# FeLV vaccination



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't vaccinate my kittens for FeLV but one of the people buying a kitten from me has asked if I will do the first FeLV vaccination for a kitten they are buying and they will do the second one when they get the kitten home (the kitten has already started the normal initial jabs course). Does anyone know if this is possible? Would there be a problem if the brands are different for each jab?


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

I think it's possible to give FeLV at the second vaccination, but would recommend that the new owner uses the same brand as you. I'd only ever inject FeLV from Purevax though, and even then, only in the leg.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I would want to discuss why they want felv.


----------



## lisajjl1 (Jun 23, 2010)

When I had the same situation last year the kitten stayed with me longer so that both the vaccinations for FeLV could be done at my own vets and the course completed before he went to his new home. This worked out well for everyone and new owner was happy to wait a little longer for him in the long run.


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

OrientalSlave said:


> I would want to discuss why they want felv.


I'd want to know why they want it done as well



lisajjl1 said:


> When I had the same situation last year the kitten stayed with me longer so that both the vaccinations for FeLV could be done at my own vets and the course completed before he went to his new home. This worked out well for everyone and new owner was happy to wait a little longer for him in the long run.


Think this is a good solution


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

Out of curiosity, why would you question a new owner wanting to vaccinate against FeLV? I know that Gunter's breeder has her kittens vaccinated for it before they leave and did not realise it was uncommon.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

smoking guns said:


> Out of curiosity, why would you question a new owner wanting to vaccinate against FeLV? I know that Gunter's breeder has her kittens vaccinated for it before they leave and did not realise it was uncommon.


It's not considered to be really necessary for a cat that is to kept indoors only and if a breeder's contract states indoors only I think they are right to be asking why the buyers want the FeLV vaccination done. Some breeders do automatically vaccinate against it too though.


----------



## moggie14 (Sep 11, 2013)

Sam's breeder vaccinated him for FeLV and does so with all her kittens I believe, despite them going to indoor homes. I just chose not to continue with it.
I'd be suspicious as to why an owner is asking for it - are they planning to let the kitten out?
Perhaps they think it's required for catteries - it isn't


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

I do it because sometimes accidents happen and cats who should be kept in escape (not everyone operates the airlock system that we breeders do). If a young kitten that I bred escaped and got FeLV because I didn't think the vaccination was necessary, I'd be heartbroken.

Mind you, I do all of my breeding cats routinely as they'll be coming into contact with studs etc.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

I vaccinate against FeLV routinely, using Purevax, in the hind leg. You do need to use the same brand though, as some vaccines are dead and some are attenuated. I've never asked a new owner to ensure they keep their cats as indoors only. Some do, some want their cats to be indoors/outdoors, and I don't have a problem with that as long as it is safe where they live, and they are spayed/neutered before going outside, and they are old enough. I try to match kittens to owners and vice versa, not have rules set in stone, as all cats are different, even kittens from the same litter can have completely different personalities and need different sorts of homes. I certainly wouldn't question a prospective owner asking for a vaccine against a disease which could kill, I'd think they were responsible owners.


----------



## Jansheff (Jan 31, 2011)

From the point of view of an owner rather than breeder - we decided (and were advised by the vet, I think, but it's 10 years ago now, and I can't remember properly) to have it done for our two Burmese, because, although they have always been indoor cats, we did already have an indoor/outdoor tabby rescue, Raffles. We were wanting to make the move over to indoor cats, but as Raffles came to us already used to going out, it didn't seem right to suddenly stop this. We were concerned that Raffles (also innoculated of course) might go out and pass something back to the indoor ones if they were unprotected.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I certainly wouldn't question a prospective owner asking for a vaccine against a disease which could kill, I'd think they were responsible owners._
Ah but would you question them if they were asking specific questions which indicated they were going to break any agreement you had? This particular issue may not be important to you but it is to some. I think I'd want to know why a buyer wanted it if it was outside my normal protocol.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _I certainly wouldn't question a prospective owner asking for a vaccine against a disease which could kill, I'd think they were responsible owners._
> Ah but would you question them if they were asking specific questions which indicated they were going to break any agreement you had? This particular issue may not be important to you but it is to some. I think I'd want to know why a buyer wanted it if it was outside my normal protocol.


For vaccinations, I wouldn't worry, I don't mind my cats going outside. But I'd vaccinate inside cats too, you never know when you could bring something in inadvertently, or cats could get out, or even pick something up in the vets waiting room. Tables are cleaned between patients, but people often come in and plop their basket on the bench someone else's carrier has just been picked up from. But if I suspected they were going to break an agreement I'd ask them more about why they were asking, and you can always so "no" to them taking the kitten.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Could be they have a perfectly valid reason - eg already have a cat which goes out. If so then it's a very reasonable request but there's no harm in asking. Picking up FeLV from a visit to the vets is unlikely in the extreme so that wouldn't be a valid reason for me and I'd be wary.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

smoking guns said:


> Out of curiosity, why would you question a new owner wanting to vaccinate against FeLV? I know that Gunter's breeder has her kittens vaccinated for it before they leave and did not realise it was uncommon.


I mostly sell to indoor homes, these kittens don't need FeLV, but some vets push it.


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

I have spoken the the kittens owner again recently and pointed out that there could be a problem if my vet and her vet uses different vaccine brands and on checking her other cats vaccination card they _*do*_ use a different brand. I will clarify with my own vet when I next speak to them but I think the new owner will have to either let me do it and wait longer for their kitten or do it themselves once they've settled the kitten in.

I know some people feel its the right thing to do and I used to vaccinate all my kittens for FeLV along with their initial vaccines but after a few reactions I stopped. Coincidentally this all happened about the time my Aunts cat died of FeLV despite having been vaccinated his entire life and I think for me that put the tin lid on it. Interestingly, my own vet feels that FeLV should be left until at least two weeks after the initial course of vaccines have been completed.

But of course, as with everything, its a case of each to their own when it comes to something like this.


----------



## moggie14 (Sep 11, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> For vaccinations, I wouldn't worry, I don't mind my cats going outside. But I'd vaccinate inside cats too, you never know when you could bring something in inadvertently, or cats could get out, or even pick something up in the vets waiting room. Tables are cleaned between patients, but people often come in and plop their basket on the bench someone else's carrier has just been picked up from. But if I suspected they were going to break an agreement I'd ask them more about why they were asking, and you can always so "no" to them taking the kitten.


I'm pretty sure a cat cannot 'catch' FeLV at the vets and I'm also sure it's not something you can 'bring in'. Cat flu for example is a different story which is why the core vaccines are more important.
My train of thought is that we probably over vaccinate anyway so an indoor cat that has no contact with an outdoor one really doesn't require FeLV. My vet agreed with me.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

As my vet cannot or will not (I suspect the latter is true) stock Purevax I choose not to FeLV vaccinate my kittens. A very few owners seem concerned about this, despite that their cat will always be an indoor-only cat and my explanation of how difficult it is to "catch" in any event. Two, last year, went ahead and FeLV vaccinated their kittens at about 6 and 8 months. Whilst I know it is fairly unusual, the first had such a severe reaction he ended up spending two days and nights with the vet as an inpatient, on a drip. The second had a less severe reaction but still bad enough for the owner to take him to the vet.


----------



## smoking guns (Feb 24, 2015)

That's good to know. So if I occasionally allow him to go on a lead in a garden, would it be worth re-vaccinating when the time comes?


----------



## moggie14 (Sep 11, 2013)

smoking guns said:


> That's good to know. So if I occasionally allow him to go on a lead in a garden, would it be worth re-vaccinating when the time comes?


Not in my opinion, no. He is only at risk if exposed to outdoor cats that he scraps with, and even then the risk is low.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Whereas we can't ever say there is no risk transmission of FeLV is mainly through direct contact eg prolonged mutual grooming sessions. Shared food and water bowls may also present a risk if one cat in a household has the disease. It can't be picked up by taking your cat out on a harness whether in your garden or anywhere else. A cat which escapes is unlikely to encounter a friendly strange cat and engage in behaviour which would pose a risk. They are FAR more likely to get in a fight - the very scenario which could lead to them becoming infected with FIV. There's no vaccine for that.


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

havoc said:


> the very scenario which could lead to them becoming infected with FIV. There's no vaccine for that.


There is outside the UK, again it's not a vaccine my cats get. The vaccine is around 80% effective.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

moggie14 said:


> I'm pretty sure a cat cannot 'catch' FeLV at the vets and I'm also sure it's not something you can 'bring in'. Cat flu for example is a different story which is why the core vaccines are more important.
> My train of thought is that we probably over vaccinate anyway so an indoor cat that has no contact with an outdoor one really doesn't require FeLV. My vet agreed with me.


I meant that even indoor cats need core vaccinating ( some owners think not necessary). I vaccinate against FeLV for the whole litter, you never know when an owner may have a change of circumstances and drop out at the last minute, so a kitten destined for an indoor only home might end up going to an inside/outdoor home by the time they actually leave. I'd prefer to hand over a fully vaccinated kitten, rather than one partly vaccinated, with advice to do again with FeLV. You don't have to use Purevax, other vaccines exist for FeLV, but as far as I know Purevax is the only one which covers chlamydia as well, useful for kittens going to homes with other cats, especially if indoors/outdoors. They don't really need that one kept up once adults, but I like to give my kittens as much protection as possible before they go home. I know other breeders will disagree and say it's too much for the system, but this is what my vets recommend and the whole bunch are good. The only vet there I really never got a good relationship with left very quickly after his arrival, I don't think he did anything wrong as such, but didn't really fit the practice.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

spotty cats said:


> There is outside the UK, again it's not a vaccine my cats get. The vaccine is around 80% effective.


If there was a vaccine available, even one 80% effective, against a killer disease why would you not vaccinate? Don't understand. Unless the vaccine itself causes a really bad reaction in a very large % of cats?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_If there was a vaccine available, even one 80% effective, against a killer disease why would you not vaccinate?_
Because the efficacy balanced against risk isn't always worth it. It would be like vaccinating all UK babies against yellow fever because they might one day travel abroad to a part of the world where it's needed.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _If there was a vaccine available, even one 80% effective, against a killer disease why would you not vaccinate?_
> Because the efficacy balanced against risk isn't always worth it. It would be like vaccinating all UK babies against yellow fever because they might one day travel abroad to a part of the world where it's needed.


Spotty cats said the vaccine was available outside the UK, but wasn't one her cats got even though 80% effective. Spotty cats is from Australia, I put 2 and 2 together and assumed as she posted about it and was outside the UK it was an option in Australia which she has chosen not to take up. No, I wouldn't vaccinate a British baby against yellow fever, to use your example, but I'd sure as heck vaccinate a baby living in an area where the vaccine was needed. I'd have thought an 80% efficacy rate for a killer disease was pretty good, and if the FIV vaccine was available in the UK I'd be talking to my vets about it, as we have FIV in the UK.


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

havoc said:


> Because the efficacy balanced against risk isn't always worth it. It would be like vaccinating all UK babies against yellow fever because they might one day travel abroad to a part of the world where it's needed.


Exactly, thank you.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_and if the FIV vaccine was available in the UK I'd be talking to my vets about it, as we have FIV in the UK._
And I wouldn't because we don't have it anywhere my cats are. Free roaming cats are potentially at risk but when you consider how many cats go through my local RSPCA centre and how few test +ve for FIV or FeLV the stats speak for themselves. If all rescues tested we could get even better data.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _If there was a vaccine available, even one 80% effective, against a killer disease why would you not vaccinate?_
> Because the efficacy balanced against risk isn't always worth it. It would be like vaccinating all UK babies against yellow fever because they might one day travel abroad to a part of the world where it's needed.





spotty cats said:


> Exactly, thank you.


So to be clear, Spotty cats is not using a vaccine which is 80% effective against FIV because her cats would need to travel to a different part of the world to need it, like in the example Havoc gives about vaccinating British babies against Yellow Fever? That makes sense. Of course if the disease and her cats were in the same country that would be completely different.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

For me it's a risk/benefit thing. If your cat is going to live a life of minimum risk then why overload the immune system of a small kitten. I fully understand and approve of an owner vaccinating against FeLV if they intend to let their cat wander. Where I get a touch suspicious is where a buyer wants the kitten vaccinated along with the core vaccines - especially when it isn't part of a breeder's normal protocol. Why do it at that point unless they intend to allow that kitten out from day one? Even breeders who are happy for their kittens to go to indoor/outdoor homes surely expect them to be kept safe inside for some considerable time before being allowed to roam.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _and if the FIV vaccine was available in the UK I'd be talking to my vets about it, as we have FIV in the UK._
> And I wouldn't because we don't have it anywhere my cats are. Free roaming cats are potentially at risk but when you consider how many cats go through my local RSPCA centre and how few test +ve for FIV or FeLV the stats speak for themselves. If all rescues tested we could get even better data.


It only takes one infected stray to infect a whole neighbourhood of unvaccinated cats. And breeders' kittens can go all over the country. Who is to say that because the kittens in Kent and Norfolk settled well into their indoor homes, the one who went to Warwickshire didn't escape one afternoon and get beaten up by the neighbourhood bully? Or an infected stray come into another area stowed away in a builder's van? In my opinion, if a vaccine is available we should use it. It might mean doing it at slightly different times to other vaccines, but it should be done, so a breeder can say " I've done the absolute best I can to protect my babies from future illness".


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_In my opinion, if a vaccine is available we should use it._
The joy is you can do as you please with your kittens based on your own experience - as can other breeders based on theirs.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> For me it's a risk/benefit thing. If your cat is going to live a life of minimum risk then why overload the immune system of a small kitten. I fully understand and approve of an owner vaccinating against FeLV if they intend to let their cat wander. Where I get a touch suspicious is where a buyer wants the kitten vaccinated along with the core vaccines - especially when it isn't part of a breeder's normal protocol. Why do it at that point unless they intend to allow that kitten out from day one? Even breeders who are happy for their kittens to go to indoor/outdoor homes surely expect them to be kept safe inside for some considerable time before being allowed to roam.


There is a difference between allowing a cat to be indoor/outdoor and " intending to let their cat wander" or "being allowed to roam", which implies owners having no concern about what happens to their cats whilst outside. However, this has been done before. I personally vaccinate against FeLV before kittens go home, even though I don't want them "wandering" or even "roaming" until a lot older, and neutered. But it's a safety net in case they do, same as insurance - I don't plan on any of my kittens getting stolen either, or having a car accident on the way to their new owners' house, or getting their tail shut in a door...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_There is a difference between allowing a cat to be indoor/outdoor and " intending to let their cat wander" or "being allowed to roam",_
Either an animal is contained within your own property or it isn't whichever term you choose to use. I see them as interchangeable - if a cat can wander it can roam.


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

Catharinem said:


> So to be clear, Spotty cats is not using a vaccine which is 80% effective against FIV because her cats would need to travel to a different part of the world to need it, like in the example Havoc gives about vaccinating British babies against Yellow Fever? That makes sense.


Oh for heavens sake, feel free to add an Aussie twist on havocs post, the end meaning is the same

You are aware a cat given the FIV vaccine then tests positive for life? Which can be a death sentence in itself

My cats don't free roam, nor are they mated to moggies as yours are, so I've no need to vaccinate for 'everything', as this vaccine isn't available in your country I can't understand why you're so up in arms about it


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> So to be clear, Spotty cats is not using a vaccine which is 80% effective against FIV because her cats would need to travel to a different part of the world to need it. Of course if the disease and her cats were in the same country that would be completely different


@spotty cats is this true there is no FIV in Oz as Catharinem said here?


----------



## chloe1975 (Mar 17, 2013)

I have always vaccinated kittens against Felv before going to their new homes as part of the 'package', I think a lot of owners expect it and would be surprised if you didn't include it. However it is not something I would be prepared to vaccinate my own cats against, to me it is vaccinating for the sake of it and I don't want my cats loaded with unnecessary just because I can. In the same way I don't routinely vaccinate all my cats every year anyway only 3 yearly at most. In terms of if its available should we give it? No not in my opinion. I believe cats immune systems are being compromised all the time through over medication but that's my opinion. In the same way for humans you can have a flu vaccine every year, it doesn't mean you should! In terms of Felv I believe the incidence is around 1-2% of cats may be infected if un-vaccinated and of those around half will mount an immune response to clear it so we are talking about very small numbers. If a cat is allowed to free roam there are far bigger dangers.

As others have pointed out what one breeder chooses to vaccinate against is up to them. Back to the OP and I wouldn't be alarmed if someone asked for them to be vaccinated against it. As I said lots of people buying a pedigree kitten would ask if it was included. It doesn't necessarily mean anything sinister, it might just mean they have done some looking into it and think that kittens are routinely given it. I wouldn't automatically think it is a sign they plan to let it outside.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

spotty cats said:


> Oh for heavens sake, feel free to add an Aussie twist on havocs post, the end meaning is the same
> 
> You are aware a cat given the FIV vaccine then tests positive for life? Which can be a death sentence in itself
> 
> My cats don't free roam, nor are they mated to moggies as yours are, so I've no need to vaccinate for 'everything', as this vaccine isn't available in your country I can't understand why you're so up in arms about it


I don't think an FIV positive cat, identified as belonging to someone by a microchip, could be PTS, especially if it had SNAP test results showing it was negative for FIV on the date of vaccination ( after all, a SNAP test is good enough evidence of being FIV free for stud owners). We've had the indoor/outdoor debate on here so many times now, some cats just aren't happy with enclosures, but it's not relevant to the current thread. Neither is the pedigree/moggy snipe. I'm not taking everybody and their cousin's moggies to mass produce cross breds for a whacking stud fee, I on one occasion mated my daughter's (indoor only), health tested moggy queen to my own (indoor only - yes indoor, not stuck in a breeding run) stud to produce cross bred kittens born with me there and homed within the family. We offered a home for life should they need it, and they have now returned home to me anyway ( and yes, they are neutered). I would always choose to give any kittens, whether moggies, pedigrees or even an experimental cross, the best start in life and the best protection going forward. I would say again, an owner asking for FeLV is a perfectly normal, responsible owner, unless other evidence points otherwise.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There are some breeders who don't believe overloading a kitten's immune system for no good reason *is* giving it the best start in life. That's their opinion just as you have yours and it's just as valid.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Catharinem said:


> I would say again, an owner asking for FeLV is a perfectly normal, responsible owner, unless other evidence points otherwise.


In many cases yes, I do think it is perfectly normal for prospective owners to ask about FeLV vaccination and have their doubts about the breeder if the answer is no, I do not FeLV vaccinate my kittens. Only a small proportion (I believe) have a secret agenda about letting outside a kitten/cat where the breeder has asked (because that's all a breeder CAN do) 'indoor only please'. But the former aren't necessarily well informed. Until my kittens leave my home they are my kittens; what the owner chooses to do vaccination wise afterwards is beyond my control. And as the previous poster said, I consider that I'm doing the best for my kittens by not vaccinating those that will be indoor only for FeLV and discussing with the owner the merits of FeLV vaccination, which brand, the timing, whether yearly boosters really ARE required, etc, if the kitten is eventually to be allowed outdoor access.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_is this true there is no FIV in Oz as Catharinem said here?_
No it isn't. The point being made was that there is no FIV in the areas Spotty expects her kittens to frequent such as their new homes and their own catproof outdoor areas. A breeder considers that along with the claimed efficacy, 80% means the vaccine doesn't take at all in one out of every five kittens, and the protection afforded on those it does. FeLV and FIV are two diseases which require a very specific set of circumstances for transmission. They can't be picked up off the vet's table, they can't be brought in on your shoes, you need contact with an infected cat and in the case of FeLV they talk about 'prolonged' contact..


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _is this true there is no FIV in Oz as Catharinem said here?_
> No it isn't. The point being made was that there is no FIV in the areas Spotty expects her kittens to frequent such as their new homes and their own catproof outdoor areas. A breeder considers that along with the claimed efficacy, 80% means the vaccine doesn't take at all in one out of every five kittens, and the protection afforded on those it does. FeLV and FIV are two diseases which require a very specific set of circumstances for transmission. They can't be picked up off the vet's table, they can't be brought in on your shoes, you need contact with an infected cat and in the case of FeLV they talk about 'prolonged' contact..


I didn't say there was no FIV in Oz, I was pointing out that the example " you might as well vaccinate every baby in England against yellow fever" was an irrelevant and ridiculous comparison to vaccinating against FIV which DOES exist. Sorry, tone of voice can get lost in typing. Spotty cats may feel confident in not vaccinating her cats, may feel her enclosures are 100% secure and all her kittens owners will follow any sales contract to the letter ( generally regarded as unenforceable once the kitten has gone home. And if she found out a kitten had got out/been let out would she take it back through legal routes? Would she blood test it upon it's return, before taking back into her household?). Even if her kitten's new owners are the best people in the world, do everything right, there is the POSSIBILITY of kittens/cats escaping. If a vaccine exists I see it as a safety net. Nobody wants the kittens they home to ever be in danger, ever get poorly, but it happens. All we can do is give them the best headstart we can. I appreciate giving an extra FIV vaccination could be a strain on a young kitten, which is why I said (post 31) _" if a vaccine is available we should use it. It might mean doing it at slightly different times to other vaccines, but it should be done,"._


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

An 80% effective vaccine is a rather leaky safety net IMHO. It also precludes testing returning cats, as you won't know the difference between those where the vaccine was effective and those which have the disease.


----------



## Squeaks (Oct 16, 2014)

OrientalSlave said:


> An 80% effective vaccine is a rather leaky safety net IMHO.


I look at the 80% effective and think that's not bad, is that wrong? If I had been told I had cancer but there was a drug that might cure it with an 80% chance of success, I would be quite optimistic about surviving. Am I looking at this the wrong way?! 



havoc said:


> There are some breeders who don't believe overloading a kitten's immune system for no good reason *is* giving it the best start in life.


I'm interested in this as our two kittens came with FeLV which was our breeders standard practice and I didn't even think to question it, in fact at the time I saw it as a sign of a good breeder. Is there any evidence to indicate how many kittens have immune system overload when given the FeLV alongside the core vaccines? I'm guessing in 13 years our breeder never saw a case as otherwise she might think twice about giving the FeLV?


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

I don't think there's research, but some breeders have anecdotal evidence where their kittens have had a reaction to the vaccine. Mind you, plenty of us have evidence of reactions when it's just the core vaccine, so difficult to justify it from that point of view. It's just horses for coarses I think. I wouldn't think a breeder was bad if they didn't do it.

As far as the 80% goes, yes it's a good statistic, but the thing that would worry me is that every cat that is vaccinated will test positive for the disease, so unfortunately, if your cat ever got picked up by a rescue etc and was tested, there's a high possibility that they would be PTS if found to have the positive test, and even if not it would severely limit their choice of home as they would have to be homed with other FIV positive cats. Furthermore, if that cat was going out to stud, a snap test would show a positive FIV result, meaning that lots of stud owners wouldn't have you in.

Then if your cat gets sick, how do you know whether it's in the 80% category or the 20% one if it tests positive regardless? Bit of a dilemma really.


----------



## Squeaks (Oct 16, 2014)

Thanks carly87 (missing the Thanks button)!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'd say the majority of novice breeders would either vaccinate for everything possible or follow their mentor's protocol. As time goes on breeders start to learn about the transmission of the different diseases and work out what they consider the best protocol for their kittens. I used to use Pentofel which was a five way all killed vaccine and never had a problem. Issue one there is that killed vaccines are considered less effective than modified live ones and I considered the core vaccines so important that I changed to live. I still included the FeLV which is always a killed vaccine (except in Purevax where it's recombinant). This cocktail caused reactions in my kittens and going back to core only live vaccines was smooth sailing. So - am I a bad breeder for wanting maximum protection for the diseases a cat is most at risk from? You'd believe so if blanket vaccinating for everything possible is the mark of a good one.

Would I use Purevax if my vet kept it? Maybe. Her attitude is that whenever anything new comes out she's happy to wait until there's data from a few million doses in the field first unless there is significant risk from waiting. For the same reason my dog only gets the L2 and not the newer L4 so she is consistent


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> I'd say the majority of novice breeders would either vaccinate for everything possible or follow their mentor's protocol. As time goes on breeders start to learn about the transmission of the different diseases and work out what they consider the best protocol for their kittens. I used to use Pentofel which was a five way all killed vaccine and never had a problem. Issue one there is that killed vaccines are considered less effective than modified live ones and I considered the core vaccines so important that I changed to live. I still included the FeLV which is always a killed vaccine (except in Purevax where it's recombinant). This cocktail caused reactions in my kittens and going back to core only live vaccines was smooth sailing. So - am I a bad breeder for wanting maximum protection for the diseases a cat is most at risk from? You'd believe so if blanket vaccinating for everything possible is the mark of a good one.
> 
> Would I use Purevax if my vet kept it? Maybe. Her attitude is that whenever anything new comes out she's happy to wait until there's data from a few million doses in the field first unless there is significant risk from waiting. For the same reason my dog only gets the L2 and not the newer L4 so she is consistent


That's interesting, when the L4 came out our vet offered, indeed actively advertised it to all dogs at their surgery, 2 vaccines for only the price of 1 when dogs came round to their booster, or if owners wanted to take up the offer early (i.e. before boosters would have been due). They actively ENCOURAGED owners to take advantage of better protection available to previously. So you used to use all killed vaccine for your kittens, changed to live but included (or added on?) killed FeLV? If that cocktail caused problems I would try the Purevax, which has the core vaccines and FeLV vaccines tested to be injected together, so cross reactions have already been ironed out. I'd have to go back through my records, but I've been using Purevax a couple of years now I'm sure, it's not a recent thing, your vet should have formed an opinion by now if she's been actively watching the vaccine's progress rather than sitting back and waiting for owners to research it for themselves and ask her to order it.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Does your vet still keep the L2 for those who don't want/need to change? As far as I'm aware the extra two strains in the L4 are not a problem in the UK. If you take your dog abroad with you then it makes sense.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I've been using Purevax a couple of years now I'm sure, it's not a recent thing,_
When you've been breeding for over four decades a couple of years is recent


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> Does your vet still keep the L2 for those who don't want/need to change? As far as I'm aware the extra two strains in the L4 are not a problem in the UK. If you take your dog abroad with you then it makes sense.


 You are aware wrong:

from this page (Feb 2015) http://www.sheptonvet.com/new-leptospirosis-vaccination/:

You may have seen the recent news coverage regarding new cases of the Letospirosis disease in the dog population.
Leptospirosis is a bacterial condition that can affect the liver and kidneys, which can cause severe illness in dogs.
Annual vaccinations already provide cover for a number of different strains of Leptospirosis and because of high take-up of vaccinations, we experience a low prevalence of this disease in the UK.
Over the past year, some dogs across the UK have been suffering from a new strain of Leptospirosis, which has not been covered in the traditional vaccine. To compensate for this, a new vaccine has been created to include this additional strain.
Although the risk to patients is still LOW, we have taken the decision to start using this upgraded version of the Leptospirosis vaccine in order to provide the most up to date protection for our patients.

and link to this: http://www.future-of-vaccination.co.uk/leptospirosis-disease-canine.asp

and this, from Aug 2013 : http://www.mypetonline.co.uk/vets/vet-life/vets-welcome-new-weapon-against-'lepto'










_Robert _takes up the _story_: "The most shocking things about Max's story for me was when I realised he was suffering from a form of _Leptospirosis that was not preventable with the vaccines available at that time. We were defenceless in the face of this disease.
_
*New vaccine against Leptospirosis*
_"However, there is good news. The practice has recently received our first stocks of an innovative new Leptospirosis vaccine that not only defends our patients against the older strains of the bacteria, but also protection against newer emerging strains as well.

"At Companion Care Vets we have always believed in offering the very best protection available to our pets, so not only are we one of the first practices in the country to use this new vaccine, we have also made it available to all our patients, at no extra cost!"

Lisa adds: "Had this new vaccine been available last year we could have quite simply prevented Max from his long week of illness and suffering."_

My vets are well ahead of the game, and I follow their best advice. I guess they'd still get the old L2 if requested, some vaccine better than none, but why would you ask for less protection if the price is absorbed by the vaccine companies and the vets? It's not just about where your dog holidays, but where the dog that walks in the same woods as you holidays. This is now a risk in Britain, I think your vet should get a move on and use it.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _I've been using Purevax a couple of years now I'm sure, it's not a recent thing,_
> When you've been breeding for over four decades a couple of years is recent


And when vaccines, and disease strains move on as fast as they do, 2 years is a long time to sit and wait for more data! We cross posted, I've written an answer to Lepto that you should def read and digest.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'll let my vet know your opinion. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to make this so rude and pointed at individuals. You are entitled to your opinion but you don't seem to allow the same courtesy the other way round. It's either your way or it's wrong.


----------



## QOTN (Jan 3, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> _" if a vaccine is available we should use it. It might mean doing it at slightly different times to other vaccines, but it should be done,"._


What exactly do you mean by the word 'should?'

This thread contains plenty of reasoned argument both for and against the idea of Felv vaccination and the various options if a breeder chooses to use the vaccine, which was the gist of the original question. I think you stated elsewhere you had not been breeding long. (Was it 7 years?) Plenty of the breeders posting here are far more experienced than you yet they do not try to insist people follow their advice.

I am guessing from the level of your argument that you have not read many? any? of the research papers written on Felv vaccination?



Catharinem said:


> So you used to use all killed vaccine for your kittens, changed to live but included (or added on?) killed FeLV? If that cocktail caused problems I would try the Purevax, which has the core vaccines and FeLV vaccines tested to be injected together, so cross reactions have already been ironed out. I'd have to go back through my records, but I've been using Purevax a couple of years now I'm sure, it's not a recent thing, your vet should have formed an opinion by now if she's been actively watching the vaccine's progress rather than sitting back and waiting for owners to research it for themselves and ask her to order it.


The only Felv vaccines available in this country are killed or recombinant which is very similar. The research I have seen suggests that the recombinant vaccine is not as effective as some others but, as always, the individual has to weigh the risks and benefits in their particular circumstances. The reactions Havoc's kittens displayed may have simply been overload as has been stated earlier.

I have not looked at the Purevax datasheets recently but when the recombinant vaccine was introduced, Purevax were not allowed to claim it would prevent persistent viraemia as they had hoped. If you know the vaccine has now been changed to a more effective form, it would be helpful if you showed chapter and verse instead of simply telling everybody what their course of action 'should' be.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I have not looked at the Purevax datasheets recently_
I have. I check often as I was very interested in it when first introduced. If all the core vaccines were live I'd have been even more interested


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> I'll let my vet know your opinion. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to make this so rude and pointed at individuals. You are entitled to your opinion but you don't seem to allow the same courtesy the other way round. It's either your way or it's wrong.


Sorry some people are taking this personally. Your vet has a sit and wait attitude to Purevax for kittens' FeLV vaccinations, the same attitude which he/she apparently holds for the L4 vaccine in dogs, which I hope they will now consider using. My vets are very open to new ideas. I appreciate that 7 years breeding experience isn't a lot compared to some who have been doing it for decades, but I hope in return you can appreciate that bacteria and viruses mutate a heck of a lot faster than we can breed for a particular trait in cats or dogs. Where it might take years to select for a certain trait in a careful breeding program of cats, bacteria and viruses can change direction in the blink of an eye, and we need to be ready for them. There is a constant battle between animal and disease, and I can't see how we can afford to not look in new directions for protection. Not every breeder who has been breeding for years is the best example of good practice ( I wouldn't be advertising as sticky eyes being a fairly common problem for instance - I'll have to go back and check thread, but raised my eyebrows at the time). Ditto not every newcomer is a moron. I have in other posts said " I stand corrected", I'm very happy to change my opinion if evidence is provided that I can come to the same conclusion over .


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Nobody wants you to change your opinion if you are happy with the conclusions you've drawn from your experience. It's you who believe everyone should fall in line eg I state I prefer to use live core vaccines and you tell me I should use Purevax.


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

Well this has certainly caused some ... "debate"!!!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> Nobody wants you to change your opinion if you are happy with the conclusions you've drawn from your experience. It's you who believe everyone should fall in line eg I state I prefer to use live core vaccines and you tell me I should use Purevax.


Not exactly. You said you used to do for FeLV, but that killed vaccines weren't as effective as live. You swapped to live vaccines with FeLV included or added on, it wasn't clear (hence my question in brackets), and thought that caused a reaction. I said IF that cocktail causes problems " I would try" Purevax. See below:



Catharinem said:


> So you used to use all killed vaccine for your kittens, changed to live but included (or added on?) killed FeLV? If that cocktail caused problems I would try the Purevax, which has the core vaccines and FeLV vaccines tested to be injected together, so cross reactions have already been ironed out.


I have never said you should use Purevax, I've said if a vaccine is available against a killer disease it should be used. Purevax is one of several vaccines available to combat FeLV, I merely suggested you try it and see if it worked for you. Sometimes I get the opinion people argue for the sake of it, because they have already made up their minds, and take offence first and read afterwards.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

What's the point in me reverting to a killed core vaccine?


----------



## QOTN (Jan 3, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> I have never said you should use Purevax, I've said if a vaccine is available against a killer disease* it should be used*. Purevax is one of several vaccines available to combat FeLV, I merely suggested you try it and see if it worked for you. Sometimes I get the opinion people argue for the sake of it, because they have already made up their minds, and take offence first and read afterwards.


There you go again!


----------



## lisajjl1 (Jun 23, 2010)

I also vaccinate all kittens with live core vaccines, but dont do felv as standard protocol but see there is a justification for felv vaccination for a kitten who may come into likely contact with felv if the risk element is actually there.

What I can't see a justification for is that just because a vaccine is in existence I should give it as standard regardless of whether there is any possible risk of the kitten ever encountering the particular virus or not. 

If we are talking about the needs of individual kittens going to individual environments then to me, my way of doing it and just to add my own view of it is that it seems sensible to do anything additional to the core vaccines on an individual basis based on risk and likelihood as I also weigh up the risks of the vaccine itself. 

Of course everyone has their own way of doing things that they have based on knowledge and practical experience so might not think along the same lines.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

What I can't get my head round is not wanting to use a vaccine routinely against a killer disease, but taking each kitten on a case by case basis, not vaccinating those you don't think will come in contact with the disease. That seems fine, if you apply the same logic to early neutering. The problem I have is when people weigh up the risks of an additional vaccination against a killer disease a kitten could very well come across, versus the risk of early neutering operations before the kitten has even left its breeder. It seems to me more of a risk for a kitten to be exposed to disease (even accidently, on a one off occasion) than to be bred from by a back yard breeder, yet to me, the risk of vaccination complications seem smaller than the risks of surgery. I happily vaccinated my children ( researched MMR first), but was terrified when my youngest had to have a tiny operation on her thumb (trapped in a door- ouch!). I guess it's just our own perception of risk/benefit. For the moment my own vet is still happy with our vaccination/early neutering decision, but I will keep reviewing it.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

You can't, most of us can.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

OrientalSlave said:


> You can't, most of us can.


That's what worries me, lack of consistency. Don't vaccinate because it probably won't happen, but early neuter "just in case".


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Catharinem said:


> The problem I have is when people weigh up the risks of an additional vaccination against a killer disease a kitten could very well come across


I can't speak for others but that is my point, or rather the reverse of it. The vast majority of kittens I have bred/placed in a new home could NOT "very well come across (FelV)".

Besides which, the two, early neutering and what to vaccinate against are completely separate issues, each weighed on their own merit. I honestly fail to see what is inconsistent about deciding there is a small risk of a kitten you sell being bred from and at the same time deciding that the risk of it contracting FeLV is virtually nil and not FeLV vaccinating as a result.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

There's a lack of consistency in attitude to risk taking. Risk to a cat of accidental disease exposure higher than risk of being homed to a BYB with careful choosing of new owners (even you say the "vast majority" of your kittens won't be exposed to FeLV, leaving open the possibility that some, unprotected by vaccination, will be). Risk of complications greater for surgery than for an injection. We're not going to agree, same as I've been banging heads against other breeders about abortions too, but as long as I'm in agreement with my vets, which I have the greatest respect for, I can live with it.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Why does what you consider inconsistency wind you up so much?


----------



## lisajjl1 (Jun 23, 2010)

In the nicest possible way and not meaning to cause any offence I can only say if I was banging heads with so many experienced breeders....unrelated in any way as in this case, then it might be time for a little self reflection.

One thing I have learned in over two decades of breeding is that there is always a breeder with better knowledge than you or your vet.....experienced breeder knowledge is invaluable, freely imparted and often ignored at your own peril. I continue to learn from those more experienced, knowledgable and well read on vetinary issues than me who are happy to give me their time to try to help me.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

What's the issue on abortions?

Perhaps the problem here is that you let your cats go to homes where they can and do go outside, if I'm not mixing you up with someone else! In those circumstances for you, there is a very real risk that they may contract FeLV, but for many of the rest of us, we sell with contracts which state that the kitten will be indoor only. I'm playing devil's advocate here as I vaccinate against FeLV currently, but it's something I re-evaluate each year, and I do give owners information re that once it's done at the 1 yearly booster point, it won't need done again as by that point they normally mount an immune response to it. Why do I do it? For a few reasons. Kittens are Trixie little squirts, particularly mine. Because they're so bomb-proof and, hyes, stupid, they have no respect for anything and will quite happily zip through a front door even though you try your best not to let it happen. Chances are that every one of them would come back when called, but I choose not to take that chance. Does that make me right and everyone else wrong? I don't think so, hence my re-evaluation of the risks vs benefits every year. So far, not one of the cats I've rehomed have escaped, never mind escaping for any length of time, and even then they'd have to be quite friendly with another cat before the risks of FeLV are a real wonder.

I also do it because I can't guarantee that firstly, any pre-existing cats don't have it, and secondly, whether their older cats go outdoors and could contract it.

Lastly, I FeLV my own breeding cats because I can't guarantee the stud doesn't have it. Where I can, I choose matings where they will be supervised and not allowed to run together, but that's not always possible so again it's a risk prevention for me.

Many might say my cats are over-vaccinated, and to be hoenst, I don't know if I could put a strong case together to say they weren't. I do what I do because it makes me comfortable, makes me feel that I've done the best possible for any kitten. Others don't FeLV vaccinate because they fele that what's best for that kitten is not to overload the immune system and risk what is still a delicate, easily sickened, little creature. how can I say that's wrong, especially as the cat has such a small risk of contracting it in the first place!

Early neutering and BYBs aren't really comparable because there are many more BYBs than there will ever be of pedigrees who contract FeLV, so the risks are much greater.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Catharinem said:


> even you say the "vast majority" of your kittens won't be exposed to FeLV, leaving open the possibility that some, unprotected by vaccination, will be


Which is why I said a few other things in relation to this, earlier in this thread. Namely, that I always discuss FeLV vaccination with prospective new owners and, secondly, that I think it quite normal for folk to ask about FeLV vaccination because some DO ask me before I have a chance to raise the issue myself.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

OrientalSlave said:


> Why does what you consider inconsistency wind you up so much?


Doesn't wind me up, just can't see the logic or emotion behind the decisions made. My degree was science ( biology), and have experience of working both in rescue (wildlife and domestic) and in a scientific environment (including using recombinant viruses to deliver both useful genes and GFP - Green Fluorescent Protein - into cell cultures), long before I started breeding. Yes, have been breeding 7 years, but have studied disease control/transmission, experienced using viruses as vectors etc long before that. The first thing I learnt was to question everything, it's what makes you a good scientist. So, for example, if someone says they can't vaccinate against FIV because the cats then show as positive, I ask myself : why is that different to vaccinating against FeLV, which then shows as negative in a SNAP test? How does the vaccine need changing? How do we increase the efficacy? That's the scientific side of me coming out - it may appear as bloody mindedness, but I'm looking for hard evidence, and will change my opinion if I find the evidence stacks up. I admitted in another thread that I hadn't realised how far behind we were on elective caesarians for cats compared to humans, and that planned caesarean/spay wasn't a good idea. Then there's the heart, the side of me that fought to prevent a pregnant cat in my care being spayed, and felt guilt when she died for not fighting hard enough. To find people who deliberately breed cats promoting cat abortion is something I find unfathomable. I accepted elective caesarean/spay wasn't an option in the other thread, I am still anti abortion for pregnant cats, both from scientific background of knowing at what stage pain can be felt, and emotional from having had a cat in my care killed like that - and I do mean killed, not died. There's the side of me that took on a nervous aggressive GSD from the same charity as he was going to be PTS for being unhandleable. I felt immense satisfaction taking him back for the open day, as part of an all GSD obedience team. He was my boy, heart and soul, and I saved him, despite being a first time dog owner, in a full time job, taking on a powerful dog who had already been written off. On paper we were completely wrong for each other, but it was the "more experienced" people who were wrong, my gut instinct about him was right, thank God I won that argument. I've spent night after night sat up with orphans or the poorly of one kind or another, willing them to live, and getting a vast majority through. My manager once said I was the most argumentative member of staff he'd ever had, but if something was going to die he'd give it to me - best compliment ever!


----------



## QOTN (Jan 3, 2014)

carly87 said:


> What's the issue on abortions?


Oh dear Carly87, didn't you know that some of us are wicked because we suggest that, for a cat who falls pregnant accidentally barely months after her previous litter, one of the options is spaying in early pregnancy to protect the girl's welfare? We are sanctioning tearing kittens out of the womb and leaving them to die.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

lisajjl1 said:


> In the nicest possible way and not meaning to cause any offence I can only say if I was banging heads with so many experienced breeders....unrelated in any way as in this case, then it might be time for a little self reflection.
> 
> One thing I have learned in over two decades of breeding is that there is always a breeder with better knowledge than you or your vet.....experienced breeder knowledge is invaluable, freely imparted and often ignored at your own peril. I continue to learn from those more experienced, knowledgable and well read on vetinary issues than me who are happy to give me their time to try to help me.


 Absolutely, a lot of good breeders out there, and many of them very helpful. Happy to reflect and take things on board, as I accepted elective caesareans were not as advanced for cats as for humans, so my advice to think ( only think, after discussion with vet) about caesarean and spay for pregnant cat on another thread was not appropriate. I said " I stand corrected". Still doesn't mean I agree with abortion though, and will continue to disagree with those breeders who advise it, especially as the person wanting advice had asked for help in preparing for the kittens, not advice in how to get rid of the pregnancy.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

QOTN said:


> Oh dear Carly87, didn't you know that some of us are wicked because we suggest that, for a cat who falls pregnant accidentally barely months after her previous litter, one of the options is spaying in early pregnancy to protect the girl's welfare? We are sanctioning tearing kittens out of the womb and leaving them to die.


And the cat is bound to bleed to death...


----------



## QOTN (Jan 3, 2014)

OrientalSlave said:


> And the cat is bound to bleed to death...


Without question, if this happens to one cat, the 'scientific' view is that it will inevitably happen to all.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Please don't mock, when I have already stated many times that I lost a cat under my care this way. If you wish to promote aborting a cat who already has a rounded belly there is nothing I can do to stop you, although I find it abhorrent, for the unborn kittens as well as the potential danger to the mother, and will continue to say so. You do yourself no favours in your flippant regard for a serious and emotive subject. I assume you would consider me making jokes about stillbirth or kittens from maiden queens dying in their sacs to be distasteful? If you want the respect you think due to you as breeders who have been around for longer ( I won't say "more experienced" in a rounder sense), behave like you deserve it and treat the subject itself with a bit of respect, this is a forum (a meeting place for minds) not a school playground.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Having an emotional response to an issue that you have yourself had a bad experience of I can understand would colour your thinking. Having a scientific background, as you have mentioned in regard to spaying a pregnant cat, doesn't 'trump' other people's views on the matter. I'm sure you would agree that doctors and vets have a scientific background. A great number of these are prepared to abort a human foetus or a litter of kittens for the sake of the health of the mother. My own vet regularly spays, free of charge for two local shelters, cats in the earlier stages of pregnancy where the health of the mother is poor and/or where it's understood she had recently given birth to a previous litter. It's not something that anyone takes pleasure in doing but many judge it to be the best course of action and hold the opinion, as does my own vet, mother first, unborn kittens second.


----------



## QOTN (Jan 3, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> Please don't mock, when I have already stated many times that I lost a cat under my care this way. If you wish to promote aborting a cat who already has a rounded belly there is nothing I can do to stop you, although I find it abhorrent, for the unborn kittens as well as the potential danger to the mother, and will continue to say so. You do yourself no favours in your flippant regard for a serious and emotive subject. I assume you would consider me making jokes about stillbirth or kittens from maiden queens dying in their sacs to be distasteful? If you want the respect you think due to you as breeders who have been around for longer ( I won't say "more experienced" in a rounder sense), behave like you deserve it and treat the subject itself with a bit of respect, this is a forum (a meeting place for minds) not a school playground.


This is becoming ever more ridiculous. I deny I am flippant with regard to serious subjects. (I think the word 'emotive' is suspect and will not entertain it.) I certainly did not belittle the case of the cat who died. I think I said it was a tragedy and I would hate any cat to suffer at all if it can be prevented. However dying is not necessarily the worst that can happen to any creature. It depends entirely on the manner of its death.

Frankly, I have no preconceptions concerning the amount of respect due to me. Do you honestly consider this is why most of us post on this forum? I expect the rest of us just want to help others if possible. We have all relied on others in the past and try to share our 'experience.' I use that word advisedly and since you know nothing about any of us, your rudeness is far worse than any teasing you may suffer. If you think we are mocking you, (you, please note, not the situations,) it is only because gentle hints seem to fall on deaf ears. You cannot have one rule for the rest of us and a different one for yourself. (Oh dear, I am reminded of trying to reason with my son when he was little.) Inconsistency is one of your constant accusations yet you do not seem to recognise it in yourself. I suppose it could just be a generation gap but I would ask you to be less dictatorial in the tone of your posts if possible.Evidence can often be more persuasive than verbal battering. I am sure you would then find people more receptive.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

gskinner123 said:


> Having an emotional response to an issue that you have yourself had a bad experience of I can understand would colour your thinking. Having a scientific background, as you have mentioned in regard to spaying a pregnant cat, doesn't 'trump' other people's views on the matter. I'm sure you would agree that doctors and vets have a scientific background. A great number of these are prepared to abort a human foetus or a litter of kittens for the sake of the health of the mother. My own vet regularly spays, free of charge for two local shelters, cats in the earlier stages of pregnancy where the health of the mother is poor and/or where it's understood she had recently given birth to a previous litter. It's not something that anyone takes pleasure in doing but many judge it to be the best course of action and hold the opinion, as does my own vet, mother first, unborn kittens second.[/QUOTE
> 
> I don't believe that "having an emotional response" has coloured my thinking, as my science background has reached the same conclusion as my emotional gut instinct in the case of mid- late neutering as per the thread (5 weeks is by no means "early"). My emotional reaction would be to not spay in pregnancy at all, my scientific brain can overrule my emotions for foetuses which have not reached the stage of development as to be able to feel pain. I can also appreciate that on a subject like this, or vaccination, or keeping indoors/outdoors, or any other subject which creates strong arguments, different breeders, indeed different pet owners, will have different views. What I find unprofessional is the mocking/jokey attitude of a few members who behave more like a gang of school bullies than reasonable, compassionate breeding representatives. Losses of queens or kittens are not the butt of jokes, neither is illness, but the subject of abortion seems to attract ridicule and snide comments.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Can I remind everyone not to get into this sort of personal argument. Debate is fine and everyone is entitled to their opinion without the need for the belittling of others. The thread has gone so far off topic that I am going to close it now.


----------

