View Full Version : Should negative babesia canis and gibsoni test be a requirement before a show?
evolutionkennels
08-23-2013, 08:47 AM
If we get negative bruscellosis test for a breeding, I think it should be a requirement to do babesia before a show. What good is your grand champion if he dies afterward?
It would be good although 1. the tests are not always correct. 2. you cant just bring any dog to a vet. (scars ect)
If you can it would be smart to do it for yourself, so you wont be surprised in training.
FrostyPaws
08-23-2013, 09:40 PM
Why would your Gr Ch die of babesia after a show unless you choose not to treat the dog? I treat every dog like their opponent has babesia.
Are you saying you always shoot your dogs with berenil before the show? What day?
Officially Retired
08-24-2013, 03:43 AM
Evo, I have to be honest, with all due and considerable respect, I am quite surprised at this post of yours here. But, since you asked, I will provide my honest opinions :mrgreen:
If we get negative bruscellosis test for a breeding, I think it should be a requirement to do babesia before a show.
First of all, brucellosis and babesia are nowhere near similar. If my dog gets brucellosis, it can lose its ability to produce forever. If my dog gets babesia, it loses nothing.
Secondly, not everyone "requires" brucellosis tests before they breed a dog, and likewise not everyone is going to "require" a negative babesia test before a show. I honestly can't think of too many dogmen who "require" brucellosis tests when breeding to each other's dogs, and of all the dog shows I have heard about in my life I honestly can think of no competitor at all who "required" a babesia test before a show. The simple fact is, there is no "governing body" over all breedings to enforce that "everyone" get brucellosis tests ... and, likewise, there is no "governing body" over all shows requiring that "everyone" get babesia tests before they participate. Therefore, the pathology of one person wanting "other people" to do something with their own dogs is, at best, an unrealistic boundary disorder ;)
Thirdly, I am surprised you take this stance at all, seeing as (in the south) babesia is pretty much as common as roundworm, infesting upwards of 70% of the greyhound and bulldog population. I pretty much EXPECT most competitive dogs (in the south especially) to have babesia, and would be quite surprised if there are many Champions out there that have not been exposed to the problem. (Remember, for every 1 dog that "exhibits symptoms" there are 20 that have the disease but do not.)
Finally, if you want to make babesia a requirement before your show, then simply do so :)
(How credible or realistic the expectations of compliance will be, however, is another matter.)
What good is your grand champion if he dies afterward?
I have never had any dog die of babesia, ever, in nearly a quarter-century owning quite a few of them. The only people I know whose dogs have died of babesia are retards who 1) either never heard of the disease before, because they lack the ability/desire to read, or who 2) knew of the disease but were basically lazy dumbasses who lacked the foresight to have the medicine onhand to treat it, and further lacked the wherewithal to simply make an overnight online purchase to have the right meds delivered in time.
Therefore, to be honest, this question smacks more of rabble-rousing inflammatory rhetoric than anything realistic. Maybe back in 1998 I can see this question being posed, when dogmen were first learning of this problem and had no clue.
But today, with all the information that's out there ... and that has BEEN out there for nearly 2 decades ... I honestly can't imagine any competent, knowledgeable dogman in this day and age not having the meds onhand to deal with this (ultimately) very trivial parasite ... or not being able to get ahold of the meds through his contacts within 24 hours. There is simply is no (what I would consider to be) seriously competent dogman who hasn't dealt with this problem many times, and who doesn't know the symptoms/how to handle it effectively immediately.
Jack
evolutionkennels
08-24-2013, 01:15 PM
Evo, I have to be honest, with all due and considerable respect, I am quite surprised at this post of yours here. But, since you asked, I will provide my honest opinions :mrgreen:
It wasn't
First of all, brucellosis and babesia are nowhere near similar. If my dog gets brucellosis, it can lose its ability to produce forever. If my dog gets babesia, it loses nothing.
Secondly, not everyone "requires" brucellosis tests before they breed a dog, and likewise not everyone is going to "require" a negative babesia test before a show. I honestly can't think of too many dogmen who "require" brucellosis tests when breeding to each other's dogs, and of all the dog shows I have heard about in my life I honestly can think of no competitor at all who "required" a babesia test before a show. The simple fact is, there is no "governing body" over all breedings to enforce that "everyone" get brucellosis tests ... and, likewise, there is no "governing body" over all shows requiring that "everyone" get babesia tests before they participate. Therefore, the pathology of one person wanting "other people" to do something with their own dogs is, at best, an unrealistic boundary disorder ;)
Thirdly, I am surprised you take this stance at all, seeing as (in the south) babesia is pretty much as common as roundworm, infesting upwards of 70% of the greyhound and bulldog population. I pretty much EXPECT most competitive dogs (in the south especially) to have babesia, and would be quite surprised if there are many Champions out there that have not been exposed to the problem. (Remember, for every 1 dog that "exhibits symptoms" there are 20 that have the disease but do not.)
Finally, if you want to make babesia a requirement before your show, then simply do so :)
(How credible or realistic the expectations of compliance will be, however, is another matter.)
I have never had any dog die of babesia, ever, in nearly a quarter-century owning quite a few of them. The only people I know whose dogs have died of babesia are retards who 1) either never heard of the disease before, because they lack the ability/desire to read, or who 2) knew of the disease but were basically lazy dumbasses who lacked the foresight to have the medicine onhand to treat it, and further lacked the wherewithal to simply make an overnight online purchase to have the right meds delivered in time.
Therefore, to be honest, this question smacks more of rabble-rousing inflammatory rhetoric than anything realistic. Maybe back in 1998 I can see this question being posed, when dogmen were first learning of this problem and had no clue.
But today, with all the information that's out there ... and that has BEEN out there for nearly 2 decades ... I honestly can't imagine any competent, knowledgeable dogman in this day and age not having the meds onhand to deal with this (ultimately) very trivial parasite ... or not being able to get ahold of the meds through his contacts within 24 hours. There is simply is no (what I would consider to be) seriously competent dogman who hasn't dealt with this problem many times, and who doesn't know the symptoms/how to handle it effectively immediately.
Jack
It wasn't a comparison between the two diseases. In my opinion, anyone breeding to someone's bitch WITHOUT a bruscellosis test is crazy. I recently sent someone back to Florida kicking and screaming for not breeding to Mr. Machobuck. Guess what.. Result came back POSITIVE. The reason I ask before a show is because, it's just as easy to go into a healthy dog, as it is to go into one with babesia, not to mention if YOUR dog has it, he is giving it to the other dog. It's a lot of work to get them in remission. So, everything else being equal.. If I had a valuable dog, and I was hooking into someone for a show, why not ask for a simple babesia test? CH. Reba had a 2x w brother that died with babesia gibsoni that he caught after winning #2. The guys didn't treat him in time. Conversely, unknown kennels whitepaw had shown positive for babesia canis and gibsoni. HE took my advice and treated whitepaw with 45 days of doxycycline to get rid of any coexisting bugs like Elrichia or bartonella, followed by imozol at two week intervals, followed by a weeks rest then the mepron with azythromycin treatment. The dog is now crazy strong and bloodwork is super. He is going for # 3 now. But the question is, having gone through all that, wouldn't it make sense to get a babesia test before the new show, given all the trouble of treating it if reinfected. What is easier, get a babesia test, or have to spend all the money and time to cure it after reinfecting?
evolutionkennels
08-24-2013, 01:25 PM
Why would your Gr Ch die of babesia after a show unless you choose not to treat the dog? I treat every dog like their opponent has babesia.
And that is probably the best solution
Finally, if you want to make babesia a requirement before your show, then simply do so
this is a good point also. it will never be a requierment for everyone, so this is the best option together with what frosty said. but im curious if he treats his dogs before or after.
evolutionkennels
08-24-2013, 01:47 PM
After would be my suggestion, as all medicines have side effects that may or may not interfere with your dogs performance.
After would be my suggestion, as all medicines have side effects that may or may not interfere with your dogs performance.
I was thinking the same, i tried it twice and it had no side effects but had friends who tried and it gave some dogs bad diarrhea. though using it before which can be done 10 days in advance can prevent your dog from even contracting babesia, instead of treating it afterwards.
gameday
08-25-2013, 05:56 AM
Its an absolute must before a show that both party,s have had babesia test done....i would never go into someone knowing there one has the disease. And i would also never hook my one up knowing he has it..
Down here,its common practice to test for babesia,even for bumps.
Officially Retired
08-25-2013, 07:07 AM
Its an absolute must before a show that both party,s have had babesia test done....i would never go into someone knowing there one has the disease. And i would also never hook my one up knowing he has it..
Down here,its common practice to test for babesia,even for bumps.
An "absolute" must? :lol:
I would bet the number of shows that go down without a test, to the number of shows that both parties "must" get tested, is about 100-1 (if not greater)?
And for rolls too, the disparity must be astronomical :lol:
Let me ask you, where do you live exactly? I could see this being valuable in a cold climate, where ticks don't exist, but I can't see this as realistic at all for a large yard in the south.
Jack
waccamaw
08-25-2013, 07:23 AM
Not to mention it is to easy to take a clean Babesia free dog to the vet ,and put the dogs name that is in the competition on it.although it would be nice if it could be done ,but there is not enough honest people out there.
I think this sums it up. It is sort of like saying we are going into each other steroid free, all natural. A test would be nice but how many people would allow an injection/blood sample of the actual dog during/after the wash? Not too many. How many would actually lie? Lots. Do we exchange monies on show night and wait for the tests to come back and exchange monies again for positive results. The dogs are honest, people are not. In theory, I like it the idea of testing for all the bad things out there prior to the engagement but in reality it would depend on the honesty/integrity of the people in the dogs.
If the majority were above board it is a great idea but factor in the people involved and one can trust most as far as they can be thrown. EWO
Not to mention it is to easy to take a clean Babesia free dog to the vet ,and put the dogs name that is in the competition on it.although it would be nice if it could be done ,but there is not enough honest people out there.
oftopic: around here the use of steroids and epo have become so normal that they are for sell by dogman for dogman on internet boards. they are not making any secret of using big quantities of epo.
well, i guess its better to allow everything for anyone then try to restrict stuff you cant test. people will keep using them anyway. just as they would still bring their dogs who carry babesia.
evolutionkennels
08-25-2013, 04:11 PM
Most people that use epo hurt the dog more than help. It's a very thin line. Blood has natural hormones that regulate it.. Too much epo or epo when the blood is already packed with rbc's, and the body starts to kill rbc's. So.. If used correctly, yes.. An advantage, but most idiots hurt the dog more than help.
if you know how to use it, then u know it can do more then replete/complement? rbc within normal ranges.
evolutionkennels
08-25-2013, 04:45 PM
That's a BIG if!
gameday
08-25-2013, 06:42 PM
An "absolute" must? :lol:
I would bet the number of shows that go down without a test, to the number of shows that both parties "must" get tested, is about 100-1 (if not greater)?
And for rolls too, the disparity must be astronomical :lol:
Let me ask you, where do you live exactly? I could see this being valuable in a cold climate, where ticks don't exist, but I can't see this as realistic at all for a large yard in the south.
Jack
Well mr jack,im from oz....trust me when i tell you that everyone who is serious about these hounds down here, tests for babesia! Even for bumps..
The ratio is more like 100/100 test before a hunt,down here!
In my oppinion,i think its good practice,and sure helps it from becoming a major wide spread problem.