OK lets worry about what names people call dogs rather than the huge doses of vaccine they get.

The problem is when people use incorrect twee terms it's hard to believe they have full facts, and looking at some of the "facts" about not vaccinating I stand by that statement.

We need herd immunity to keep our dogs disease free, I will carry on vaccinating until mine are about 10 as I usually do, so I can add to that immunity. My previous chi died from a female cancer caused by my negligence to get her spayed as a pup not something I will ever play around with again, the vaccine had nothing to do with her death it was my fault entirely

Some people are just scared to think they are being given the wrong advice and so will only see advice that reflects their own views. or dismiss other things as quackery I bet if you never had a dog and were thinking about getting one and doing research, you would see different things.

I get it. you are very happy with your vet giving your 5lb dog a dose of vaccine that a 250lb + will also get . you are just not happy that someone who has never owned a small dog didn't know a name..

I really dont know if I should laugh or bloody well cry.

Actually I have done a lot of research over the 30 odd years I have been a dog owner, in that time I came to the conclusion herd immunity is far more important to all dogs and that the small risk to my dog is negligible compared with the diseases we could see rise if we all did as you are doing.

I stop vaccinating between 8 and 10 years old depending on the dog and get them tested for the need to carry on having vaccinations, so far they have all been immune at about 8 years and not needed further vaccines.

Your rants in this thread have never asked any questions to ascertain just what anyone else has done in the field of research. I research as many do and I have an excellent relationship with our vet who will and does discuss all areas of care for both our larger dogs and our tinies. If you have a good vet,and that took some research to find a good one you should be able to have a conversation about what will suit your dog best. I know what suits mine and will continue to do what I consider is the best for them no matter what anyone on the internet says thank you.

I would say like most people (me included) you trust your vet to do what is right and to keep up to date on the latest information. Most do not keep up to date.
I dont care when you researched as long as you do many dont

I'm not ranting I am having a discussion that goes against the grain, a voice in the wilderness so to speak . I know I will be mocked and you know you will be backed up.
( herd mentality ) I just want people to stop blindly trusting Drs and Vets.. and look into it a bit more.
Just because someone on the internet said it, it does not make it untrue.

Herd immunity

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...umphries-md-3/

I'm curious do you have yours tested for immunity as I do, I think more people should do that personally as if they are immune they don't need vaccinating.

Yes I do. I am a bit puzzled if you have your dogs tested why you are still having yearly/two yearly boosters. Very rare for a dog to have lost immunity after a year or two.

I do it when I stop vaccinating, just to be sure they are covered, if the test comes back as needing vaccination I carry on for a couple more years. It's worked well for us so far only one dog has ever been tested as not well covered at 8 and oddly she was quite a small dog so we had thought the larger dose she had been getting would have covered her earlier than the others.

Ah right. Misunderstood there. easy done when not chatting face to face.

No problem as you say can easily happen.

I fear that the underclass scum that steal dogs for a living, would think nothing of taking a blade to a dog, to remove the chip, regardless of the consequences. Their first priority is not getting caught.

While that's true it still doesn't mean the microchips are not useful, round here we had a horrible case where dogs were being stolen for training fighters, they found the removed chips and brought a prosecution against them using that evidence to prove the case. Without the chips it may have ended differently in court as they were very persuasive.

This is one of my concerns.. Not only people who are stealing them, but owners wanting to get rid of a dog might also try take the chip out and if they cannot find it?

I would rather stay uniformed if my dog was stolen, killed as a bait dog and then used as food. .. I would rather go on believing they stole him because they liked him and wanted him. sometimes ignorance is bliss.

For me the cons far outweigh the pros on this one. I would probably think different if the chip had some kind of tracking devise, that would also act as a deterrent imo and give you a chance of finding your dog still alive.