Dale A

If you've been around here long enough, you'll know that its not uncommon here to have someone ask for a vet to answer their question.

The standard set of replies is "there are no vets here... go and find one in the real world" or some such thing.

Now this presents me with a difficulty. You see... I actually am a vet. I come on here because I find it quite interesting to see what questions people will ask, and what miscommunications happen in clinic. What people don't want to call their vet about, etc.

I think it makes me a better vet. I'm better able to anticipate where the problems might come in, and what "Dr. Google" might tell them.

I'm generally pretty selective in the questions I answer, giving no more advice than what I'd give to anyone calling me up on the phone at the clinic.

Now... sometimes I mention I'm a vet, sometimes I don't. (really depends on the question and my mood at the moment). I find in general I get a lot of negative backlash on things where do mention it. This isn't the only forum I hang around. This is however the only group I see such negativity when I say "I'm a vet".

So here is the thing --- lets take for a given that there is the occasional vet around here (not many mind you, but we do exist --- note I'm not asking you to believe the I'm a vet, just that there might be a few vets around here), what evidence would be enough to convince you?

I've been on Yahoo Answers for quite a while now, started when I was in vet school, gave me some good experience answering people's questions in a 'low stress' type of environment. Showed me what was important to owners in the context of my studies.

I'm now graduated, and often on the "Source" of my answer I put "I'm a vet" as the source. I suspect there are people out there who thumbs down when they see that, because they think I'm lying.

So -- would you assume I'm lying and thumbs down me?

I have an 8 1/2 year old male neutered Labrador Retriever with a drinking problem. (He drinks too much water). Anyways, its gotten to the point where he just *can't* hold it for any appreciable length of time. He's not incontinent, he she has to pee when he has to pee and if I'm not right there, he takes care of things himself.

Typically, he goes in one place (getting to be a very smelly patch of carpet :( ). Was thinking about putting a pee pad down in that spot to try to make clean up easier. My concerns are ---

1. Don't want to tell him 'its OK' to pee in the house (still want him to ask me if I'm around).

2. I have another dog --- certainly don't want *her* to think its OK to pee in the house.

3. Volume --- because of the nature of his problem, it can potentially be a rather large volume (>1L of urine). Not sure if the pee pads can take that kind of volume. (this isn't really a major issue, as its certainly better than nothing, but any thoughts in this area would be helpful).

4. Not sure if putting the pad down will just cause him to choose another spot (surface preferences?) anyone with experience here?

Just in general looking to hear from anyone who has tried anything along these lines with their dog, and how it worked out for them.

Thanks!

P.S> Occurred to me that some answerers might try to solve the underlying problem of why he's drinking so much --- personally I've given up on this, but you're more than welcome to try.

Medical data follow:

1. Blood work -- Low albumin (progressive). No other unusual findings (kidney values all normal, liver values all normal) -- glucose totally normal.

2. Urine -- Only abnormal finding is VERY low urine specific gravity (can get as low as 1.004). For those of you who don't know, a USG this low actually means his kidneys are working (dilution is an active process). No protein (dipstick says trace protein, but can not confirm on SSA test). No glucose (so diabetes mellitus not the diagnosis). Can concentrate up to 1.024ish (haven't measured him at this in a while, but I'm fairly sure he can do it....) so diabetes insipidus not really on the list.

3. Medications -- Phenobarbital + Meloxicam (he has epilepsy and severe arthritis) -- drinking problem predates all medication, but drinking has recently gotten worse.

4. Other medical history - removed two mast cell tumors (Grade II) over the years. Completely resected, no local recurrence. He's blown both his cruciates (repaired surgically), has bilateral elbow dysplasia as well as various more minor arthritic joints.

Discussed his case with countless vets (and specialists) can't really seem to make any progress on it (discussions with one internal med specialist suggested that perhaps he has defective osmole receptors in his brain causing him to drink a lot - to diagnose is very invasive, and nothing we could do different in any case, so not pursuing that diagnosis).

'Best' diagnosis we've got really is "Psychogenic Polydypsia" +/- medullary washout basically meaning that he drinks a lot because he drinks a lot.

So anyways --- no good places to take it from here, so stuck dealing with the consequences (hence thinking about the pee pads).

Does anyone know from experience or have any good resources on the inheritance of dewclaws in dogs?

Specifically what I'm looking for is the determinants of well attached vs. poorly articulated dewclaws. It strikes me that the practice of some breeders of routinely removing dewclaws shortly after birth means that no selection pressure is being applied to them, which it probably should be. Shouldn't we select for either no dewclaws, or well attached dewclaws when we can? Meaning we wouldn't have as much motivation to remove them.

So I keep reading questions and answers on here about dog nutrition. One recurring theme that I see here is that apparently your vet doesn't know anything about nutrition, and that its all just a big scam from the pet food companies. (Apparently vets get kick backs from pet food companies to recommend their products). I've even heard people say that apparently vets sell these foods to intentionally make your dog sick, so that they'll come in more often and they can make more money off of you.

Anyways, so here's my question --- who should you get your nutrition advice from? Any why them (what qualifies them to advise you on your dog's health.)

Other dog owners?

Your dog's breeder?

The pet store employee?

Random stranger on the internet who has a pretty looking webpage?

I've also seen people say "Do your own 'research'" on it. Frequently pointing to "dogfoodanalysis.com" (apparently that's gospel to a lot of people).

So, your thoughts?

I recently acquired a Blue Heeler puppy. (~14 weeks). She has shown some natural aptitude towards herding (amazing to see actually, considering her lack of a canine role model in this regard). Anyways, given her tendencies, I'd like to work on some training, and at least give her the basics as far as working cows goes (I'd rather have some training on these natural tendencies than to let them develop in unpredictable ways).

The thing is, it's not really something I'd considered before (long story, but we're her second home -- so kind of thrown in the deep end -- we were looking for a dog, but not so soon and probably would have chosen an 'easier' breed if totally given the choice), so I don't really know where to start this kind of training, don't know the building blocks to use to get what I want, and to some extent, don't really know what my goal is either.

Most of the so called cow dogs on farms I've seen seem to get in the way more than help!

Thoughts? Any good resources?

What I have-1 untrained blue Heeler, likely can get access to some quiet dairy heifers, good chute system, probably some beef cows as well, lots of vets willing to help.

My dog is epileptic. He had his first seizure at about 2 1/2 years old.

He'll be 7 years old in May.

For the last 2 years, 4 months, he's been seizure free.

A little before the two year mark, we started backing down on the drugs. We got to *almost* no anti-epileptics in his system. (by the textbook, we were at less than 1/4 of the clinically recommended dose).

Today he had a seizure (focal). I'm trying to make the decision of 'where to go from here'. The 'safe' route is to put him back on the full dose of phenobarbital and keep him there indefinitely. I'm fairly confident that doing this (along with a couple of other measures we worked out) would give us excellent seizure control.

The down side is, all of these drugs are hard on the liver, and will shorten lifespan. Also, the sedative effect is definitely not negligable. I noticed this particularly when he was going on the drugs and comming off the drugs. (At pretty much every step down in drugs he got happier, and 'bouncier').

So, would you

(a) put him on the higher (textbook) dose, and increase the side effects (both to his liver, and his happiness).

(b) try to achieve control with a lower dose, but run the risk of more seizures, which could potentially make the seizures more difficult to control in the long run.

Please don't answer with "Ask your vet". I'm a third year vet student. Given that I have an epileptic dog, I've made an effort to be sure that I learn everything possible about seizures and seizure control. In a year's time, I'll be a vet. "Consult your vet" is the cop-out answer. The vet still has to base their decision on something.

(for the record, I'll be chatting with my dog's vet on Saturday, and I'll probably bring it up to a couple of vets tomorrow at school --- in the end its my call though).

I consider myself a scientist. A scientist is willing to look at evidence, and evaluate it based on its merits, not their own pre-conceived ideas of what is, or isn't fact.

I've read a lot of posts about raw feeding. Mostly they boil down to "Vets don't know about nutrtion", "Big pet food companies are evil", and "Kibble is the root of all evil". On top of that, I see often repeated "Feed this distribution of ingredients, and your diet will be balanced".

What I've yet to see though is the science behind any of these raw food claims. Just people saying "Raw food is awesomeness", and "My dog does well on it, so all dogs must do well on it", etc, etc.

Maybe the askers of those questions don't really want the hard facts --- I do. Can anyone point me to anything on raw feeding that is something beyond anecdotal? Please? (preferably something investigating one of the many fundamental claims that raw feeders make)

Recently a news story has come to light here:

http://www.canada.com/news/RCMP+investigates+repor...

Where approximately 100 sled dogs were 'euthanized' by a lay person (using a gun and exsanguination). Some of the dogs apparently didn't die humanely. (Multiple shots, panic over their pack members being shot).

In the story, it states that a vet was contacted and refused to participate in the matter.

What do you think would be the right thing for the vet to do?

Encourage surrender of the dogs? (apparently the guy who did it tried to adopt out the dogs with limited success --- remember these aren't the most well socialized dogs)

Perform the euthanasia of the animals under more controlled circumstances? (I don't know about you, but I would have a hard time euthanizing 100 dogs at one time).

Offer training to the person doing the job in appropriate euthanasia (and risk condoning the act -- knowing that he would be unable to provide the person with the appropriate drugs or training that would be used in a vet's office)?

Deny flat out (which seems to be what was done and probably resulted in a worse end for the animals)?

Something else?

As a future vet, I don't know what I would have done in this situation, and what would have led to the best outcome for the animals in question.

So I'm thinking about my next dog. With that in mind, I've started looking over various breeder contracts in my area. I'm a bit surprised to find that there are some that I just can't agree with. For example, I'm unwilling to agree with the clause that "the breeder can take the animal back if they feel its not well cared for". I know why they have this clause, but really? Who are they to say that I'm not caring for my animal properly?

I don't know them, so don't know what 'adequate care' is in their minds (I know some who say if you don't feed your dog a raw food diet, you're abusing the dog.)

Don't get me wrong, I agree with screening potential homes, but at what point does it go too far?

I'm a well qualified home (I'm going to be a vet in 2 years time), but I feel like when it comes down to difference of opinion on how to raise a puppy, I feel like my opinion (based on years of experience in a vet clinic and medical training) is at least as valid as a breeder's.

Dog buyers: What are your thoughts on this? What strange clauses have you seen in a breeder contract?

Dog breeders: Do people who you'd other wise consider to be a good home, ever question you about some of your clauses? How do you respond?

I've been thinking, that there are people around me, who have certain habits, that I really appreciate. There are things that they do, that might seem a little corny to some, but at least on me, have the effect of making my day a little bit brighter.

So, my question is: What tips do you have, to 'make people's day'?

I'll give you an example: One friend of mine says "thank you" for even the smallest things that I do. Sometimes things that are really totally unnecessary. Its absolutely genuine, and it tells you that what you're doing is appreciated. Every time it happens, it brightens my day a bit.

Since I've realized this, I've tried to emulate it as much as possible. Its a tiny thing, but it can make a big difference to other people.

So, what little things do people do for you, or do you do for other people, that make the world a nicer place?

I'll be up front with this, I'm not looking to change dog foods. I'm quite happy with my dog's diet, and I see excellent results. I know how I evaluate foods and it seems to work well for me (and my dog). I'm curious what other people's motivations are. I am NOT looking for a specific brand recommendation.

What criteria do you use to evaluate a dog food? And, more importantly, what evidence do you have to support your criteria?

Best answer goes to the most evidence based answer*

If you feed a food based on recommendation (without specific evidence) --- who recommended it? Why do you trust what they have to say?

I'll provide my own criteria when I pick a best answer.

*Note: Evidence does not mean "Person x says y, so it must be true".

The following are the facts as I know them:

The primary cause of pathology with tetanus is the exotoxin released by Clostridium tetani.

It binds to neuromuscular junctions, causing persistant stimulation (resulting in muscle contraction).

The tetanus vaccine allows your body to make antibodies against the tetanus *toxin*.

So, the question is -- does the tetanus vaccine do anything to prevent the actual bacteria from replicating in your body? I know your body will take care of the bacteria eventually anyways, but I'm curious if the vaccine actually does anything to help with this.

Thoughts?

I'm trying to decide if I have something to be concerned about or not. I was recently prescribed (for my dog) a controlled drug.

When I got the prescription, the number of pills in the bottle, was not the same as the number of pills that was prescribed (I was prescribed 240 pills, I got 200 pills).

What concerns me, is that the pharmacy now has a piece of paper that says x pills were prescribed to me, and x isn't the number of pills I got.

In my mind, it would be possible for someone to create a second label, and dispense the remaining number of pills to themselves (they could even pay for them). In that case, everything would line up. The number of pills prescribed = the number of pills dispensed, but isn't the same as the number of pills I actually got.

I'm relatively certain that there isn't anything nefarious going on here, but it does make me wonder --- would my imaginary scheme work in practice? How does the audit trail work in the pharmacy?

For those who might be worried that I'm planning on stealing some controlled drugs, I'll tell you, in a little more than two years I'll have a DVM after my name, and the power to prescribe things myself...at which point there would be far easier ways to abuse the system than this!

In veterinary medicine, quite frequently, there are things which the general public has flat out wrong. They aren't really serious misunderstandings, and they don't impede communication, but they aren't *technically* correct. A lot of vets, rather than get in to a nitty gritty discussion about the subject simply translate what the client says to what the client *means* (sometimes by asking a few clarifying questions), and moves on. Would you expect/want your vet to educate you on the technicalities? Or just 'go with the flow' as it were?

I can see both sides of it. On the one hand, the detailed explanation of where the client is *technically* wrong takes time, and might come off as condescending to the client, on the other hand, the vet using the 'lay terminology' removes an opportunity for the motivated and interested client to learn.

What do you prefer? And why? Can you think of any good examples?

The ones that come to my mind are:

Cancerous when they mean malignant

vomiting vs. regurgitation

menstruating/period when they mean estrous

autopsy vs. necropsy

signs vs. symptoms

(I should add, I'm in vet school, so this is more than just an idle question for me)

Just spent a lot of time carefully writing an answer to a question. I go to hit answer, and the question has been deleted! Worse yet, the user doesn't allow e-mail, so I can't e-mail them the answer I wrote for them.

Have you ever deleted a question? Why? What do you think about deleting questions?

(P.S. if you're Mustang Mel, here is the answer to the question I wrote for you!)

What I always tell people re. dog food, is "If it works, don't fix it". In your case though, it sounds like it might not be the best diet for him.

I know I'm going to get some thumbs down for this, but I'm going to say it anyways, because I know a lot of people are going to say the opposite, and I don't agree with it. There is nothing wrong with Science Diet. People don't like it for a lot of reasons, none of which in my mind are any good (mostly its based on inaccurate information floating around the internet, and a general distrust of anything that is too 'commercial').

In general, I would say --- pick a food, feed it for a period of at least one month, evaluate the results. Do you like what you see? Or not?

You can look at things like energy level, coat quality, stool quality, etc. to make your decision. If you like it, stick with it. If you don't like it, pick another diet, and feed for a month (make sure you allow a 'cross over' period of about a week, during which you feed steadily more of one diet, and less of the other.)

Couple more general points --- By-products aren't evil. There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeding by-products *PROVIDED* that the by-products are of reasonable quality. (unfortunately, due to labeling laws, there is no way for a manufacturer to put a statement re. quality of their ingredients on the label).

Grains aren't evil either. Many, many, many dogs do very well with diets including grains, and have for many years. The issue is there is a small percentage of dogs that can't tolerate grains (just like there is a percentage of people who can't take grains). Wild canids will actually eat the gut contents of the animals they kill early on in the feeding process. Given that most of what they kill are herbivores, this means that they eat partially digested plant material all the time.

Don't necessarily trust (or distrust) a food which lists something like "Chicken" as the first ingredient. Why? Because its a game they play. They know that people like to see a 'meat' as the first ingredient. They also know that most people don't know that if they list it as 'chicken' its measured in a hydrated form (i.e. with all the water in it), so it moves up the ingredient list. When its turned in to a kibble, most of the water comes out, and who knows where it would sit in the list. This isn't necessarily the mark of a 'bad' food, pretty much every food plays the 'label game' to some extent, just recognize that it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Similarly, food companies can move things down the list by 'ingredient splitting'. People don't like to see grains high up on the list, so they split this up, by using a couple of distinct varieties of grain, rather than a single source grain, which moves the ingredient down on the list.

The one thing I would stay away from is any food listing an unnamed meat source as the primary protein. There is only one reason I can see to not list the protein source --- because you plan on changing it depending on what is cheapest. This scares me. It means that one bag of food can be completely different than the next bag, which is especially concerning with a dog with allergy problems.

Contrary to popular belief, vets do get educated re. nutrition, you can probably trust your vet to give you some good information on nutrition.

Hope that helps a little with your search for the right food for your dog.

I recently took a trip to Disneyland. They have all kinds of 3-d movies there (similar kind of thing to the new popular 3-d movies you get in theaters). Prior to this trip, I'd noticed that I wasn't able to see the 'at home' 3-d movies that you can get.

I just figured that the 'at-home' version wasn't as good as what you'd get in the theaters. I've never actually seen an 'in the movie theater' version.

Anyways, on this trip, I went in to about 5 or 6 different '3d' movies, and it was always the same, with multiple sets of glasses.

It was like I was getting a 'bleed through' effect on the opposite channel (didn't look much different with/without the glasses on).

Every so often, it would 'pop' in to focus, and I could see everything the way it was supposed to be, but then it would go again, and I wouldn't be able to see it anymore. It helped it I kind of turned my head to one side.

I know I *used* to be able to see 3-d movies (like 14 years ago when I first went to one), but I can't any more.

I know that the glasses at the disney movies are polarizers at 90 degrees to each other (so presumably the left and right video channels are projected through a similarly oriented polarizer, and the glasses block out what you shouldn't see with that eye).

It makes me wonder if their might be something a little weird going on with my eyes (I was thinking an increased directional orientation in some of the layers of the eye might do it...)

Thoughts?

I'm curious how all you folks in the dog section judge the information you receive (both here and elsewhere).

I see it time and time again, I see information repeated, which I *know* to be false. Or then I see "Best Answers" chosen with wrong information in them.

So, how in this day and age, do you judge the quality of the information you're receiving?

How often its repeated? How confidently its said? How sensational? How conspiracy oriented it seems?

This may seem like an unusual question, but bear with me. It makes sense (honest).

To my knowledge, its fairly well accepted that the seasonal shedding pattern of dogs is impacted by lighting (basically, the melatonin levels in their brains responds to the length of darkness... the more darkness, the more melatonin - high levels of melatonin are associated with the winter months, low levels with the summer).

To me, this begs the question - does a blind dog shed more? less or the same as a sighted dog?

I could imagine that the answer might depend somewhat on the nature/level of the blindness. (whether its caused by a cataract, or a neural lesion, might have different results for example)

Thoughts? Experience?