All Headlines >>
The figures highlight the burden placed on veterinary surgeons every day when they're asked to euthanise perfectly healthy animals.
Problem behaviours include persistent barking and howling, destructive chewing and inappropriate toileting. Aggressive behaviour, towards both people and other pets, is also a problem, with the PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) report revealing that a third of pet owners have been attacked or bitten by a dog. Such behaviours can cause a breakdown of the human-animal bond, leading to pets being excluded from family life to the detriment of their welfare, relinquished to rehoming centres or euthanised.
The BVA says these figures overwhelmingly show the importance of adequate socialisation of animals at an early age – young animals should safely encounter a variety of people, animals and everyday household sights and sounds in their first few weeks and months of age, beginning at the place where they are born.
Other reasons that owners give their veterinary surgeon for wanting to euthanise a healthy pet included: poor health of the owner (48%), owners moving to accommodation that is unsuitable for their pet (39%), and legal enforcement reasons (32%).
British Veterinary Association President Sean Wensley said: "These figures are stark and are likely to come as a shock to members of the public. But this is the sad reality of a failure to socialise animals from the earliest possible age – a specific time in a puppy’s development which has a significant impact on their future temperament and behaviour. With dogs, this process starts from before a puppy is even seen by a potential owner. In recent months there has been a litany of news stories about the illegal importation, breeding and trading of puppies through puppy farms. This is no way for a family pet to start life and we urge potential owners to thoroughly research where a puppy has been born and reared, using the AWF/RSPCA Puppy contract to help. Then, in the first year of ownership, and especially in the first few weeks, work with your local veterinary practice to ensure your puppy is introduced to everyday sights and sounds, including other people and animals, in a safe and structured way."
Mr Wensley also commented on the impact on vets: "Nobody enters the veterinary profession wanting to euthanise healthy pets, but this is the stressful situation that many vets are facing because of undesirable behaviours in pet animals. Vets will do all they can in these situations to avoid euthanasia, including offering evidence-based behavioural advice, referring to accredited pet behaviourists or assisting with rehoming through reputable rehoming organisations, but sometimes these options are not appropriate, particularly where the behavioural issues make it extremely difficult to rehome the animal. Vets are not required to euthanise healthy animals at an owner’s request, but sometimes, having carefully considered all options and given the circumstances the pet finds themselves in, it may be in an animal’s best interests to do so. Euthanising an animal who could have been a loving pet is the hidden, tragic cost of poor socialisation."
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.
PSA-David My understanding (right or wrong) is that some internet companies are able to source drugs at a vastly discounted price, compared to what practices (especially smaller independents) can buy at.
But again, that's not really the point, because the issue here is the total cost to the owner, which includes the consultation fee. If the consultation fee is low, then the £38.14 mark up you are talking about is perfectly reasonable!
I'm not arguing for high mark ups. I'm just making the point that they are only part of the equation and cannot be looked at in isolation.
but what you have to consider it how internet companies can get their cost so low. Do practices need to keep 3 weeks worth of stock in practice. should a vaccine that is bout for 4.86 be charged out at £43?
PSA-David Then again, should veterinary surgeons be allowed to charge less than a plumber for a consultation?!
My point is that product mark up is surely not really the issue. The issue is the total cost to the owner. If a practice charges £1 for a consultation, then a product mark up of 2000% would probably be OK!
But given the competition from the internet, the direction of travel is increased consultation fees and reduced mark up.
there is the flip side in this, should vets really be allowed to place a 75% mark up on a medicine? which therefore out prices the fees that owners can actually afford¬