# PDSA new policy ... only allow one pedigree



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Apologies if this has been posted but has everyone read this?

Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service

"The charity has become increasingly concerned by the growing number of clients actively acquiring more than one pedigree pet without fully considering the implications of doing so."

Not sure what to think? Or the real reasoning behind it?

Any thoughts?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I don't think it should be just pedigree pets, they should limit to one pet, full stop, unless in extreme emergencies that you find yourself in.

Too man people buy pets without looking into what it's going to cost them. If you can't afford one pet and need the PDSA to help, why go and buy another one?

Doesn't make sense.

Now if you already have 2 or whatever and then find yourself in need of help through circumstance it's a it different but so man people abuse the system that I can't say I blame them.


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

Very Strange so as long as a client as 1 pedigree and 2 x-breeds it's ok. 

Whats the Difference? 

so if a client has 2 peds and 1 x-breed they have to chose which one is to be treated by the PDSA? 

I can't understand the logic myself.


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> I don't think it should be just pedigree pets, they should limit to one pet, full stop, unless in extreme emergencies that you find yourself in.
> 
> Too man people buy pets without looking into what it's going to cost them. If you can't afford one pet and need the PDSA to help, why go and buy another one?
> 
> ...


I agree but Why just 1 pedigree? when people can Still register 3 pets?  Whats the difference between a pedigree or a x-breed receiving treatment?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

snoopydo said:


> Very Strange so as long as a client as 1 pedigree and 2 x-breeds it's ok.
> 
> Whats the Difference?
> 
> ...


It's all a bit strange and I'm not really sure of the underlying reasoning? Might it be because they are getting people breeding? Not sure on their policy of caring for pregnant bitches? They certainly should not be expected to shoulder cost for planned matings


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

snoopydo said:


> I agree but Why just 1 pedigree? when people can Still register 3 pets?  Whats the difference between a pedigree or a x-breed receiving treatment?


Thats what I mean, it's stupid. Make the rule for one PET only, regardless of pedigree?

Wnder if it's a backhanded way of them trying to stop breeding for money?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> It's all a bit strange and I'm not really sure of the underlying reasoning? Might it be because they are getting people breeding? Not sure on their policy of caring for pregnant bitches? They certainly should not be expected to shoulder cost for planned matings


As far as I know they don't fund treatment for pregnancy related problems


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

This will disuade people from adopting pedigrees from rescues.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> As far as I know they don't fund treatment for pregnancy related problems


It's difficult, because they shouldn't be expected to ... but you wonder what happens to all the poor bitches mated whose owners can't or won't pay for veterinary care ...

I am sure they have their reasons, just not clear on the site. I would imagine supporters will be told more perhaps


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I think its stupid personally as I dont know how they can tell if an animal is full pedigree my Pumpkin looks maine coon but he is just a Maine Coo n Cross and I know this 110% as I have his mum. But i do feel people over use the system I never will though


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> It's difficult, because they shouldn't be expected to ... but you wonder what happens to all the poor bitches mated whose owners can't or won't pay for veterinary care ...
> 
> I am sure they have their reasons, just not clear on the site. I would imagine supporters will be told more perhaps


I looked at it & I couldn't work it out either, it does say people can contact them at the bottom of the page with any queries
Not sure how I stand re: their policy on pregnancy, they're damned if they do & damned if they don't as paying for it is encouraging the unscrupulous to breed even more, but not paying could condemn animals to death


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> This will disuade people from adopting pedigrees from rescues.


Why?

It's not saying you can't have a pedigree just not more than one. But the thing is if you can't afford the dog in the first place you shouldn't be adopting it.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> I looked at it & I couldn't work it out either, it does say people can contact them at the bottom of the page with any queries
> Not sure how I stand re: their policy on pregnancy, they're damned if they do & damned if they don't as paying for it is encouraging the unscrupulous to breed even more, but not paying could condemn animals to death


I think there is definately a reason behind it and probably something that they have given much thought to, I was just a bit puzzled to 

It's going to be difficult in some instances to decide what is pedigree and what is not, given all the badly bred pups and kittens out there :nonod:

Guess this decision is a sign of the times ....


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Why?
> 
> It's not saying you can't have a pedigree just not more than one. But the thing is if you can't afford the dog in the first place you shouldn't be adopting it.


all i will say to that is things change at the time of adoption you may have been able to afford everything reasons beyond your control may stop you though and you may need help.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

what i dont get is, now a days cross breeds can often cost more then pedigrees.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

It'll be that old chestnut.....

That apparently all pedigree pets are dying horrible deaths and all crossbreeds are spritely healthy things.
Using their logic crossbreeds won't need treated as much as pedigrees. Now they're just encouraging people to fund crossbreeders instead of reputable breeders


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

I am guessing that it is premised on something like that of health insurance premiums for pedigree animals versus mixes? 

If it isn't along those lines then I don't have a clue.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I reckon it's because either they have been treating more pedigrees in their hospitals than crosses and mongrels or that they consider them to be prone to being more unhealthy as on their website they have info on pedigree health problems.

This may also she some light on the changes though not sure how recently said it was made after they suspended involvement with kennel club:


"The PDSA currently employs nearly one thousand veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and support staff at its 47 PetAid hospitals and branches across the UK. They are faced by the consequences of unacceptable dog breeding practices on a daily basis. These include serious health issues brought about by inherited conditions and through compliance to breed standards.
PDSA Director of Veterinary Services, Richard Hooker, said: &#8220;We believe change is needed in the way pedigree dogs are bred. Specifically, breeding should put the dogs&#8217; quality of life before appearance and this must be reflected in the show ring. Our decision reflects the weight of opinion within our charity and among our supporters. It is consistent with our Long Live Pets campaign and sends a clear message that pedigree dog breeding needs urgent review.&#8221;

Mr Hooker added: &#8220;We welcome the Kennel Club&#8217;s recent efforts to improve the health status of pedigree dogs and will support these with our input and expertise wherever possible. We believe that our position is entirely consistent with that of the veterinary profession, including the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association.

Good standards

&#8220;PDSA will require evidence that real and sufficient progress is made in the quality of life for dogs before reconsidering this decision. While we acknowledge that most dog breeders do observe good standards, this step will help to send a very clear message to all: that the initiatives undertaken by the Kennel Club to work towards improving the health status of pedigree dogs must be taken on board, through their agreement to revised breed standards.&#8221;


----------



## hobo99 (Aug 18, 2008)

I thought the thinking was that people who can afford to spend large amounts of cash on a pet should also have the funds to look after it , and hopefully it would make people think about adopting even if its from a breed rescue it would be helping an animal in need .


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

It's pedigree racism..... So what happens if you got 3 Pedigree Dogs and you Suddenly lose your job ( happens Daily to folk at the mo) And you need to registered them with the pdsa until you are back on your feet.....

How would you choose which one to register?


----------



## morsel (Dec 22, 2010)

Might aswell take your pet to the butcher for treatment as take them to the PDSA. How come only people on housing benifit can go? (at least that is what I was told). They're the ones that don't have to pay rent or mortgages. What about people that don't claim housing benefit but are still on low incomes. Seems to me that PDSA are a bit stupid. If what I have been told is right. Wouldn't trust them with any pet. Not even one.


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

morsel said:


> Might aswell take your pet to the butcher for treatment as take them to the PDSA. How come only people on housing benifit can go? (at least that is what I was told). They're the ones that don't have to pay rent or mortgages. What about people that don't claim housing benefit but are still on low incomes. Seems to me that PDSA are a bit stupid. If what I have been told is right. Wouldn't trust them with any pet. Not even one.


Have you had a bad experience with them?


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I dont get what they mean TBH. I mean my Chihuahuas have no other breedds in their make up but i dont have any official paperwork for them so i assume they arent pedigree, right? Then whats to stop people lying about it??


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

morsel said:


> Might aswell take your pet to the butcher for treatment as take them to the PDSA. How come only people on housing benifit can go? (at least that is what I was told). They're the ones that don't have to pay rent or mortgages. What about people that don't claim housing benefit but are still on low incomes. Seems to me that PDSA are a bit stupid. If what I have been told is right. Wouldn't trust them with any pet. Not even one.


You shouldnt believe everything you are told


----------



## classixuk (Jun 6, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Apologies if this has been posted but has everyone read this?
> 
> Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service
> 
> ...


I'll be honest...I haven't read through all the replies yet Amethyst, and to boot, I've had 2 glasses of wine since writing my last thread, "The Scheme". It might cloud my judgement (both the wine and the emotions) but I am 98% in agreement with the PDSA.

I'll tell you why, using an analogy.

If I had kids and suddenly found myself on a dodgy estate surviving on benefits, I can assure you that I wouldn't plan for any more kids until I could afford to give them a better future. In my opinion, it wouldn't be fair on the kid if I did.

Sometimes though, kids are unplanned. They happen.

Pets aren't.

Pure-bred pedigree pets are expensive. Much more expensive than a comparable pet from a rescue shelter. Why take on another if you cannot even afford to pay a vet for the ones you already own? It's called being selfish.

You need to pull yourself up by the boot-straps and look reality in the eye. You cannot look after an animal if you can barely look after yourself.

I'm not sure how the PDSA will react to a newly 'poor' family with 4 Siamese and 3 Dachshunds, but perhaps if that family had been more careful with their money they wouldn't be using up the PDSA's resources in the first place?

Life is about priorities. I would say that I am "comfortably wealthy". Yet, when I think of taking on a second "Paddy", I think about the fact that my garden may not be big enough, I think about the fact that I might get sick and not find enough time to exercise 2 large dogs, I think about the fact that I need to sort out the junk-room first (as I'll never have time after taking on a second dog), I think about the grooming costs/vet costs/equipment costs etc.

No second animal of mine (pedigree or not) will put up with less love, affection, attention or devotion than the first ever did. I have thought it through, and that is why I am still with one dog.

To get a second/third/fourth animal for any other reason would be to suit your own needs above that of the animal.

And to draw a circle to get back on (or off) the tangent I threw out earlier , I feel the same about having kids.

Blah blah....classixuk had 2 glasses of wine and sprouted off a load of sh1t...LOL......hopefully I make as much sense half drunk as I do when sober...if I even do make sense then anyway.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

wtf that's ridiculous. An animal is an animal regardless of it's pedigree. They all deserve a chance.


----------



## Rubyted (May 24, 2011)

The problem is they just can't afford to pay for all the animals that are being taken in. 

People DO knowingly get more pets than they can afford because the PDSA will bail them out. These are the type of people to breed their pets to make a quick buck and will use the PDSA so they don't eat into their profit!  These are the people who don't give donations towards their care.

Already the poor people who have fallen on hard times are suffering due to the selfish BYB and hoarders. They NEED to do something or they'll just have to close up shop. They can't continue like this. Not only does it put people off donating, but it's giving them a bad name.

Maybe they should only treat animals that are spayed and neutered. (and if not then it should have to be payed for by the owner.) If a c-section comes in then they should only treat them if the owner agrees to have them spayed at the same time. They should be made to pay for the puppies jabs themselves. It'd be hard to enforce.....but surely anything to put these people off breeding would be better than now! Then even the people breeding these so called "designer dogs" will feel the strain!

As I'm relatively new on this forum I won't go into details, but at the moment I am on benefits. (through no choice of my own, I might add.) I have never once used the PDSA or similar. Even when my rabbit paralysed his legs and cost over £700 in vets fees over the course of a few months. I set up a payment plan with my vets and went without myself. (He has since made a full recovery, thank goodness.)
Mia is insured, so we don't have that kind of shocking expense with her. (Courtesy of my BF, as we share ownership.)
These things CAN be payed for if you fall on hard times...but maybe the number of animals you have should be considered before you fall on hard times. Consider what would happen IF the worst should happen!


----------



## sailor (Feb 5, 2010)

The PDSA might be constantly having to treat poorly bred unheatlthy pedigree dogs.

And I would assume this is because those who use their services are buying pedigree dogs from the back yard /puppy farm breeder because they are cheaper.

I thought you was only allowed to register 2 pets at the PDSA anyway and no animal that was used for breeding/pregnant would be treated.

Its not fair on the pets I know, but if they don`t put their foot down they wouldn`t beable to afford to treat anything, because the donations they recieve from the owners compared to treatments charged can be shocking !

Clearly the PDSA are facing problems with pedigree animals and treatments charged/donations given, else I doubt they wouldn have changed their rules.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Tbh I think there should just be a minimum treatment of pets in one household anway despite the breed/species.

When I was training to be a vet nurse we ran PDSA funded programmes & constantly had 'clients' turn up with yet another pet that needed treatment despite already having the maximum number registered. 

It was always our fault when they were told the animal wouldn't be treated for free, us who were uncaring & cruel for not just dishing out free medication & our fault if the poor dog/cat was going to be dumped in a rescue becuase the owner thought that all their pets would get PDSA treatment if they kicked up enough fuss - used to make me so angry


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I`ve got 4 Rescue dogs. Three were `unrehomeable` due to issues and one is an RSPCA foster who I doubt will ever leave. 
Because 3 qualify for PDSA treatment (I`m on a pension) I have them on Accident / Public Liability insurance only, which is affordable. 
I will now change this. I`m trying to work out how to pay for it now....
BTW before the Mail readers leap at my throat - only one of the dogs has ever required to visit, and that was to be weighed for flea spot-on, which I pay the going rate for. 
I have always paid the proper rate for treatment from the PDSA. It`s the inflated Insurance prices I have trouble with. 
This is pedigree-bashing. The PDSA vet actually stated that Pedigrees are unhealthy.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

snoopydo said:


> It's pedigree racism..... So what happens if you got 3 Pedigree Dogs and you Suddenly lose your job ( happens Daily to folk at the mo) And you need to registered them with the pdsa until you are back on your feet.....
> 
> How would you choose which one to register?


Just what I was thinking, or some sort of inverted snobbery. Why would a crossbreed cost less to feed and treat than a pedigree? As you say, if you already have pedigrees are you expected to give them up?

Could they not be reported to the Race Equality people? Of course not; they are only dogs/cats.

Bloody pathetic prejudice if you ask me.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

DKDREAM said:


> all i will say to that is things change at the time of adoption you may have been able to afford everything reasons beyond your control may stop you though and you may need help.


But that is slightly different than adopting one when you know you don't have the funds. By saying that the PDSA's policy will see a rise in pedigree dogs in rescues seems to imply that people that won't adopt them because they can't afford to pay their vets bills. Well to me that means you shouldn't have a dog or adopt one full stop.



hobo99 said:


> I thought the thinking was that people who can afford to spend large amounts of cash on a pet should also have the funds to look after it , and hopefully it would make people think about adopting even if its from a breed rescue it would be helping an animal in need .


My point exactly, there's a massive difference between knowingly being unable to afford a dog and finding yourself a few years down the line or whatever stuck because of your circumstances.

It might be unfair, yes, but I agree with other posts as well. You PLAN to get a second pet. We found ourselves stuck not so long back when OH lost his job but touch wood our 2 were ok, and we have insurance.

For me if you can't afford the bare minimum to feed, care and provide for your pet, REGARDLESS of pedigree, then you should NOT have one and NOT expect to be able to have one because the PDSA will bail you out. It should be for emergencies only, not a lifeline to enable you to keep a pet.

Be interesting to see the reaction had they said they won't treat crossbreeds.

Probably be getting a big, fat "told you so..." or a leap for joy about how it will stop people buying crosses from BYBs...


----------



## Doolally (Oct 12, 2010)

I don't work for the PDSA (thankfully, I couldn't do it), but I think the reason behind it is its INCREDIBLY frustrating someone saying 'I can't pay for my pets treatment, put it to sleep' then next week they pull up in their audi with their new pedigree bulldog. A lot of people on benefits, entitled to cheaper veterinary treatment, have pedigree pets that have cost them 100s up to thousands of pounds, but then they're saying they cant afford to treat x,y,z, can't afford to insure it etc etc and are happy to let the PDSA pay for it, then the next week they'll go get another chihuahua for example when they could have spent that money on veterinary treatment.....if you can't afford the vet you can't afford the pet


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Doolally said:


> I don't work for the PDSA (thankfully, I couldn't do it), but I think the reason behind it is its INCREDIBLY frustrating someone saying 'I can't pay for my pets treatment, put it to sleep' then next week they pull up in their audi with their new pedigree bulldog. A lot of people on benefits, entitled to cheaper veterinary treatment, have pedigree pets that have cost them 100s up to thousands of pounds, but then they're saying they cant afford to treat x,y,z, can't afford to insure it etc etc and are happy to let the PDSA pay for it, then the next week they'll go get another chihuahua for example when they could have spent that money on veterinary treatment.....if you can't afford the vet you can't afford the pet


That's my point.

Huge difference between doing this KNOWINGLY and then finding yourself stuck though because circumstances change...which I think is the point some are making above.

But then you can argue and ask what insurance is for?

Hmmmm, its a tough one. Clearly the PDSA have their reasons though, something has pushed them to do it.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> I`ve got 4 Rescue dogs. Three were `unrehomeable` due to issues and one is an RSPCA foster who I doubt will ever leave.
> Because 3 qualify for PDSA treatment (I`m on a pension) I have them on Accident / Public Liability insurance only, which is affordable.
> I will now change this. I`m trying to work out how to pay for it now....
> BTW before the Mail readers leap at my throat - only one of the dogs has ever required to visit, and that was to be weighed for flea spot-on, which I pay the going rate for.
> ...




Now that really is prejudicial. I have two pedigrees, both the same breed from the same breeder. One is as strong as an ox, never had a thing wrong with him, the other costs me a fortune in vets bills. So where do they get that logic?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Why?
> 
> It's not saying you can't have a pedigree just not more than one. But the thing is if you can't afford the dog in the first place you shouldn't be adopting it.


For example someone has a pedigree cat ... may have been a rescue or bought in more afluent times 

They lose their much loved and missed elderly Staffy, who they gave a great home to despite being eligible to use the PDSA.

Finding they so very much miss their old Staff and being aware of the dire rescue situation, they feel in a position to adopt another from a rescue. Some people on benefit actually do have a little savings you know 
Or maybe their son/daughter offers to pay adoption fee ...

But on realising that they will be unable to seek assistance from the PDSA, they pass by all the Staffs and ones that look like Staffs ... and adopt a mongrel looking mongrel ... which is lovely ... but the Staffs miss out on a precious home 

It might strike you as horrifying, but many rescue do and will adopt animals out to people who are on benefit as long as they are happy that animal is going to be well cared for 

There are people receiving benefit who could not financially manage looking after ANY animal and others who care for more than one very well


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> It might strike you as horrifying, but many rescue do and will adopt animals out to people who are on benefit as long as they are happy that animal is going to be well cared for


Doesn't strike me as horrifying at all, so stop putting words in my mouth, but sorry but I don't agree that people should be adopting animals if they have to rely on an external body to ensure their care.

If you have an animal and find yourself suddenly unable to care for it due to the circumstances that today's society is in, and lets face it, that's becoming increasingly often then that's a whole different ball game than knowingly going out and buying one knowing you need help to treat it.

That to me is irresponsible.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> If you have an animal and find yourself suddenly unable to care for it due to the circumstances that today's society is in, and lets face it, that's becoming increasingly often then that's a whole different ball game than knowingly going out and buying one knowing you need help to treat it.
> 
> That to me is irresponsible.


Better an owner can give a good home, providing all the love and security a dog/cat could need ... though needing some help with vet fees IF they are needed ... than dogs are destroyed as their are not enough people to adopt them 

Just my opinion and way of looking at it of course


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

Stab in the dark but could it be that pedigree have a tendency to certain ailments whereas crossbreeds may not inherit them? 

Seems a rather odd policy indeed.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Better an owner can give a good home, providing all the love and security a dog/cat could need ... though needing some help with vet fees IF they are needed ... than dogs are destroyed as their are not enough people to adopt them
> 
> Just my opinion and way of looking at it of course


But my opinion and way of looking at it is that what about all those people that work then, that could give a 2nd, 3rd or 4th dog or cat the love it needed, but can't afford it. What about them?

They make a responsible decisions based on what they can afford. Why should anyone else be any different?

Perhaps the funding should be channeled into allowing rescues to do a "loan" scheme, kind of like the ILPH do with horses, where by if the owner find themselves in a struggle or what not with vets fees, the rescue will step in, but then it ONLY applies to rescues and stops the issue of people buying animals on a whim and buying more than they can afford.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> They make a responsible decisions based on what they can afford. Why should anyone else be any different?


But this may stop people who have lost a much loved dog, adopting another one.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm not saying people on benefits can't be good owners or always rely on PDSA help but I think for some people they do get an animal & expect free treatment to be provided simply becauce they are on benefits & can't afford the treatment otherwise. 

Personally I think it is wrong to get an animal if that's the case, the PDSA or any scheme which entitles to to assistance should be used for emergencies only or when times are difficult - not all the time just because you do not have an income.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Interesting stats on their site:

Approx 8.3 million dogs in UK 31% are crosses and 69% are pedigrees.

Don't know how they got this figure but many of us have wondered what the % of crosses to pedigrees were.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

When the PDSA was first set up is was to help those in need and pet ownership wasn't huge nor diverse like it is today.

The number and types of pets now being bought as pets is huge in comparison.

What with recession and people not donating as much they cannot afford to continue giving away free treatment there have to be some rules.

Sadly many people have abused this in the past.

I do think the PDSA is struggling- didn't they have to look into closing down some centres?

As for why the restriction on pedigrees I commented on that in my first post.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> I'm not saying people on benefits can't be good owners or always rely on PDSA help but I think for some people they do get an animal & expect free treatment to be provided simply becauce they are on benefits & can't afford the treatment otherwise.
> 
> Personally I think it is wrong to get an animal if that's the case, the PDSA or any scheme which entitles to to assistance should be used for emergencies only or when times are difficult - not all the time just because you do not have an income.


But isn't that what the PDSA is ALL about? Providing treatment for those in receipt of benefit who would not otherwise be able to obtain it 

Vet fees are so high now that I think any occaision where vet care is needed, would be classed as good enough reason to use PDSA for someone eligible to use them


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

classixuk said:


> I'll be honest...I haven't read through all the replies yet Amethyst, and to boot, I've had 2 glasses of wine since writing my last thread, "The Scheme". It might cloud my judgement (both the wine and the emotions) but I am 98% in agreement with the PDSA.
> 
> I'll tell you why, using an analogy.
> 
> ...


Re my hi- lighted bit...But you CAN get pedigree's from Rescues...Look at all the pedigree Staffy's the rescues are full of....Sasha my GSD is a pedigree but I paid £50.00 for her so you CAN get unexpensive pedigree's.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> But isn't that what the PDSA is ALL about? Providing treatment for those in receipt of benefit who would not otherwise be able to obtain it
> 
> Vet fees are so high now that I think any occaision where vet care is needed, would be classed as good enough reason to use PDSA for someone eligible to use them


Sorry, what I meant was that you shouldn't knowlingly get an animal & expect all it's treatment for free because you are on benefits.

Schemes like this should be there for people who find themselves in need of help when times are hard not for people who are in already in receipt of benefits & know they are unable to take care of a new pet.

Vets fees are high that's why people should be more considerate when taking on any animal, if you are already struggling financially & are unable to support yourself then I think it is irresponsible to take on a pet & expect free treatment all the time.


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

classixuk said:


> I'll be honest...I haven't read through all the replies yet Amethyst, and to boot, I've had 2 glasses of wine since writing my last thread, "The Scheme". It might cloud my judgement (both the wine and the emotions) but I am 98% in agreement with the PDSA.
> 
> I'll tell you why, using an analogy.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of your post however I think you are being a little unfair on this comment - some families through no fault of their own have become financially disadvantaged for example may have lost their job, early bereavement of breadwinner etc etc, things that you can never really plan for - surely it is better for the family to make every effort to keep their pets as opposed to putting them into rescue? Throughout their working life they have contributed financially to towards the benefits that the 'won't work - can't work brigade get therefore surely they should feel entitled once in a while to seek help from the likes of the PDSA?

On the other end of the scale you see many really poor families owning pets and relying on organisations such as PDSA - you could ask why should they consider a pet? Well the answer is in most cases simple - they cannot live without a four legged friend regardless of whether they are poor or not. Sometimes it's just having the pet that keeps them going.

Point I am trying to make is the PDSA should be there for everyone regardless of whether you have come from an affluent background but have now fallen on hard times.


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

I havent read the whole thread, but due to a drastic change in circumstances I thought I was entitled to PDSA help, but Im not. Regardless, my bf is, and it is a maximum of 3 pets. Now, I wasnt in this predicament when I got the animals (apart from getting Reu, but that was for my safety as much as anything else)

Just this week, I have paid £36 yesterday for my guinea pig who got a hay poke and may need his eye removed (further £200) I have had 2 piggies that cost £300 for treatments, My cat is getting microchipped and urine test today (£56) then may need treatment and my dog is getting an op next month that they cant tell me the cost of. My Naz dog cost me over a thousand in vets treatments near the end of his life. he was a true mongrel.

So, basically my point being I do not understand the pedigree thing. As already pointed out a guinea pig can cost as much as a dog, and a mongrel as much or less than a pedigree.. theres no difference. Plus how will they tell if its a purebred? people will just lie.. dont understand it 

oh and for the person who said about breeding, my PDSA wont help with that, for eg the cat i got when pregnant they wouldnt even see..


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> *But isn't that what the PDSA is ALL about? Providing treatment for those in receipt of benefit who would not otherwise be able to obtain it * Vet fees are so high now that I think any occaision where vet care is needed, would be classed as good enough reason to use PDSA for someone eligible to use them [
> 
> You've hit the nail on the head there..Thats what the pdsa was created for in the 1st place..... I agree with alot of posts BUT....For years it has been 3 pets per person whether it's a Dog, Cat or Rabbit or Guinea, Bird etc So people on benefits should stick to 3 really and if unfortunately they do lose one they are legally ''pdsa rules' entitled to get another as long as they only have 3 registered with them They could'nt get away with registering more than 3 anyway as the pdsa would'nt do it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I wouldn't think it has any thing to do with the cost of the pet but if you look at their stance on withdrawing support from the kennel club ( see my first post on this thread) and that they are highlighting on their website that certain pedigree breeds have health problems my thinking ( could be wrong) is that they feel there are issues around pedigree health and breed standards.

As I have also said maybe they are treating more pedigrees than crosses/mongrels hence why they are restricting to only one pedigree???

Perhaps some-one should contact them and ask and clarify?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Not all people on benefits can claim help from the PDSA anyway. It depends on where you live. I was on housing benefit a few years ago (self employed, low income) but living in a postcode area that was deemed wealthy - so I couldn't claim. Maybe if I had gone to a PDSA hospital, it might have been different, but the nearest one was over 50 miles away.

I can understand they're having to cut back as donations will be reduced in the current financial climate. It does seem unfair to target pedigrees, but as others have said, if some people are abusing the system, just using it for free treatment of expensive, recently acquired pets, something has to change.


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

I dont understand why it is donations anyway? why not have a set amount, and you have to pay that or above? or a minimum donation so people cant get it done for free?

From what I understand the inoculations are no cheaper and the spaying etc is done at a reduced rate.

When I did use PDSA a few years back I always paid. Sometimes I couldnt afford the whole amount, but paid what I could.

I remember a bloke sitting in the waiting room talking about his holiday to ibiza and i just thought WTF!


----------



## Quinzell (Mar 14, 2011)

I think, it comes down to a fact that seems to be becoming more and more evident in this country, and that is that there are individuals out there who abuse the system and see benefits as a way of life and entitlement and these people ruin charities like this for the more genuine, worthwhile cases. A charity, is much like any other business and has to operate within their means to avoid running into financial difficulty. When they hit tough times, just like everyone else, they have to make sacrifices and hard decisions. I guess that looking at how they treat pedigree's is one of the easiest ways of doing it because there is an assumption that a high price has been paid in the first place. Any decision that reduces their level of care, is not going to be popular, but if you were faced with making the cuts, how would you do it? Its not just animal charities that make decisions like this, cancer charities definitely do and I'm sure lots of others are the same. 

I live on an estate that is partially privately owned and partially council tenants. A huge amount of the council tenants drive brand new cars, have huge TV's (you can see in through the windows), and also have pedigree dogs. I personally don't understand how people receiving benefits because they need financial assistance can afford brand new cars, as I know I can't. And I know this happens, because I have friends on benefits who do exactly that.


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

snoopydo said:


> I agree but Why just 1 pedigree? when people can Still register 3 pets?  Whats the difference between a pedigree or a x-breed receiving treatment?


Might be that ped's cost more then cross breeds to buy... So if you can afford to buy one in the first instance.. then you should have the dosh to look after them!!!


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

stigDarley said:


> Might be that ped's cost more then cross breeds to buy... So if you can afford to buy one in the first instance.. then you should have the dosh to look after them!!!


So you have a good, well paid job. Then through no fault o f your own, you lose that job. You still have the time pet you have loved and cared for for X years. What do you do? Kiss it goodbye and hope no-one notices?


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> For example someone has a pedigree cat ... may have been a rescue or bought in more afluent times
> 
> They lose their much loved and missed elderly Staffy, who they gave a great home to despite being eligible to use the PDSA.
> 
> ...


People on benefits having savings.... I would be very upset to find people on jobseekers were able to have savings! They were obviously getting to much money for free!!!

I love the english culture now of letting the hard working few fund the layabout!!


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

alan g a said:


> So you have a good, well paid job. Then through no fault o f your own, you lose that job. You still have the time pet you have loved and cared for for X years. What do you do? Kiss it goodbye and hope no-one notices?


I do this old fashioned thing called saving! I put money away and SAVE it for a rainy day. Maybe try it?


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

stigDarley said:


> People on benefits having savings.... I would be very upset to find people on jobseekers were able to have savings! They were obviously getting to much money for free!!!
> 
> I love the english culture now of letting the hard working few fund the layabout!!


Seriously!?! now maybe if someone had been on benefits all their lives yes..

When I had to leave work due to illness, I had a small amount of savings (which is why I was only able to claim a very small amount of money until they ran out. I have 2 kids and only got £50 a week)

Just because someone is claiming benefits now, does not mean they have never worked or paid taxes!!


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

alan g a said:


> So you have a good, well paid job. Then through no fault o f your own, you lose that job. You still have the time pet you have loved and cared for for X years. What do you do? Kiss it goodbye and hope no-one notices?


Also the longest i have ever been jobless is 3 days and yes i'm 24. I would scrub toilets if i needed to money to look after my babies!


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

mstori said:


> Seriously!?! now maybe if someone had been on benefits all their lives yes..
> 
> When I had to leave work due to illness, I had a small amount of savings (which is why I was only able to claim a very small amount of money until they ran out. I have 2 kids and only got £50 a week)
> 
> Just because someone is claiming benefits now, does not mean they have never worked or paid taxes!!


If someone had been on job seekers all their life then there is something very wrong with them! If you read my post properly it said i would be very upset to find someone had savings from being on job seekers. I was very specific with the benefit.

As I have alot of respect for the genuine people on illness and carer benefit! Hopwever job seekers is a diferent thing!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> Also the longest i have ever been jobless is 3 days and yes i'm 24. I would scrub toilets if i needed to money to look after my babies!


Aren't you lucky? In some parts of the country, people can't even get a job scrubbing toilets. In fact, where I live we have three sets of public toilets and they have closed them all down because there is no money to maintain them.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> If someone had been on job seekers all their life then there is something very wrong with them! If you read my post properly it said i would be very upset to find someone had savings from being on job seekers. I was very specific with the benefit.


But their will be plenty people using PDSA who are in receipt of other benefits than job seekers 

Why be so specific


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

stigDarley said:


> Also the longest i have ever been jobless is 3 days and yes i'm 24. I would scrub toilets if i needed to money to look after my babies!


Thats great that you have been able to do so, but many people cant. Not only are there very few jobs but if you have kids, a mortgage etc then you need a certain amount of money to get by...


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> But their will be plenty people using PDSA who are in receipt of other benefits than job seekers
> 
> Why be so specific


Because if there were less people on job seekers there would be more money for other things... Shock horror my tax bill might be lower. I resent paying for someone to play at look for a job. I feel for the genuine people who do look for work. These tend to be the people on job seekers for a little while then get a job...

Near me there are estates of "job seeker" families. Who come out with stupid comments like my daughter is 16 soon she'll get a flat off the council WTF?!?! I had to get a job and save up to move out!

I resent working hard to pay for layabouts... I was watching Fairy jobmother last night and it made me soooo mad I had to turn the tv off. People on job seekers saying they were to good to get a job at Mc donalds. But they were happy to sit at home on the dole!

I have worked since i was 14 and worked bloody hard at 16 doing 70 hr weeks in one job and 5+ in the other during summer hols. So I resent giving money for free!!

As i said illness and carer benefits are brill. Have alot of respect for them. Infatc I think carer benefits are sickingly low!


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

None of my pets are pedigrees. They would not be treated any better if they were. They get what they deserve. THE BEST. I starve myself rather see them suffer. I have a choice. They don't.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> Because if there were less people on job seekers there would be more money for other things...


Mmmmmmmm ... so how are those looking for work supposed to feed themselves ... local soup kitchen?

There are many genuine people getting job seekers allowance and they and their pets deserve some level of care


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

mstori said:


> Thats great that you have been able to do so, but many people cant. Not only are there very few jobs but if you have kids, a mortgage etc then you need a certain amount of money to get by...


I have a mortgage had one since i was 18... I have a car... I have 2 big dogs and 3 cats... I've had fab paying jobs 30K + Then with the reccestion had to take 15K jobs (which after tax doesn't leave alot!) I made do... cut costs got rid of the virgin... had no treats bought no new clothes stopped wearing contacts all so my babies didn't go without! I would rather work then be given something! I've been made reduntant 3 times in 2 years... trust me I know how hard it is out there. ... I pounded the pavement knocked on doors and doors and didn't stop till I had a job any job!!!


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Mmmmmmmm ... so how are those looking for work supposed to feed themselves ... local soup kitchen?
> 
> There are many genuine people getting job seekers allowance and they and their pets deserve some level of care


As usual you take half a statement I said i feel for the genuine people on job seekers and the genuine ones only need it for a short while then get jobs and pay back to the system.....


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Mmmmmmmm ... so how are those looking for work supposed to feed themselves ... local soup kitchen?
> 
> There are many genuine people getting job seekers allowance and they and their pets deserve some level of care


But then their is always the argument that if your incapacity benefit how can you look after an animal propoerly in the first place?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> As usual you take half a statement I said i feel for the genuine people on job seekers and the genuine ones only need it for a short while then get jobs and pay back to the system.....


No, you feel for the ones that are on job seekers for a short while, many genuine people are now long term unemployed, especially older ones ... tragic


----------



## Dally Banjo (Oct 22, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Apologies if this has been posted but has everyone read this?
> 
> Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service
> 
> ...


:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: Im hopeing this does'nt apply to paying customers our vet is PDSA


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

stigDarley said:


> But then their is always the argument that if your incapacity benefit how can you look after an animal propoerly in the first place?


Im not on incapacity and dont want to go into details of why im ill, but there are plenty of people who are in the same boat as me and plenty with terminal illnesses, people who need supervising due to mental health or fits, etc. There are plenty of reasons other than the old "depression or bad back" then you see them out clubbing or putting up a wall. Yes there are plenty of people who cant work due to bad backs or depression, but when you tell people you are on benefits (which i rarely do btw) there is a stigma attached that you are a waste of space. especially if you live on a council estate.

that does not mean that you should not have pets.

The people who shouldnt have pets are the ones who dont look after them. Who leave them stuck in rooms 24/7 or abuse them etc. That could be someone on jsa or someone who earns £60,000!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

How on earth are they gonna know if the animal is pedigree and registered? Bloody stupid if you ask me they should never turn an animal away whats to stop them setting up a payment system if the owner has multiple animals instead of using the donation system? They would get a hell of a lot more money that way and these poor animals would get treatment.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Their reasoning is well explained
Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service

"*Why does this apply to pedigree pets and not crossbreeds*?
Sadly, pedigree pets often need high levels of care due to inherited illnesses and breed-related conditions. This results in a disproportionate allocation of PDSA charitable veterinary resources, which is neither fair nor appropriate. Generally, non-pedigree dogs and cats don't have the same health issues as pedigree breeds."

It probably is an extension of this in 2008.
pdsa suspends involvement in kennel club events

The PDSA obviously does not feel that enough progress has been made as regards the health of pedigree dogs/cats and is making its stance clear. All charities need to cut their expenses in these tough times and this is the way they have chosen to save money.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

harley bear said:


> How on earth are they gonna know if the animal is pedigree and registered?


"*Which pets are classed as pedigree?*
_Those of a recognisable breed type, whether pedigree papers are available or not._ PDSA PetAid hospital clients who would like further advice on the breed of their pet are advised to speak to their local PDSA PetAid hospital for further information."


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

harley bear said:


> Bloody stupid if you ask me they should never turn an animal away whats to stop them setting up a payment system if the owner has multiple animals instead of using the donation system? They would get a hell of a lot more money that way and these poor animals would get treatment.


Because the idea behind the RSPCA is that the inability to pay ... even the smallest amount ... should not prevent an animal from receiving veterinary care


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

mstori said:


> Im not on incapacity and dont want to go into details of why im ill, but there are plenty of people who are in the same boat as me and plenty with terminal illnesses, people who need supervising due to mental health or fits, etc. There are plenty of reasons other than the old "depression or bad back" then you see them out clubbing or putting up a wall. Yes there are plenty of people who cant work due to bad backs or depression, but when you tell people you are on benefits (which i rarely do btw) there is a stigma attached that you are a waste of space. especially if you live on a council estate.
> 
> that does not mean that you should not have pets.
> 
> The people who shouldnt have pets are the ones who dont look after them. Who leave them stuck in rooms 24/7 or abuse them etc. That could be someone on jsa or someone who earns £60,000!


I think pet ownership is a luxury and with that luxury comes a finacial cost. If the cost can't be met why should the working tax payer who would love to be at home 24/7 to play with their pet or in many cases have the time to get a pet bear the brunt of the cost?

If your poorly and on benefits then I have nothing against the person. The fakers are the ones that annoy me. But when I see my tax bill and then see what some people get up to it makes me a lil sick!

I help my local doles with their CV and job hunting help... but some of them annoy the hell out of me with the attitude that they don't really have to work!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> Because if there were less people on job seekers there would be more money for other things... Shock horror my tax bill might be lower. I resent paying for someone to play at look for a job. I feel for the genuine people who do look for work. These tend to be the people on job seekers for a little while then get a job...
> 
> Near me there are estates of "job seeker" families. Who come out with stupid comments like my daughter is 16 soon she'll get a flat off the council WTF?!?! I had to get a job and save up to move out!
> 
> ...


My 36 year old son was born with brain damage. He couldn't look after himself, wouldn't bother with food and couldn't find his way about unless he was first taught to do so - like he was taught to go to one place on the train, that is the only place he can go.

He gets severe disablement allowance and disability living allowance, but they will only give him disability living allowance at the lowest rate because he's got two working legs, so I can't get carer's allowance.

My life revolves around Ian, and I could not go away overnight or anything like that, but I get nothing extra at all because I have a state pension now, out of which I have to pay a mortgage. If I rented, I would get housing benefit, but they will only pay £25 per week toward a mortgage and then expect me to live on £24, left over from my pension after the mortgage.

I get extremely angry at the fact that I still have to work, whilst they take a huge chunk of that extra money to give to god knows what wasters.

I know how you feel. But don't think that less benefits paid out will make your tax bill go down; they will find something else useless to spend it on.

But I still see no connection with a pedigree animal and a mongrel animal when it comes to vet care.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> "*Which pets are classed as pedigree?*
> _Those of a recognisable breed type, whether pedigree papers are available or not._ PDSA PetAid hospital clients who would like further advice on the breed of their pet are advised to speak to their local PDSA PetAid hospital for further information."


Wow this is going to be can of worms 

I once took a rescue young bitch into vet for neutering, vet wrote Yorkshire Terrier on her card. She was actually a Yorkie cross ... I knew that as fact as we knew previous owner and had also organised spaying of the mother of this bitch.

Mum was a JRT type, their male dog a Yorkie, was father.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Much is explained here, basically it seems to be that they believe pedigrees are going to cost them more to treat ... other reasons less clear 

Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> My 36 year old son was born with brain damage. He couldn't look after himself, wouldn't bother with food and couldn't find his way about unless he was first taught to do so - like he was taught to go to one place on the train, that is the only place he can go.
> 
> He gets severe disablement allowance and disability living allowance, but they will only give him disability living allowance at the lowest rate because he's got two working legs, so I can't get carer's allowance.
> 
> ...


This is what makes me sooooooo bloody mad!!!! My friends dad has a cancer tumour in his head. He's been a selfemployed driving instructor all his life all his family have worked! yet he's been told he should go back to work and won't get benefits!!! Hello the man has CANCER!

You should definalty be getting Carers benefit (although you'd probaly still have to work as it's a bloody disgrace at the amount!!!)

The fact your son has two working legs shouldn't mean he gets lesser befits!!!! sooo stupid!!!

This i why I get sooooo bloody mad at the scroungers and wasters! Even if my tax bill went down if say carers benefits went up or the nhs waiting list was reduced i'd feel better!!!


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

stigDarley said:


> I help my local doles with their CV and job hunting help... but some of them annoy the hell out of me with the attitude that they don't really have to work!


The way things are set up is that for many people the dole is as good as it gets, they are not going to be brain surgeons or heads of industry, they are unlikely to get any sort of "good" or well paid job, whether that is because of lack of education, lack of intelligence, lack of self esteem, lack of drive, lack of opportunity or just lack of luck. So if they are not that fussed then the dole is better than slogging their guts out for very little in dead end jobs and who can really blame them?
I used to think that everyone should work, but real life is not about fairy tales, for most it is an existence and for those whose expectations are so low then I am not so critical as I used to be.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> This is what makes me sooooooo bloody mad!!!! My friends dad has a cancer tumour in his head. He's been a selfemployed driving instructor all his life all his family have worked! yet he's been told he should go back to work and won't get benefits!!! Hello the man has CANCER!


Many people with cancer are actually well enough to work. Many want to work, my husbands colleague worked for a long time inbetween treatments.

If this guy has been refused benefit and he think he needs them, he should ask for a review of his claim.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> This is what makes me sooooooo bloody mad!!!! My friends dad has a cancer tumour in his head. He's been a selfemployed driving instructor all his life all his family have worked! yet he's been told he should go back to work and won't get benefits!!! Hello the man has CANCER!
> 
> You should definalty be getting Carers benefit (although you'd probaly still have to work as it's a bloody disgrace at the amount!!!)
> 
> ...


Strangely enough, I am a driving instructor. I was hoping to retire, but found I couldn't manage so have had to go back part time. Your friend should surely not be driving at all with a brain tumour? How is his reactions supposed to be quick enough in this job?

I actually teach a young girl who is on the same level of DLA as my son, and really there is nothing wrong with her. She is a bit slow, but then so are a lot of people. She can read and write and find her way about and is even sensible enough to drive a car.

She can stay in the house alone all week and take care of her and her mother's pet mind business, and feed herself whilst she is at it. And remember to feed the animals, which my Ian certainly wouldn't be able to do.

Don't get me wrong, I am quite fond of her, but it does bug me that Ian gets no more than someone like that.


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Many people with cancer are actually well enough to work. Many want to work, my husbands colleague worked for a long time inbetween treatments.
> 
> If this guy has been refused benefit and he think he needs them, he should ask for a review of his claim.


He's a self employed driving instructor which is whats he's done ALL his life... He can't carry on being a driving instructor safely!!!! So who is going to employ someone with cancer? Oh yes mr Boss man i need to be off work for 3 months for my life saving op but nothing is 100% certain... I could not make it... but please spend your time and money traing me....

Amerthyst I would love to live in your head it all sounds so warm and fuzzy!


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> The way things are set up is that for many people the dole is as good as it gets, they are not going to be brain surgeons or heads of industry, they are unlikely to get any sort of "good" or well paid job, whether that is because of lack of education, lack of intelligence, lack of self esteem, lack of drive, lack of opportunity or just lack of luck. So if they are not that fussed then the dole is better than slogging their guts out for very little in dead end jobs and who can really blame them?
> I used to think that everyone should work, but real life is not about fairy tales, for most it is an existence and for those whose expectations are so low then I am not so critical as I used to be.


Maye if they earned thier own money they would have some self respect... I think if you can work you should.. Even if its a low end job. Why should they have money for free?? :nono::nono::nono:


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Strangely enough, I am a driving instructor. I was hoping to retire, but found I couldn't manage so have had to go back part time. Your friend should surely not be driving at all with a brain tumour? How is his reactions supposed to be quick enough in this job?
> 
> I actually teach a young girl who is on the same level of DLA as my son, and really there is nothing wrong with her. She is a bit slow, but then so are a lot of people. She can read and write and find her way about and is even sensible enough to drive a car.
> 
> ...


It would bug me too!!!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> He's a self employed driving instructor which is whats he's done ALL his life... He can't carry on being a driving instructor safely!!!! So who is going to employ someone with cancer? Oh yes mr Boss man i need to be off work for 3 months for my life saving op but nothing is 100% certain... I could not make it... but please spend your time and money traing me....
> 
> Amerthyst I would love to live in your head it all sounds so warm and fuzzy!


I see your point but many people do work with cancer my dad has had it three times i think now had two major ops and i think he has it again but he still gets up at 6am every morning and gets his arse to work! I may hate my dad with every fiber of my being but i cant knock his work ethic!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> He's a self employed driving instructor which is whats he's done ALL his life... He can't carry on being a driving instructor safely!!!! So who is going to employ someone with cancer? Oh yes mr Boss man i need to be off work for 3 months for my life saving op but nothing is 100% certain... I could not make it... but please spend your time and money traing me....


Then I guess he'll simply have to apply for job seekers allowance if he is indeeed fit to work in some capacity ... just like everyone else.

Doesn't seem fair, but there it is I guess.


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> I see your point but many people do work with cancer my dad has had it three times i think now had two major ops and i think he has it again but he still gets up at 6am every morning and gets his arse to work! I may hate my dad with every fiber of my being but i cant knock his work ethic!


My friends Dad would love to still go to work... but he physically can't do his job and the insurance cost is through the roof! Once he has his op he should be fine and will be back to work.

But no one wants to hire him. Especially while he's waiting for his op date! Plus what is he qualified for? I think its different if you have a employed job whne you get cancer they can't fire you for something like that and have to accomidate the treatment etc! But this is a man thats paid his taxs all his life! never had a day off sick never been off work....

Sorry to hear about your dad!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> My friends Dad would love to still go to work... but he physically can't do his job and the insurance cost is through the roof! Once he has his op he should be fine and will be back to work.
> 
> But no one wants to hire him. Especially while he's waiting for his op date! Plus what is he qualified for? I think its different if you have a employed job whne you get cancer they can't fire you for something like that and have to accomidate the treatment etc! But this is a man thats paid his taxs all his life! never had a day off sick never been off work....
> 
> Sorry to hear about your dad!


Nothing to be sorry for hun hes better off dead imo.

Your friends dad should be supported until he is fit enough to return to what he originally did and if hes not fit enough then he should carry on being supported. Its one thing having an illness and getting help its another having a huge family and claiming for something ridiculous like a bad back and being fit and well


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

harley bear said:


> Nothing to be sorry for hun hes better off dead imo.
> 
> Your friends dad should be supported until he is fit enough to return to what he originally did and if hes not fit enough then he should carry on being supported. Its one thing having an illness and getting help its another having a huge family and claiming for something ridiculous like a bad back and being fit and well


So worng but that did make me chuckle!!!

~This is what i think to about hi getting supported it seems the real people fall through the cracks and the scroungers n fakers gt first dibs!!!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> So worng but that did make me chuckle!!!
> 
> ~This is what i think to about hi getting supported it seems the real people fall through the cracks and the scroungers n fakers gt first dibs!!!


What made you laugh 

I tell you something when my oh lost his job the other year i found it so bloody hard to fill in those forms and find out what we should get my mind boggled. It was the first time we ever did anything like that and it was so bloody depressing! 
Yet the bloody benefit scroungers and bloody immigrants seem to be taught what benefits they can fiddle from birth!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

harley bear said:


> Nothing to be sorry for hun hes better off dead imo.
> 
> Your friends dad should be supported until he is fit enough to return to what he originally did and if hes not fit enough then he should carry on being supported. Its one thing having an illness and getting help its another having a huge family and claiming for something ridiculous like a bad back and being fit and well


You can't get a lot if you have been self employed, despite paying taxes. You can't get unemployment benefit unless you have been fired and you can't get fired from self employment. If there is no work about, tough luck. When I applied for pension cred (changed my mind when I found out how much it wasn't) they wanted my last year's accounts because I was self employed. What the hell has that got to do with them?

Anyway, we are off the topic a bit. Whether people are scroungers or not, I don't see why their pets should suffer. They didn't ask to be born a pedigree, did they?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

stigDarley said:


> Maye if they earned thier own money they would have some self respect... I think if you can work you should.. Even if its a low end job. Why should they have money for free?? :nono::nono::nono:


I am not disagreeing with you, but I do understand the other perspective.
I am not sure spending money assessing, monitoring, helping and training this part of society is really doing anyone any favours. Perhaps they just need left alone to their lives, given minimal support and we can spend more money on training people who really want to work rather than trying to force those who don't want to, will never be any good at it anyway, are basically unemployable and will always be a drain.


----------



## Hiafa123 (May 30, 2011)

I took notice (ok I was being nosey:hand that a lady who came out from seeing the vet with cav king charles puppy under her arm then promptly said that she was entitled to PDSA. I have no idea what treatment the pup had received but she was offering £5. Linda the receptionist told her that there was now a set donation for various treatments and hers was £30. She was not a happy bunny, having to dive into her louis vuitton handbag(could have been a copy!!) and get more cash. I did remark to Linda about it when I came out and she said that it made her blood boil that folk expected PDSA and offer £3 donation when they have just paid £600 for a pup.My vets dont allow the PDSA to pay for 1st and 2nd jabs.

Do you think the ruling is because the amount of donations has decreased.We are all having to look at our pennies and I have had to cut back on the amount of things I donate to.The guy who works with my mum had a DD set up for £5 per month to dogs trust. They rang him about 7 months down the line and asked if he would increase his donation to £30 a month,he refused and they then suggested £25. Brian said that he would be going into his bank the next morning to cancel his DD. They were the losers as they lost out totally.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Their reasoning is well explained
> Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service
> 
> "*Why does this apply to pedigree pets and not crossbreeds*?
> ...


Which is what I said in my first post on here last night ,that is was due to their stance on the Kennels Club and breed standards and cost involved in treating pedigrees, and later today that it was nothing to do with the cost of buying a pedigree.

Not that anyone took any notice- still least I now know I was right in my thinking.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Which is what I said in my first post on here last night ,that is was due to their stance on the Kennels Club and breed standards and cost involved in treating pedigrees, and later today that it was nothing to do with the cost of buying a pedigree.
> 
> Not that anyone took any notice- still least I now know I was right in my thinking.


Sorry, came in rather late to the discussion and did not read all posts.
I see you quoted the KC references.
I most interested to see the pedigree vs the non-pedigree health problems in black and white from the PDSA, as they are at the cutting edge.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Hiafa123 said:


> I took notice (ok I was being nosey:hand that a lady who came out from seeing the vet with cav king charles puppy under her arm then promptly said that she was entitled to PDSA. I have no idea what treatment the pup had received but she was offering £5. Linda the receptionist told her that there was now a set donation for various treatments and hers was £30. She was not a happy bunny, having to dive into her louis vuitton handbag(could have been a copy!!) and get more cash. I did remark to Linda about it when I came out and she said that it made her blood boil that folk expected PDSA and offer £3 donation when they have just paid £600 for a pup.My vets dont allow the PDSA to pay for 1st and 2nd jabs.
> 
> Do you think the ruling is because the amount of donations has decreased.We are all having to look at our pennies and I have had to cut back on the amount of things I donate to.The guy who works with my mum had a DD set up for £5 per month to dogs trust. They rang him about 7 months down the line and asked if he would increase his donation to £30 a month,he refused and they then suggested £25. Brian said that he would be going into his bank the next morning to cancel his DD. They were the losers as they lost out totally.


That's the trouble with these big charities - they are never grateful for what they can get. I once fell for the NSPCC christmas advert and sent them £15, one off, all I could afford and they spent it phoning me up and writing to ask for more! I told them they would never get another penny out of me.

I will put in the charity boxes in shops, animal charities and those for brain damaged children, Mencap and the like, and they don't know where they got it from so they can't pester me for more.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Sorry, came in rather late to the discussion and did not read all posts.
> I see you quoted the KC references.
> I most interested to see the pedigree vs the non-pedigree health problems in black and white from the PDSA, as they are at the cutting edge.


It must be a big decision for them to undertake. First making a stance in Nov 08 with the Kennel Club and now this.......... I mean it could have a detrimental effect on their donations but clearly it is something they feel very strongly about.

I would think that some of the evidence used has been from what they have seen and treated in their own practices and from info gauged from other veterinary practices.

How much dealing they have with breeders is anyones guess- but from their stance with Kennel club it is clear they are wanting to see changes in breed standards.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

It would be interesting to see what the actual figures are of costs of treatments for pedigree compared with mongrels/crosses. It is a very controversial decision for them to make so you would think the difference must be substantial?


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

stigDarley said:


> Also the longest i have ever been jobless is 3 days and yes i'm 24. I would scrub toilets if i needed to money to look after my babies!


I have a daughter older than you. She as never been out of work since she left school, and neither have I.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> But then their is always the argument that if your incapacity benefit how can you look after an animal propoerly in the first place?


Did you see the tv program recenty where they showed a lady (I think she had MS) with a Dog for the Disabled for which she was awarded a carer's allowance? She'd worked out the cost of keeping a dog and applied. It was a lot cheaper than a carer and gave her much more mobility and confidence in going out. Thought it was wonderful.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Pffft how stupid.

Milo is supposedly pedigree labrador but we have no papers, he's not KC registered so would I seriously have to prove he's not pedigree to get him and Rupes treated if needed?

One pet sounds more suitable but even then I think if people fall on hard times and have more than one pet what can you do.

People shouldn't do what my uncle does and refuse to buy insurance because the PDSA will treat my dog for free 

If animals need treating who are they to say no? Who is any vet to say no..? I don't really know what they could do to make this kind of thing better but I'm not really liking it.

Rupert is from health tested parents, his grandma, half sister, Mum and Dad have never had any of the problems he suffers with, so who is it to say its breed related and not just a random canine occurrence? His eyes are good, his hips and elbows are good, he's not ill because I've made him fat which his breed are prone to and could be prevented, so I don't really see it being fair to say one pedigree only. You'd like to think it'd encourage rescuing but who's to say people wont go for a crossbred puppy who also has no parental health tests as opposed to a pedigree with no parental health tests where you have more of an idea what you're looking for?

Rupert is insured and I would do my best never to have to use PDSA resources but it feels like discrimination really, no matter which way you look at it...


----------



## morsel (Dec 22, 2010)

hawksport said:


> You shouldnt believe everything you are told


Who can PDSA help?
Even when it comes from the horses mouth. Lets face it, you get what you pay for.


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Did you see the tv program recenty where they showed a lady (I think she had MS) with a Dog for the Disabled for which she was awarded a carer's allowance? She'd worked out the cost of keeping a dog and applied. It was a lot cheaper than a carer and gave her much more mobility and confidence in going out. Thought it was wonderful.


No didn't see that one! Thats really sweet!!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

stigDarley said:


> No didn't see that one! Thats really sweet!!


I still think that what the ILPH do with rescue horses is one way of looking at the rescue situation with dogs, and the case mentioned here is one way to look at it.

Horse is in rescue, its is "loaned" out to a home, but if the owners can't cope and then struggle with expensive vets bills or what not, the ILPH will always step in and help out. Perhaps something similar should be looked at for the case of the PDSA?

Might stop people buying pets on a whim because they know there is funding out there.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Well there are lies, damned lies and statistics...
The PDSA has had a 50% rise in clients. 
50% of dogs are a`breed`, 
Ergo... to cut numbers and continue making enough to maintain their new hospitals they... er... 
hang on.. slight flaw in logic there? 
So to continue paying for the shiny new hospitals they built in the boom years, they are... no! not closing hospitals! They`re treating fewer dogs. 
Well that makes a sort of sense. 
I feel the anti-pedigree bandwagon is a handy excuse.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> It's all a bit strange and I'm not really sure of the underlying reasoning? Might it be because they are getting people breeding? Not sure on their policy of caring for pregnant bitches? They certainly should not be expected to shoulder cost for planned matings


Maybe they are thinking if someone can afford to go out and buy a ped dog then they should be taking into consideration the health cost too??


----------



## Dackelsgalore (Jun 30, 2011)

I agree that this is "pedigree bashing" brought on no doubt by THAT programme last year. I have a 14 yr old Dachs that has only ever visited the vet for routine worming etc.I have had the breed for many years and wouldn`t have any other.
The PDSA say in their press release that "some clients feel a strong affinity to certain breeds of dog or cat but believe this is a lifestyle choice....not for a charity to support"!! ?
Yet if I buy a puggle,labradoodle or similar(and have you seen the ridiculous prices they fetch?) from untested parents and it develops health problems, the PDSA will treat these but not 3 pedigrees? The charity will lose a lot of support from fundraisers on this issue.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

0


momentofmadness said:


> Maybe they are thinking if someone can afford to go out and buy a ped dog then they should be taking into consideration the health cost too??


Rupert only cost £450 and he was from health tested parents. I see loads of goldens up for £600+ without health tested parents and then you get people like a girl in my year at school who's Mum bread labrador to standard poodle, no health tests £900 

How are they going to prove who is pedigree and who isn't though. Milo is meant to be full lab but we have no papers. He's got funny ears and a few people have said he has too thin a back end to be a lab etc...


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

lauren001 said:


> Their reasoning is well explained
> Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service
> 
> "*Why does this apply to pedigree pets and not crossbreeds*?
> ...


So why don't they exclude hereditary type diseases from treatments, regardless of pedigree or cross - and leave the money for emergencies, surely a broken leg is a broken leg regardless of genes


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> So why don't they exclude hereditary type diseases from treatments, regardless of pedigree or cross - and leave the money for emergencies, surely a broken leg is a broken leg regardless of genes


Seems like common sense.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Didn't common sense go out with the bath water?


----------



## Petloversdigest (Dec 10, 2010)

Doesn't insurance cost more for pedigree dogs? As this is an industry which is always aware of its bottom line, I would assume that the average lifetime cost of treating pedigrees is greater than crossbreeds, and the PDSA, like all of us I guess, are just trying to get their limited resources to go as far as possible. It really is an ethical minefield when you start to look at these decisions more closely, and I wouldn't want to be at managment level in any of the animal charities right now as the recession really starts to bite.


----------

