>almost always subclinical. The FVRC component of the vaccine is good for at
>least 3-4 years. Neither component prevents FHV & FCV, they only reduce the
>severity of symptoms if you cat contracts the viruses.
>
>If you'd like more information, go to my site:
>http://maxshouse.com/feline_panleukopenia.htm The page was written by the
>virologist at Cornell, Fred Scott, who discovered maternal antibody
>interference in kittens and developed the FVRCP Series that is followed
>today around the world.
>
>The FeLV vaccine probably wasn't necessary, either.
>
>Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just plain
>soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a vet I'd trust
>with my cats' lives.
>
>Phil
>

Thanks very much Phil. You have been a great help.

I have never been an advocate of all these shots every year and after
reading your reply and doing a little research on what you said it
makes me more so.

The only reason I got them was because he has been an outside cats
'til now and I wanted to make sure he was protected until I find him a
home.

Thanks again.

alfie
August 19th 08, 01:20 AM
"Phil P." > wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> "kraut" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
<snip>

>
> Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just plain
> soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a vet I'd
> trust with my cats' lives.
>
> Phil
>

You've said similar things several times in this group. Makes me wonder
why are there so many incompetent, greedy or just plain bad
veterinarians being licensed to practice?

cybercat
August 19th 08, 01:44 AM
"alfie" > wrote in message
...
> "Phil P." > wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "kraut" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just plain
>> soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a vet I'd
>> trust with my cats' lives.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>
> You've said similar things several times in this group. Makes me wonder
> why are there so many incompetent, greedy or just plain bad
> veterinarians being licensed to practice?

It's the "Vet's Suck" troll!

kate
August 19th 08, 02:05 AM
cybercat wrote:

> "alfie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Phil P." > wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>"kraut" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just plain
>>>soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a vet I'd
>>>trust with my cats' lives.
>>>
>>>Phil
>>>
>>
>>You've said similar things several times in this group. Makes me wonder
>>why are there so many incompetent, greedy or just plain bad
>>veterinarians being licensed to practice?
>
>
> It's the "Vet's Suck" troll!
>
>
Maybe it's an MD and is jealous that it only knows how to treat one species.

Phil.P.
August 19th 08, 02:43 AM
On Aug 15, 8:22*am, "Deborah, DVM" > wrote:
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> > Adult cats don't require the FVRCP vaccination series- its only for
> > kittens.
> > The kittens' maternal antibodies (antibodies received from the mother via
> > colostrum during nursing) will inactivate the vaccine. The FVRCP series
> > was
> > designed to "break through" the maternal antibodies and immunize the
> > kitten
> > as the maternal antibodies wane. Since there's no practical way to
> > determine
> > exactly when a particular kitten's maternal antibodies will wane enough to
> > let the vaccine get though, the vaccinations are given 2-3 weeks apart
> > until
> > the kitten is 12-15 weeks old. *Maternal antibodies usually dissipate by
> > then. Cats over 15-16 weeks no longer have maternal antibodies to
> > interfere
> > with immunization. So, your cat doesn't require a 2nd and 3rd vaccination.
> > Actually, he probably didn't even require the 1st- maybe just the FVRC- if
> > that. Your cat will not need another FP vaccination for at least *9* years
> > if not never again. *Adult cats *very* rarely get FP- and when they do its
> > almost always subclinical. *The FVRC component of the vaccine is good for
> > at
> > least 3-4 years. Neither component prevents FHV & FCV, they only reduce
> > the
> > severity of symptoms if you cat contracts the viruses.
>
> I don't believe that I've seen any feline veterinary authorities claim what
> you claim above. *


I consider Dr. Scott a feline veterinary authority- and so does the
Cornell Feline Health Center, even if you don't. After all, he was the
first to describe maternal antibody interference in cats.

"Immunity produced by FP vaccines is long-lasting, perhaps for life.
Revaccinations every year would not seem to be necessary from a
scientific standpoint, but the vaccines are licensed for only 3 years'
protection." (Scott FC Cornel Book of Cats)

"If the kitten is 12 weeks of age or older when the first vaccination
with MLV is given, a second vaccination is not necessary. " (Scott,
FC. Diseases of the Cat p 190)

FRED W. SCOTT, D.V.M., Ph.D. Diplomate, American College of Veterinary
Microbiologists;
Professor Emeritus of Virology, College of Veterinary Medicine,
Cornell University, Ithaca;
Acting Director, Cornell Feline Health Center



The standard recommendations of the association of feline
> practitioners is for all cats to get an initial series of fvr boosters 3-4
> weeks apart, then every 3 years. *


Why revaccinate for FP every three years if the intitial vaccine
immunizes the cat for at least 6 years if not for life?


Even though maternal antibody may not play
> a role, the booster is recommended to ensure full protection.

But they do! More from Dr. Scott on maternal antibody interference.

"Immunity acquired from the queen via colostrum (initial breast milk)
must be considered when establishing a routine vaccination program.
interference by maternally acquired (passive) immunity is the most
common cause of vaccine failure. There exists a direct correlation
between the FPV antibody level of the queen at the time of birth and
the duration of passive immunity in the kitten. This passive immunity,
if of sufficient strength, will not only protect the kitten against
virulent FPV but will also react with the vaccine virus and interfere
with immunization. Vaccination must be performed after kittens have
lost most or all of their maternally derived immunity."

hth,

Phil

Phil.P.
August 19th 08, 02:44 AM
On Aug 18, 8:20*pm, alfie > wrote:
> "Phil P." > wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
>
>
> > "kraut" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just plain
> > soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a vet I'd
> > trust with my cats' lives.
>
> > Phil
>
> You've said similar things several times in this group. Makes me wonder
> why are there so many incompetent, greedy or just plain bad
> veterinarians being licensed to practice?

Its all about money, Alfie.

Phil.P.
August 19th 08, 02:55 AM
On Aug 18, 9:05*pm, kate > wrote:
> cybercat wrote:
> > "alfie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>"Phil P." > wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> >>>"kraut" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >><snip>
>
> >>>Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just plain
> >>>soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a vet I'd
> >>>trust with my cats' lives.
>
> >>>Phil
>
> >>You've said similar things several times in this group. Makes me wonder
> >>why are there so many incompetent, greedy or just plain bad
> >>veterinarians being licensed to practice?
>
> > It's the "Vet's Suck" troll!
>
> Maybe it's an MD and is jealous that it only knows how to treat one species.

Or an MD whose jealous because vet patients can't complain and sue for
malpractice.

alfie[_2_]
August 21st 08, 01:23 AM
"Phil.P." > wrote in
:

> On Aug 18, 8:20*pm, alfie > wrote:
>> "Phil P." > wrote
>> innews:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "kraut" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Sounds like your vet is either uninformed, misinformed, or just
>> > plain soaking you for as much as he can. In either case- he's not a
>> > vet I'd trust with my cats' lives.
>>
>> > Phil
>>
>> You've said similar things several times in this group. Makes me
>> wonder why are there so many incompetent, greedy or just plain bad
>> veterinarians being licensed to practice?
>
> Its all about money, Alfie.
>

Hard to say if you're being facetious, but yes, it DOES seem to
frequently be about money, which is another good reason to wonder who
the idiots are that screen pre-vet candidates and allow them to
graduate. (BTW, hope you all are better at your medical opinions than
you are at your internet skills :-))

Sharon Too
August 21st 08, 01:31 AM
> Hard to say if you're being facetious, but yes, it DOES seem to
> frequently be about money, which is another good reason to wonder who
> the idiots are that screen pre-vet candidates and allow them to
> graduate. (BTW, hope you all are better at your medical opinions than
> you are at your internet skills :-))

And just how would *you* screen pre-vet candidates?

kate
August 21st 08, 01:34 AM
Sharon Too wrote:

>>Hard to say if you're being facetious, but yes, it DOES seem to
>>frequently be about money, which is another good reason to wonder who
>>the idiots are that screen pre-vet candidates and allow them to
>>graduate. (BTW, hope you all are better at your medical opinions than
>>you are at your internet skills :-))
>
>
> And just how would *you* screen pre-vet candidates?
>
>
I imagine the pharmaceutical companies are more to blame than the vets.

news.mixmin.net
August 21st 08, 03:26 AM
They should be interviewed by skilled, trained interviewers to eliminate
those individuals who lack good character and motivations to become
veterinarians. They used to do this at Harvard for medical doctors. Only
people who have noble aspirations and the wherewithall to fufill those
aspirations in the REAL world get accepted. Test scores and grades are
important, but not nearly as important as other qualities.

"Sharon Too" > wrote in message
irkandfredoniatelephone...
>> Hard to say if you're being facetious, but yes, it DOES seem to
>> frequently be about money, which is another good reason to wonder who
>> the idiots are that screen pre-vet candidates and allow them to
>> graduate. (BTW, hope you all are better at your medical opinions than
>> you are at your internet skills :-))
>
> And just how would *you* screen pre-vet candidates?
>

Sharon Too
August 21st 08, 04:31 AM
> They should be interviewed by skilled, trained interviewers to eliminate
> those individuals who lack good character and motivations to become
> veterinarians. They used to do this at Harvard for medical doctors. Only
> people who have noble aspirations and the wherewithall to fufill those
> aspirations in the REAL world get accepted. Test scores and grades are
> important, but not nearly as important as other qualities.

Then please, do, apply. Because every veterinarian out there must be ****.
Save the world, Superman.

ohenry
August 21st 08, 11:33 PM
"Sharon Too" > wrote in message
irkandfredoniatelephone...
>> They should be interviewed by skilled, trained interviewers to eliminate
>> those individuals who lack good character and motivations to become
>> veterinarians. They used to do this at Harvard for medical doctors. Only
>> people who have noble aspirations and the wherewithall to fufill those
>> aspirations in the REAL world get accepted. Test scores and grades are
>> important, but not nearly as important as other qualities.
>

Huh??!!! Think you got the wrong person, lady.

> Then please, do, apply. Because every veterinarian out there must be ****.
> Save the world, Superman.
>

Dale Atkin
August 24th 08, 05:14 AM
"news.mixmin.net" > wrote in message
...
> They should be interviewed by skilled, trained interviewers to eliminate
> those individuals who lack good character and motivations to become
> veterinarians. They used to do this at Harvard for medical doctors.

How do you *think* the process goes now? I can't speak for schools I didn't
apply to, but my University of Calgary Admission went something like this:

Volunteer uncounted hours on my own time for 2 years prior to applying (Ok,
this part isn't strictly required, but some 'significant animal experience'
is. This generally involves lots of time hanging out in vet practices on
your own time trying to learn what vet practice is *really* like, beyond the
15 minute consult most clients get to see).
Excellent grades (obviously)
Being interviewed by a total of ~20 veterinarians both from the faculty and
the community (MMI interview)
On site Essay
3 References, at least one of whom must be a vet. (presumably these are
people who have known you for longer, and know you better than is possibly
in the course of a day long interview)

Saskatoon was much of the same, although the interview style was different
(panel interview with 3 vets sitting on the panel, 2 from the AbVMA, 1 from
the school), and the fine details of evaluation were a bit different too, oh
and no essay.

> Only people who have noble aspirations and the wherewithall to fufill
> those aspirations in the REAL world get accepted.

One would hope so, yes. In reality, many of those with noble aspirations,
and the wherewithall get passed over, and some who don't, get in (to both
human and animal medicine). Its just a sad fact of life.

>Test scores and grades are important, but not nearly as important as other
>qualities.

Don't know exactly how I'd weight the two. Pretty sure with Saskatoon it was
a 50/50 split. Don't know how U of C did it.

Dale

KingGeorge
August 25th 08, 12:05 AM
"Dale Atkin" > wrote in
news:fe5sk.9503$%[email protected]:

>
>
> "news.mixmin.net" > wrote in message
> ...
>> They should be interviewed by skilled, trained interviewers to
>> eliminate those individuals who lack good character and motivations
>> to become veterinarians. They used to do this at Harvard for medical
>> doctors.
>
> How do you *think* the process goes now? I can't speak for schools I
> didn't apply to, but my University of Calgary Admission went something
> like this:
>
> Volunteer uncounted hours on my own time for 2 years prior to applying
> (Ok, this part isn't strictly required, but some 'significant animal
> experience' is. This generally involves lots of time hanging out in
> vet practices on your own time trying to learn what vet practice is
> *really* like, beyond the 15 minute consult most clients get to see).
> Excellent grades (obviously)
> Being interviewed by a total of ~20 veterinarians both from the
> faculty and the community (MMI interview)
> On site Essay
> 3 References, at least one of whom must be a vet. (presumably these
> are people who have known you for longer, and know you better than is
> possibly in the course of a day long interview)

wolunteer activity,that's a good measure, but it should not be limited
to volunteering at vet clinics. Can't speak for Canada (my inclination
is that it is a world above the USA), but interviews should include
those in the animal protection, shelter and rights movements, and other
laymen, not just veterinarians. Veterinarians have a jaundiced interest
in who gets in; it may not coincide with the interests of pets and their
owners,nor the community at large.

>
> Saskatoon was much of the same, although the interview style was
> different (panel interview with 3 vets sitting on the panel, 2 from
> the AbVMA, 1 from the school), and the fine details of evaluation were
> a bit different too, oh and no essay.

the interview process is often very tricky and can be highly misleading
because interviews are so easy to fake. other objective measures are
needed such as the volunteer hours you mentioned. something that
discriminates the selfish and undedicated from the selfless and
dedicated. also the dishonest from the honest. even references often do
not do this.

>
>> Only people who have noble aspirations and the wherewithall to fufill
>> those aspirations in the REAL world get accepted.
>
> One would hope so, yes. In reality, many of those with noble
> aspirations, and the wherewithall get passed over, and some who don't,
> get in (to both human and animal medicine). Its just a sad fact of
> life.

you're right, but does not mean we cannot improve on that.

>
>>Test scores and grades are important, but not nearly as important as
>>other qualities.
>
> Don't know exactly how I'd weight the two. Pretty sure with Saskatoon
> it was a 50/50 split. Don't know how U of C did it.

too much emphasis is placed on GPA, test scores, etc. A minimum facility
in these areas is needed,but they certainly do not give good correlation
between the good, dedicated, ethical, honest, compassionate person from
many of the jackasses that get to practice vet medicine. they tend to
show how good in school you are and how good you take tests.

the place to get rid of bad veterinarians is before they even get in and
graduate and are licensed. much easier than dealing with them after they
are out and causing damage. i think that vet schools need to get input
from other professions in how they admit and graduate their students, as
here in the USA, they are quite obviously not doing their job in
graduating good people. least in my city/state they are not.


>
> Dale
>
>

kate
August 25th 08, 01:32 AM
KingGeorge wrote:
> "Dale Atkin" > wrote in
> news:fe5sk.9503$%[email protected]:
>
>
>>
>>"news.mixmin.net" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>They should be interviewed by skilled, trained interviewers to
>>>eliminate those individuals who lack good character and motivations
>>>to become veterinarians. They used to do this at Harvard for medical
>>>doctors.
>>
>>How do you *think* the process goes now? I can't speak for schools I
>>didn't apply to, but my University of Calgary Admission went something
>>like this:
>>
>>Volunteer uncounted hours on my own time for 2 years prior to applying
>>(Ok, this part isn't strictly required, but some 'significant animal
>>experience' is. This generally involves lots of time hanging out in
>>vet practices on your own time trying to learn what vet practice is
>>*really* like, beyond the 15 minute consult most clients get to see).
>>Excellent grades (obviously)
>>Being interviewed by a total of ~20 veterinarians both from the
>>faculty and the community (MMI interview)
>>On site Essay
>>3 References, at least one of whom must be a vet. (presumably these
>>are people who have known you for longer, and know you better than is
>>possibly in the course of a day long interview)
>
>
> wolunteer activity,that's a good measure, but it should not be limited
> to volunteering at vet clinics. Can't speak for Canada (my inclination
> is that it is a world above the USA), but interviews should include
> those in the animal protection, shelter and rights movements, and other
> laymen, not just veterinarians. Veterinarians have a jaundiced interest
> in who gets in; it may not coincide with the interests of pets and their
> owners,nor the community at large.
>
I imagine interviews do include shelter work, if the applicant has done
some. But animals rights? Protection? How about animal rescue, while
you're at it? Do you expect medical students to have the equivilent?
Homeless shelters, foster parenting, I'm drawing a blank on human
preotection - bodyguard experience perhaps? Peace Corps work?

Are veterinarians supposed to be saints? It would be nice if they didn't
expect payment if you couldn't afford it, volunteered their off time to
rescues and I know some do. But why hold the profession to higher
standards then other similar professions? Why do you expect vets to be
better people than most?

Dale Atkin
August 25th 08, 05:14 AM
> wolunteer activity,that's a good measure, but it should not be limited
> to volunteering at vet clinics. Can't speak for Canada (my inclination
> is that it is a world above the USA), but interviews should include
> those in the animal protection, shelter and rights movements, and other
> laymen, not just veterinarians.

Oh I suppose I should add I also had about 8 months volunteering twice a
week for one animal shelter, and 6 months once a week for a different
shelter. Almost forgot about those. Don't know how much of an impact they
had on my being accepted, but I'm glad I did them. Also had a few days at a
couple of equine practices in there too.

> Veterinarians have a jaundiced interest
> in who gets in; it may not coincide with the interests of pets and their
> owners,nor the community at large.

And why would this be different from the interests of shelter workers,
animal rights movements, laymen etc? Vets are people too, and as such there
is a variety of different inclinations among them. I've heard some freaky
things from some animal rights activists, to downright lies, and don't feel
inclined to get involved with them (more in line with animal welfare
myself). There are unethical people *everywhere*, just because someone
volunteers their time for a shelter doesn't make them ethical.
A good portion of my Calgary interview (which I can't discuss in any detail
due to a confidentiality agreement I signed) focused around ethics and
motivations. Basically they presented you with a situation, and asked to you
to discuss it, and provide insight, generally in a 'what would you do if?'
kind of light.

> the interview process is often very tricky and can be highly misleading
> because interviews are so easy to fake. other objective measures are
> needed such as the volunteer hours you mentioned.

I don't know how objective number of hours is... One person could spend 1000
hours in a place, but contribute nothing, and learn nothing, whereas another
could spend 50 hours, and make a major contribution and just 'get' what they
are all about.

> something that
> discriminates the selfish and undedicated from the selfless and
> dedicated. also the dishonest from the honest. even references often do
> not do this.

I should mention here that all of the references are confidential. I never
get to see what any of my referees say about me, and there is definite
guidelines as far as who makes an acceptable referee (generally someone
governed by a professional organization who has a stake in providing an
honest reference, as opposed to a potentially biased one)

>>>Test scores and grades are important, but not nearly as important as
>>>other qualities.
>>
>> Don't know exactly how I'd weight the two. Pretty sure with Saskatoon
>> it was a 50/50 split. Don't know how U of C did it.
>
> too much emphasis is placed on GPA, test scores, etc. A minimum facility
> in these areas is needed,but they certainly do not give good correlation
> between the good, dedicated, ethical, honest, compassionate person from
> many of the jackasses that get to practice vet medicine. they tend to
> show how good in school you are and how good you take tests.

Unfortunately a 'minimum facility' in these areas is not enough (assuming
you mean minimum the way I assume you mean minimum). There is a heck of a
lot of information that they need to cram in to your skull in the space of 4
years. You need to be far above average on the academic side of things in
order to have a hope of squeezing it all in. In case you think I'm
exaggerating, in my first term, I have 9 full courses. A typical full course
load in an undergraduate science degree is 4-5 courses. (First term I have
"Clinical Presentations I", "Clinical Skills I", "Professional Skills I",
"Anatomy and Histology", "Physiology", "Behavior", "Animals, Health and
Society", "Genetics and Molecular Biology", "Introduction to Veterinary
Medicine")

>
> the place to get rid of bad veterinarians is before they even get in and
> graduate and are licensed. much easier than dealing with them after they
> are out and causing damage.

I agree fully.

> I think that vet schools need to get input
> from other professions in how they admit and graduate their students,

Don't you think they do? I know for a fact they do, and that they provide
insight for other professions.

> as
> here in the USA, they are quite obviously not doing their job in
> graduating good people. least in my city/state they are not.
>

I'd suggest you back that up with some facts or statistics, potentially
statistically comparing veterinarians to other professions, otherwise people
are likely to think that you're the problem, rather than your state
licensing board. (if its so obvious you should be able to supply some
*facts* to back it up).
It is very easy to 'blame the money grabbing unethical veterinarian' when
they suggest something you don't like. When you find several behaving in the
same fashion, its easy to turn around and say "all these people shouldn't
have been graduated in the first place". While I'm not discounting the
possibility that you've seen a string of incompetent vets, I certainly not
just willing to take your word for it.
Please don't tell me to 'just go google it'. I have no doubt I can find
people complaining about their vet online, heck this thread is an example of
exactly that. This thread is not however an example of an
unethical/incompetent veterinarian (IMO).
Its an example of exactly what I was talking about. Vet prescribes a
treatment which they believe is in the best interest of the animal, owner
goes home, gets on google and finds someone who disagrees with the vet, and
then pronounces the vet as just trying to get their money off them by over
vaccinating (ignoring any statements to the contrary as just being 'part of
the machine').

Dale

cshenk
August 25th 08, 06:16 AM
"Dale Atkin" wrote

> Its an example of exactly what I was talking about. Vet prescribes a
> treatment which they believe is in the best interest of the animal, owner
> goes home, gets on google and finds someone who disagrees with the vet,
> and then pronounces the vet as just trying to get their money off them by
> over vaccinating (ignoring any statements to the contrary as just being
> 'part of the machine').

Agreed although I quoted just a little of what you said. It's all too easy
to 'blame the vet' that new procedures *cost* money.

I have not found vets to be asking for more than the animal needed and if
so, it seems more a query on cat vaccinces than anything else.

KingGeorge[_2_]
August 28th 08, 12:27 AM
kate > wrote in
:

(different body to satisfy this stupid server)

> KingGeorge wrote:
>> "Dale Atkin" > wrote in
>> news:fe5sk.9503$%[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"news.mixmin.net" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>They should be interviewed by skilled, trained interviewers to
>>>>eliminate those individuals who lack good character and motivations
>>>>to become veterinarians. They used to do this at Harvard for medical
>>>>doctors.
>>>
>>>How do you *think* the process goes now? I can't speak for schools I
>>>didn't apply to, but my University of Calgary Admission went
>>>something like this:
>>>
>>>Volunteer uncounted hours on my own time for 2 years prior to
>>>applying (Ok, this part isn't strictly required, but some
>>>'significant animal experience' is. This generally involves lots of
>>>time hanging out in vet practices on your own time trying to learn
>>>what vet practice is *really* like, beyond the 15 minute consult most
>>>clients get to see). Excellent grades (obviously)
>>>Being interviewed by a total of ~20 veterinarians both from the
>>>faculty and the community (MMI interview)
>>>On site Essay
>>>3 References, at least one of whom must be a vet. (presumably these
>>>are people who have known you for longer, and know you better than is
>>>possibly in the course of a day long interview)
>>
>>
>> wolunteer activity,that's a good measure, but it should not be
>> limited to volunteering at vet clinics. Can't speak for Canada (my
>> inclination is that it is a world above the USA), but interviews
>> should include those in the animal protection, shelter and rights
>> movements, and other laymen, not just veterinarians. Veterinarians
>> have a jaundiced interest in who gets in; it may not coincide with
>> the interests of pets and their owners,nor the community at large.
>>
> I imagine interviews do include shelter work, if the applicant has
> done some. But animals rights? Protection? How about animal rescue,
> while you're at it? Do you expect medical students to have the
> equivilent? Homeless shelters, foster parenting, I'm drawing a blank
> on human preotection - bodyguard experience perhaps? Peace Corps work?

Let's stick to the topic ok? Human physicians, as I have said earlier,
do go through a much harder screening process in their early clinical
training, and many are washed out in the process.


>
> Are veterinarians supposed to be saints? It would be nice if they
> didn't expect payment if you couldn't afford it, volunteered their off
> time to rescues and I know some do. But why hold the profession to
> higher standards then other similar professions? Why do you expect
> vets to be better people than most?

As a matter of fact, YES, I DO expect veterinarians to be better people,
because imnsho, ANIMALS are superior to humans in many ways and DESERVE
better treatment. An animal will not lie to you, scheme to cheat you,
stab you in the back, kill you for no reason, etc. etc. Read Mark
Twain's essay on this, wherein he argues that homo sapiens are an
inferior species. The veterinarian profession is a calling, not a ticket
to making money. Judging by the caliber of vets I have run into
generally, with some notable exceptions, the people that train and
license these so called medical professionals seem to think that, since
they deal with animals, they can lack the good qualities that are
demanded in so many other professions,-character, professionalism,
ability to communicate and relate to both owners and their pets and
honesty.


>

KingGeorge[_2_]
August 28th 08, 12:52 AM
"Dale Atkin" > wrote in
news:5lqsk.9726$%[email protected]:

>> wolunteer activity,that's a good measure, but it should not be
>> limited to volunteering at vet clinics. Can't speak for Canada (my
>> inclination is that it is a world above the USA), but interviews
>> should include those in the animal protection, shelter and rights
>> movements, and other laymen, not just veterinarians.
>
> Oh I suppose I should add I also had about 8 months volunteering twice
> a week for one animal shelter, and 6 months once a week for a
> different shelter. Almost forgot about those. Don't know how much of
> an impact they had on my being accepted, but I'm glad I did them. Also
> had a few days at a couple of equine practices in there too.
>
>> Veterinarians have a jaundiced interest
>> in who gets in; it may not coincide with the interests of pets and
>> their owners,nor the community at large.
>
> And why would this be different from the interests of shelter workers,
> animal rights movements, laymen etc? Vets are people too, and as such
> there is a variety of different inclinations among them. I've heard
> some freaky things from some animal rights activists, to downright
> lies, and don't feel inclined to get involved with them (more in line
> with animal welfare myself). There are unethical people *everywhere*,
> just because someone volunteers their time for a shelter doesn't make
> them ethical. A good portion of my Calgary interview (which I can't
> discuss in any detail due to a confidentiality agreement I signed)
> focused around ethics and motivations. Basically they presented you
> with a situation, and asked to you to discuss it, and provide insight,
> generally in a 'what would you do if?' kind of light.

Talk is cheap and that is the coin of realm in the interview.
Actions speak volumes, interview rhetoric is often just that.


>
>> the interview process is often very tricky and can be highly
>> misleading because interviews are so easy to fake. other objective
>> measures are needed such as the volunteer hours you mentioned.
>
> I don't know how objective number of hours is... One person could
> spend 1000 hours in a place, but contribute nothing, and learn
> nothing, whereas another could spend 50 hours, and make a major
> contribution and just 'get' what they are all about.

This is not the point. The point is there are ways of determining who is
a person of character and who is not. Number of hours is probably
correlated, but to what degree, it is hard to say.

>
>> something that
>> discriminates the selfish and undedicated from the selfless and
>> dedicated. also the dishonest from the honest. even references often
>> do not do this.
>
> I should mention here that all of the references are confidential. I
> never get to see what any of my referees say about me, and there is
> definite guidelines as far as who makes an acceptable referee
> (generally someone governed by a professional organization who has a
> stake in providing an honest reference, as opposed to a potentially
> biased one)

One other point, is that you can be highly impressive to someone who is
referencing you, but that could be for qualities that have little to do
with becoming a good clinician and being of real benefit to consumers
and their pets. Also, I think there should be some lay people with an
interest in consumer protection on these admission and licensing bodies.
Some Ralph Nader types, imo.

>
>>>>Test scores and grades are important, but not nearly as important as
>>>>other qualities.
>>>
>>> Don't know exactly how I'd weight the two. Pretty sure with
>>> Saskatoon it was a 50/50 split. Don't know how U of C did it.
>>
>> too much emphasis is placed on GPA, test scores, etc. A minimum
>> facility in these areas is needed,but they certainly do not give good
>> correlation between the good, dedicated, ethical, honest,
>> compassionate person from many of the jackasses that get to practice
>> vet medicine. they tend to show how good in school you are and how
>> good you take tests.
>
> Unfortunately a 'minimum facility' in these areas is not enough
> (assuming you mean minimum the way I assume you mean minimum). There
> is a heck of a lot of information that they need to cram in to your
> skull in the space of 4 years. You need to be far above average on the
> academic side of things in order to have a hope of squeezing it all
> in. In case you think I'm exaggerating, in my first term, I have 9
> full courses. A typical full course load in an undergraduate science
> degree is 4-5 courses. (First term I have "Clinical Presentations I",
> "Clinical Skills I", "Professional Skills I", "Anatomy and Histology",
> "Physiology", "Behavior", "Animals, Health and Society", "Genetics and
> Molecular Biology", "Introduction to Veterinary Medicine")

By "minimum" I meant enough intellectual ability to pass the classes and
absorb the material, not the nitpicking GPA tenths of a point and other
such measures that often determine who gets in and who is passed by.

>
>>
>> the place to get rid of bad veterinarians is before they even get in
>> and graduate and are licensed. much easier than dealing with them
>> after they are out and causing damage.
>
> I agree fully.
>
>> I think that vet schools need to get input
>> from other professions in how they admit and graduate their students,
>
> Don't you think they do? I know for a fact they do, and that they
> provide insight for other professions.

I think you are overlooking the effect of lobbyists and the profit
motive currently driving many veterinarian interests today. The same is
true in human medicine, it's cover our asses FIRST and worry about the
rest later.

>
>> as
>> here in the USA, they are quite obviously not doing their job in
>> graduating good people. least in my city/state they are not.
>>
>
> I'd suggest you back that up with some facts or statistics,
> potentially statistically comparing veterinarians to other
> professions, otherwise people are likely to think that you're the
> problem, rather than your state licensing board. (if its so obvious
> you should be able to supply some *facts* to back it up).
> It is very easy to 'blame the money grabbing unethical veterinarian'
> when they suggest something you don't like. When you find several
> behaving in the same fashion, its easy to turn around and say "all
> these people shouldn't have been graduated in the first place". While
> I'm not discounting the possibility that you've seen a string of
> incompetent vets, I certainly not just willing to take your word for
> it. Please don't tell me to 'just go google it'. I have no doubt I can
> find people complaining about their vet online, heck this thread is an
> example of exactly that. This thread is not however an example of an
> unethical/incompetent veterinarian (IMO).

At the risk of repetition ad nauseum, YES, RESEARCH IT and YES, I will
in the future give SPECIFIC examples of what I have witnessed, when the
time is right (in the planning stages now). If you had "googled it" and
you knew how to do a good search, you'd know I was right, because the
evidence is SO plentiful from SO MANY sources, you would have to be
blind not to see there is a SERIOUS problem with veterinary
practitioners, that they are not being properly screened prior to
admissions, graduation and licensing.


> Its an example of exactly what I was talking about. Vet prescribes a
> treatment which they believe is in the best interest of the animal,
> owner goes home, gets on google and finds someone who disagrees with
> the vet, and then pronounces the vet as just trying to get their money
> off them by over vaccinating (ignoring any statements to the contrary
> as just being 'part of the machine').

Well this might be the case with some owners. On the other hand I know
owners that know much more about the condition of their animals, and
their diseases than 95% of the vets they have visited, who are often
ignorant of research findings and too insecure to learn from an owner
who knows more than they do. Same is true among MD surgeons. They are so
insecure, many of them, that some are using techniques abandoned 20
years ago, but dare not tell them anything new, as their pathetic egos
cannot handle it. And yes, I could give you specific examples, but I
won't here.


>
> Dale
>
>

Dale Atkin
August 30th 08, 05:03 AM
>> I imagine interviews do include shelter work, if the applicant has
>> done some. But animals rights? Protection? How about animal rescue,
>> while you're at it? Do you expect medical students to have the
>> equivilent? Homeless shelters, foster parenting, I'm drawing a blank
>> on human preotection - bodyguard experience perhaps? Peace Corps work?
>
> Let's stick to the topic ok? Human physicians, as I have said earlier,
> do go through a much harder screening process in their early clinical
> training, and many are washed out in the process.
>

Proof? Just because you say something doesn't make it true (or untrue for
that matter). If you're making a statement of something which may be
contentious, I suggest you provide at least a shred of evidence to back it
up, or you're likely to be dismissed as a troll.

IMO Vet school is at *least* as hard to get in to as human medicine. If you
look at the number of spots available for Human Medicine vs. the number of
spots available for veterinary medicine, and compare that to the applicant
pool you'll see why.

> As a matter of fact, YES, I DO expect veterinarians to be better people,
> because imnsho, ANIMALS are superior to humans in many ways and DESERVE
> better treatment. An animal will not lie to you, scheme to cheat you,
> stab you in the back, kill you for no reason, etc. etc. Read Mark
> Twain's essay on this, wherein he argues that homo sapiens are an
> inferior species. The veterinarian profession is a calling, not a ticket
> to making money. Judging by the caliber of vets I have run into
> generally, with some notable exceptions, the people that train and
> license these so called medical professionals seem to think that, since
> they deal with animals, they can lack the good qualities that are
> demanded in so many other professions,-character, professionalism,
> ability to communicate and relate to both owners and their pets and
> honesty.

I am truly sorry that you've had a number of bad experiences with vets. I
too expect vets to be better than average, and in my experience, the mean
for vets *is* higher than the mean for the general population,
unfortunately, there is a distribution, there are some really rotten vets,
and some very good vets.

Before you comment on it being a 'ticket to making money', I strongly
suggest you educate yourself on the economics of the situation, that you
realize for yourself, how many tens of thousands of dollars the average
sized vet clinic has to spend on equipment that they need to practice. (As
an example, I believe the blood machine recently purchased by the clinic I'm
at cost ~$50,000. At $120 per 'full' panel, and $65 for a half panel, they
need to run an awful lot of blood work for the machine to pay for itself
(and guess what? They use far more half panels than full, and don't forget
the consumables cost money too...). X-Ray equipment is similarly priced.
These are all necessary pieces of equipment to properly diagnose and treat
your animal.

On an average month, operating *costs* top $50,000, and this is just for a
small vet practice.

I do admit though, some of the larger 24h hospitals tend to get a bit loony
with their prices, but they also have a lot more staff and equipment that
they have to pay for (IIRC a CT scanner runs in the neighborhood of
$1,000,000).

Just some things to think about.

Dale

DWMeowMix
September 3rd 08, 05:07 PM
On Aug 29, 10:03*pm, "Dale Atkin" > wrote:
> >> I imagine interviews do include shelter work, if the applicant has
> >> done some. But animals rights? Protection? How about animal rescue,
> >> while you're at it? Do you expect medical students to have the
> >> equivilent? Homeless shelters, foster parenting, I'm drawing a blank
> >> on human preotection - bodyguard experience perhaps? Peace Corps work?
>
> > Let's stick to the topic ok? Human physicians, as I have said earlier,
> > do go through a much harder screening process in their early clinical
> > training, and many are washed out in the process.
>
> Proof? Just because you say something doesn't make it true (or untrue for
> that matter). If you're making a statement of something which may be
> contentious, I suggest you provide at least a shred of evidence to back it
> up, or you're likely to be dismissed as a troll.
>
> IMO Vet school is at *least* as hard to get in to as human medicine. If you
> look at the number of spots available for Human Medicine vs. the number of
> spots available for veterinary medicine, and compare that to the applicant
> pool you'll see why.
>
> > As a matter of fact, YES, I DO expect veterinarians to be better people,
> > because imnsho, ANIMALS are superior to humans in many ways and DESERVE
> > better treatment. An animal will not lie to you, scheme to cheat you,
> > stab you in the back, kill you for no reason, etc. etc. Read Mark
> > Twain's essay on this, wherein he argues that homo sapiens are an
> > inferior species. The veterinarian profession is a calling, not a ticket
> > to making money. Judging by the caliber of vets I have run into
> > generally, with some notable exceptions, the people that train and
> > license these so called medical professionals seem to think that, since
> > they deal with animals, they can lack the good qualities that are
> > demanded in so many other professions,-character, professionalism,
> > ability to communicate and relate to both owners and their pets and
> > honesty.
>
> I am truly sorry that you've had a number of bad experiences with vets. I
> too expect vets to be better than average, and in my experience, the mean
> for vets *is* higher than the mean for the general population,
> unfortunately, there is a distribution, there are some really rotten vets,
> and some very good vets.
>
> Before you comment on it being a 'ticket to making money', I strongly
> suggest you educate yourself on the economics of the situation, that you
> realize for yourself, how many tens of thousands of dollars the average
> sized vet clinic has to spend on equipment that they need to practice. (As
> an example, I believe the blood machine recently purchased by the clinic I'm
> at cost ~$50,000. At $120 per 'full' panel, and $65 for a half panel, they
> need to run an awful lot of blood work for the machine to pay for itself
> (and guess what? They use far more half panels than full, and don't forget
> the consumables cost money too...). X-Ray equipment is similarly priced.
> These are all necessary pieces of equipment to properly diagnose and treat
> your animal.
>
> On an average month, operating *costs* top $50,000, and this is just for a
> small vet practice.
>
> I do admit though, some of the larger 24h hospitals tend to get a bit loony
> with their prices, but they also have a lot more staff and equipment that
> they have to pay for (IIRC a CT scanner runs in the neighborhood of
> $1,000,000).
>
> Just some things to think about.
>
> Dale

Not surprising that pet insurance is getting so popular. Most people
can't afford the vet bills anymore.

Sharon Too
September 3rd 08, 08:12 PM
>Not surprising that pet insurance is getting so popular. Most people
can't afford the vet bills anymore.

It's tough all over. We own a practice and we've taken personal pay cuts,
withheld a couple weeks of payroll for ourselves so we could pay our staff,
their pensions, health insurance and other benefits. The price of running an
animal hospital has skyrocketed and we haven't passed all that on to clients
to maintain the profit margin. We, as well as most vets we know, have
absorbed a good deal of that cost increase. The overhead to maintain an
animal hospital is astronomical.

DWMeowMix
September 3rd 08, 10:02 PM
On Sep 3, 1:12*pm, "Sharon Too" >
wrote:
> >Not surprising that pet insurance is getting so popular. *Most people
>
> can't afford the vet bills anymore.
>
> It's tough all over. We own a practice and we've taken personal pay cuts,
> withheld a couple weeks of payroll for ourselves so we could pay our staff,
> their pensions, health insurance and other benefits. The price of running an
> animal hospital has skyrocketed and we haven't passed all that on to clients
> to maintain the profit margin. We, as well as most vets we know, have
> absorbed a good deal of that cost increase. The overhead to maintain an
> animal *hospital is astronomical.

I've no doubt about that! And unfortunately, it's not just vet
bills. I don't know about you but my paycheck isn't keeping up with
the basic cost of living. I'm curious, you sound like you're well
informed in the running of a vet's office. How does the pet insurance
thing work for an average vet? Do the companies that hold the
insurance pay you just like a person's health insurance? It's so
relatively new that I'm a little leary of it. How does the whole pet
insurance thing work? Is it worth it to the average "Joe" to buy
insurance for your pet and are the companies that sell it
trustworthy? Does a person pay a co-pay when they come into the vet?

Sharon Too
September 4th 08, 02:16 AM
>How does the pet insurance
thing work for an average vet? Do the companies that hold the
insurance pay you just like a person's health insurance? It's so
relatively new that I'm a little leary of it. How does the whole pet
insurance thing work? Is it worth it to the average "Joe" to buy
insurance for your pet and are the companies that sell it
trustworthy? Does a person pay a co-pay when they come into the vet?

We literally have very few clients who use pet insurance. We had more a few
years ago when the idea was fresh, but unfortunately, the companies tended
to deny coverage at the annual renewal time for certain conditions if a pet
had been treated for that condition that year. In human insurance it is call
"pre-existing conditions". The few that have insurance now pay us and then
are reimbursed a percentage by the company so we have little contact with
the incurance company, if that. The pet insurance industry, I hope, has
learned a lesson and there may be a change coming. So far our clients don't
ask much about it.

"Care Credit" http://www.carecredit.com/vetmed/whycc.html is something
some practice participate in. We offer our own financing which can be a
headache in the management aspect with regards to collecting on some folks.
When clients don't pay, we become the bad guy even though we end up on the
losing end.

We encourage clients to buy gift certificates from us each year and put them
aside in case of emergency. They never expire and they're always around,
even if they want to gift them to someone else. Unlike a credit card, you
can't use them elsewhere so that temptation is not there. We'd refund
certificates too if clients moved away. We're in a medium sized county -
not in a city, so we can be somewhat more laid back about things
financially, but it ends up biting us in the butt sometimes. I can't think
of any other business it sucks to have to ask for money for services (in
some situations) more than this... except maybe funeral homes. Ick.

cshenk
September 4th 08, 08:49 PM
"Sharon Too" wrote


> >How does the pet insurance
> thing work for an average vet? Do the companies that hold the

> We literally have very few clients who use pet insurance. We had more a
> few years ago when the idea was fresh, but unfortunately, the companies
> tended to deny coverage at the annual renewal time for certain conditions
> if a pet had been treated for that condition that year. In human insurance
> it is call

Thats bad. In my case, mine is via Banifield (Petsmart) and all known
conditions are covered provided I got the right type of coverage for the
known conditions.

Cash-pup had heartworms and heart damage and the insurance annual was far
less than the tests he's already had. I dont have to file anything since
the vet is same place. Daisy-cat came to us with tooth issues so has a
dental plan. Slated for a free (to us as paid for by insurance) cleaning.
Her cleaning bill without the insurance would be more than the policy costs.

> We encourage clients to buy gift certificates from us each year and put
> them aside in case of emergency. They never expire and they're always
> around, even if they want to gift them to someone else. Unlike a credit
> card, you can't use them elsewhere so that temptation is not there. We'd
> refund certificates too if clients moved away. We're in a medium sized
> county - not in a city, so we can be somewhat more laid back about things
> financially, but it ends up biting us in the butt sometimes. I can't think
> of any other business it sucks to have to ask for money for services (in
> some situations) more than this... except maybe funeral homes. Ick.

I can understand. For me, I put money aside in a named secondary account
for various things. Have about 5 savings ones for various stuff. If it's
not in my checking account, I dont spend it by accident. Same idea but i
get a little interest on the money. Most banks will let you open a second
or 3rd or 5th account with a small bit if you have a main account there that
fills the minimum.

Accts here: Main, checking, house, vacation, charlotte, pets, long-term

House is for known averages on 'stuff' like will need a new HVAC of 3,500
current est in about 4-5 years (will cost more by then). Known average of
about 1,000$ a year in 'something or other went boom'. It gets 200$ a month
dropped in automatically.

Charlotte is out kid, she gets 100$ a month til she's got a job. This for
starter money to get her first car etc. She's 14. It amasses enough now
for a simple car, all her deposits for first apartment, and close to 2 years
of college tuition.

Pets gets 50$ a month because we _knowingly_ adopted 2 rescue pets with 1
having known health issues. This is covering other 'stuff' they need like
flea meds etc.

Long term gets overflow from checking, tax rebates. Tends to get rolled to
CD's.

Vacation varies and is mostly for Don to go fishing. 5$ here, 50$ there
sort of thing.

Main is ready cash for sudden needs. It's handled manually like vacation
with 'might need this' from excess checking. Xmas shopping, etc uses.