Dog mauls 3 week old

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm not saying you are and you were there and I wasn't, but for some people $655 is more than a house payment or rent for the month, and they really need to think about whether the pet is the right thing to spend it on. But again, he could have been taking care of the dog all along for a lot less money.

I guess I have to disagree about being able to take care of the dog all along for less. My dog's annual visit costs me around $366. Her semi-annual is about $180. And yes, I take her and yes, I pay it, but it's definitely a lot more than $655 over the lifetime of the dog.

I ask for all the treatment options and try to make the best decision on what I can afford and what will help her out. For instance, I talked to the vet last year about her arthritis, because I could see a difference in how she gets up, etc. So the doctor gave me a month's worth of medicine and said "Try this for a month, if it helps her, we'll get her some refills". The final bill for that visit? $576. I was expecting around $366 and asked about the difference. Yes, the anti-inflammatory for the dog for one month was $210. I love my dog dearly, but I don't have an extra $210 in the budget every single month. I do wish that vet had discussed the cost of the meds with me so we could have explored alternatives. Next visit, I will have to ask again.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by AGDee

It truly sounded to me that the dog treated the baby like a puppy. A dog doesn't carry it's prey by the neck, it carries it's puppies by the neck. A dog kills and eats it's prey right then and there. If that dog was trying to harm that baby, that baby wouldn't have lived.

Yes. This. Until this incident, Dakota had shown no indications of behavioral problems at all. Everything I've read/heard about this story leads me to believe she's a really good dog.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I ask for all the treatment options and try to make the best decision on what I can afford and what will help her out. For instance, I talked to the vet last year about her arthritis, because I could see a difference in how she gets up, etc. So the doctor gave me a month's worth of medicine and said "Try this for a month, if it helps her, we'll get her some refills".

Make sure you ask about Glucosamine. Our arthritic dog had been on Rimadyl for several months and showed a slight improvement over her non-Rimadyl days, but not as much as we would've hoped. Our vet suggested we try Glucosamine. After being on it for two months, our dog showed significant improvement. She now gets a dose daily and seems to be much more comfortable than she was while taking Rimadyl. Plus, Glucosamine is much more affordable than Rimadyl. Just thought I'd mention it so you could ask your vet if it's right for your dog.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I guess I have to disagree about being able to take care of the dog all along for less. My dog's annual visit costs me around $366. Her semi-annual is about $180. And yes, I take her and yes, I pay it, but it's definitely a lot more than $655 over the lifetime of the dog.

I ask for all the treatment options and try to make the best decision on what I can afford and what will help her out. For instance, I talked to the vet last year about her arthritis, because I could see a difference in how she gets up, etc. So the doctor gave me a month's worth of medicine and said "Try this for a month, if it helps her, we'll get her some refills". The final bill for that visit? $576. I was expecting around $366 and asked about the difference. Yes, the anti-inflammatory for the dog for one month was $210. I love my dog dearly, but I don't have an extra $210 in the budget every single month. I do wish that vet had discussed the cost of the meds with me so we could have explored alternatives. Next visit, I will have to ask again.

My vet expenses are a lot more like yours, but I was going by what Cheerful said, "I mean, if he would have been taking the dog in for regular check ups, he wouldn't see anything near that amount of money."

I assumed it varied a lot by region. And I also suspect that we pay more to get the better products when we could be economizing more. For example, I do Frontline for flea control, and I'm sure I could be doing flea shampoo, sprays, etc, instead. If I had totally outdoor yard dogs like some people do in Georgia, maybe I wouldn't be worried about it at all.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm not saying you are and you were there and I wasn't, but for some people $655 is more than a house payment or rent for the month, and they really need to think about whether the pet is the right thing to spend it on. But again, he could have been taking care of the dog all along for a lot less money.

Bingo.

eta: I read the rest of the posts. Remember guys, when I said we quoted him $655.00 that was NOT for the treatment itself. That was just for the blood work, xrays, test, etc.... We didn't even get to the cost of the treatment added on to the tests. He'll be in to put this dog down, if he hasn't already done it somewhere else. I know he will. I could just tell by his reaction to the cost. Vets are expensive, but in the long run, you do save more money for regular check ups and shots. I'm not even going to get into the possible cancer he may have had, or the tumors we felt on his body etc. This could have all been prevented if the owner wouldn't have waited 9 years to take a 10 year old dog to see a vet. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

here is something else to consider:

Mr Michael Smith initially headed to the backyard, knowing that Dakota, a mixed breed with wolves in its ancestry, had a reputation for stealing household items like cups and wallets and depositing them there. He spent 10 minutes looking among the trees and bushes in the two-acre fenced backyard before finding the dog and child about 200 yards (metres) behind the house.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_406376.html

I think it's good that he had the sense to go to the place that the dog was known to hide things.

This begs the question: if the owners knew this dog had a history of stealing household items and hiding them, why in the hell would they give the dog unrestricted access to the baby's room!?

Originally Posted by KD4Me

Michael Smith told 27 NEWSFIRST they had just laid AJ down to sleep in his crib for a nap, and within minutes it got quiet in the house. He said they went into the room where AJ was supposed to be sleeping and found that he was gone.

The dog managed to get the baby out of the crib?

I didn't get that either.

1) Why on earth would the parents give the dog access to the baby's room unsupervised?

2) How in the hell did the dog manage to get the baby out of the crib ?!?!

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by Penguin08

And THIS is why you give away your dog when you have a baby... Some people just shouldn't be parents.

I would say it's fairly common knowledge that dogs / cats live to be 9-15 years. I don't think people should get a dog if they aren't up for the commitment.

I know plenty of people who had dogs/cats before kids, but they were smart enough to not let the animals around the babies/kids unsupervised and everyone grew up and turned out great.

Some people just shouldn't be pet owners if they are just planning to dump the animals somewhere else once they get knocked up.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Some people just shouldn't be pet owners if they are just planning to dump the animals somewhere else once they get knocked up.

lol lol texas princess, may I use this as my siggy? I hope you don't mind.

[Xanthus]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

In the end, as someone said before, a dog is doing what nature intended...therefore I disagree with medicating a dog for it to 'mellow out'.

Dude, I was pretty much just posting what I've seen people I know do to their dogs. I'm actually indifferent about it.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Some people just shouldn't be pet owners if they are just planning to dump the animals somewhere else once they get knocked up.

You are my new hero! I am so borrowing this!

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

lol lol texas princess, may I use this as my siggy? I hope you don't mind.

Originally Posted by Jill1228

You are my new hero! I am so borrowing this!

haha glad you liked it and yes, you can use it

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by Penguin08

And THIS is why you give away your dog when you have a baby... Some people just shouldn't be parents.

I do think that if there is a SERIOUS problem with a dog AFTER you have kids, that the safety of your kids needs to come first and another home for the dog needs to be found (a dog should never be dumped or given to just anyone--a good home needs to be found).

However, to just give a dog away JUST BECAUSE you had kids doesn't make sense.

If you know you won't want an animal once you have kids, you shouldn't get one to begin with.

I know plenty of married people who skipped getting that "just married" dog (that some folks get when they get their first place) because they wanted kids right away and didn't want to deal with the responsibility of an animal and a new baby.

That's the smart thing to do.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

In the end, as someone said before, a dog is doing what nature intended...therefore I disagree with medicating a dog for it to 'mellow out'.

I think it depends on the circumstances--some dogs, like MinPins and poodles, are natually spazzy and most owners know that. I don't believe that dogs should be medicated to make life more "convenient" for their owners. But, in the event that the dog has experienced something out of the ordinary, I don't see a problem with medication for anxiety issues given the dog hasn't shown symptoms of larger issues.

Does that make sense? One friend's dog was denied food before he was abandoned and adopted, and now gets really crazy around food time. A medication to calm him down and get him to eat all of his food doesn't seem too wacky.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I think it depends on the circumstances--some dogs, like MinPins and poodles, are natually spazzy and most owners know that. I don't believe that dogs should be medicated to make life more "convenient" for their owners. But, in the event that the dog has experienced something out of the ordinary, I don't see a problem with medication for anxiety issues given the dog hasn't shown symptoms of larger issues.

Does that make sense? One friend's dog was denied food before he was abandoned and adopted, and now gets really crazy around food time. A medication to calm him down and get him to eat all of his food doesn't seem too wacky.

I'd agree with that - it's like the way doctors approach humans. It's one thing giving an animal meds to deal with a medical condition like anxiety, and it's a whole other issue giving them medicaions just because the dog is energetic.

[AOII_LB93]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'd agree with that - it's like the way doctors approach humans. It's one thing giving an animal meds to deal with a medical condition like anxiety, and it's a whole other issue giving them medicaions just because the dog is energetic.

And this brings up the point that people should really do their research and truly think about the fact that a dog is a big commitment. It's not like a cat (nothing against them at all, I have cats, but they are pretty low maintenance...clean box, food, water, regular vet checks, occasional petting...repeat), dogs are a lot of responsibility.

When I got my dog, I did a crap-load of research on the breed and my husband and I talked about training and the rest of the responsibilities being a good dog owner before we got her. A lot of people don't do that and just think they'll get whatever they feel like, and that training is teaching the dog to sit. If you get an energetic breed, you can't just drug the dog up to have a relaxed dog...that's not cool. Likewise if you get a dog like a border collie, which really needs stuff to do...almost all the time, or they go crazy and can get very destructive.

More evidence of why some people shouldn't own pets much less have children.