Gun Dog Forum

Got a lot of rattlesnakes in Southern California and although my dog has been avoidance trained I was wondering if anyone doubles up with the vaccine and if there are any side affects/negatives to giving it to your dog?

Thanks!!

Your vet or the manufacturer would be a good source for potential side effects. Any maybe some here had some sort of reaction.

I gave it to my dog a few years ago. There were no issues. I live in the midwest...finding a way to do snakebreaking nearby was about impossible (as rattlesnakes are very very rare here).

But, if I lived where there were snake breaking clinics, I most definitely would do both. The snakebreaking teaches a dog not to tangle with a snake. But what about the case where the dog comes at a snake from upwind. Dog didn't tangle with the snake on purpose, but could still get bit by an unseen snake.

In short, I would do as much as money and time allow.


RickB

I give it, you have to boost it every year. Never had a dog get bit by a snake though. The company that makes it is Red Rocks Pharma, out in CA. There have been some deaths from the vaccine if you research it on the internet you will find the stories. My dogs have not had any side effects been using it about 6 years.
mm

I've had my dog vaccinated with Rattlesnake vaccine I'm guessing 4 or 5 years ago. as stated you need a booster every year. My dog hasn't had any problems with the vaccine. Hopefully the vaccine will work, if he gets bit. I've seen dogs that were bit and it's costly for the treatment plus what a ugly mess for the dog.

We got the initial dosing last year, which was two shots about 4 weeks about. No reaction whatsoever. Reminds me it's time for the annual booster. Gonna be in the 80s for the next week or so and the vet said the first bite they saw last year was early April.

In the picture of the two snakes I found when we were out training the pups the other day one of them is a Mojave the other a western
so it was get a hold of Bob and he caught them took one milked and defanged if and there were a bunch of young dogs going through an impromptu avaoidance class Puppy snake avoidance(1):
http://youtu.be/dcZZt2wdxsc

I'm lucky in that one of my hunting buddies is a semi-retired vet who was part of the original team that developed the vaccine. He does enough professional development to be active and still write prescriptions, but does not have a practice. He has a stuffed rattlesnake with a couple of vials of it in is house that he was awarded. He vaccinates my dog at his cost. No side effects.

I haven't managed to make the scheduling work yet to get to one of the snake breaking clinics, but I am trying. Maddie likes to play with garter snakes if she finds them so I am definitely worried about what could happen when she comes across a rattler. I've not gone to some spots due to the high probability of finding them in the last year since I'd rather not test the vaccine!

I live in Southern California and run my dog in rattlesnake country. I'd love a vaccine that offered effective protection from rattlesnake bites, but after looking into the issue, I'm skeptical.

Why?

1) No scientific studies to establish effectiveness.

2) Does not work the way vaccines generally do, i.e. by triggering a T-cell response that builds antibodies (to viruses). Dogs do develop some antibody titers to C. atrox venom, but they are variable and short term. Not like usual vaccines.

3) Developed for Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes. The typical rattler here is the Southern Pacific Rattlesnake. Different species. Red Rocks claims it "may" help with Southern Pacific Rattlesnake bites, but it is all unproven.

4) If a dog is bitten it is still an emergency situation, and the same treatments are required if "vaccinated." or not.

I'd like to be proven wrong, as an effective shot would be welcome, but I'm not convinced about this one.

Bill

I know of 4 dogs that were bitten by Southern Pacific Rattlers that had been vaccinated and all fared better then the ones who weren't. It may even help with Mojavi's because they will breed with Diamond Backs and produce both Neuro and Hemo Venoms. It wont help with Moccasins though but you don't have to worry about them in Cali.

The thing about rattlesnake bites is that they are highly variable in how much venom is injected.

One can't know in the field if a dog got a "dry" bite (with no venom injected), or a very severe bite, or something in between.

Either way one is going to end up at the Vet.

Bill

I get both my boys vaccinated- Vet feels from what he has seen that it lessens the severity. I pay $15 @ shot- gives me a better feeling about getting them back to a vet.
$15 is worth it for that peace of mind be it warranted or not.

Spy Car wrote:The thing about rattlesnake bites is that they are highly variable in how much venom is injected.

One can't know in the field if a dog got a "dry" bite (with no venom injected), or a very severe bite, or something in between.

Either way one is going to end up at the Vet.

Bill

YES they still have to go to the Vet but it does lessen the effects and cost.

Here is what the highly respected UC Davis Veterinary School has to say (emphasis mine):

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/whatsnew/ ... fm?id=1883

Antivenin and other types of supportive care are still recommended in vaccinated dogs as there is no significant difference in the course of therapy if the animal is bitten. 

Due to the vaccine’s questionable efficacy, cost, and lack of  substantial difference in acute therapy if an animal is bitten, the vaccine is currently not stocked and is not advocated for animals routinely seen at the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital. For clients in high risk areas and where emergency treatment may be substantially delayed, the vaccine may buy time for the owner to seek emergency care. In these cases, owners must weigh the benefits versus the risks and be aware that the vaccine does not insure protection against the venom.

I'd love for there to be a safe, proven, and effective way to protect my dog from a rattlesnake bite. But every reputable source I've seen suggests the treatment for snake bite will be the with or without the Red Rocks "vaccine."

I remain skeptical. And, for sure, it does not make dogs "immune" to snake bite venom.

Bill

Spy Car wrote:Here is what the highly respected UC Davis Veterinary School has to say (emphasis mine):

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/whatsnew/ ... fm?id=1883

Antivenin and other types of supportive care are still recommended in vaccinated dogs as there is no significant difference in the course of therapy if the animal is bitten. 

Due to the vaccine’s questionable efficacy, cost, and lack of  substantial difference in acute therapy if an animal is bitten, the vaccine is currently not stocked and is not advocated for animals routinely seen at the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital. For clients in high risk areas and where emergency treatment may be substantially delayed, the vaccine may buy time for the owner to seek emergency care. In these cases, owners must weigh the benefits versus the risks and be aware that the vaccine does not insure protection against the venom.

I'd love for there to be a safe, proven, and effective way to protect my dog from a rattlesnake bite. But every reputable source I've seen suggests the treatment for snake bite will be the with or without the Red Rocks "vaccine."

I remain skeptical. And, for sure, it does not make dogs "immune" to snake bite venom.

Bill

exactly... I will take avoidance over the vaccine any day.

kninebirddog wrote:

Spy Car wrote:Here is what the highly respected UC Davis Veterinary School has to say (emphasis mine):

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/whatsnew/ ... fm?id=1883

Antivenin and other types of supportive care are still recommended in vaccinated dogs as there is no significant difference in the course of therapy if the animal is bitten. 

Due to the vaccine’s questionable efficacy, cost, and lack of  substantial difference in acute therapy if an animal is bitten, the vaccine is currently not stocked and is not advocated for animals routinely seen at the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital. For clients in high risk areas and where emergency treatment may be substantially delayed, the vaccine may buy time for the owner to seek emergency care. In these cases, owners must weigh the benefits versus the risks and be aware that the vaccine does not insure protection against the venom.

I'd love for there to be a safe, proven, and effective way to protect my dog from a rattlesnake bite. But every reputable source I've seen suggests the treatment for snake bite will be the with or without the Red Rocks "vaccine."

I remain skeptical. And, for sure, it does not make dogs "immune" to snake bite venom.

Bill

exactly... I will take avoidance over the vaccine any day.

It is not one or the other.

I think anyone who is thinking clearly would do all they possibly could to protect their dogs from snakes and I believe that would mean do both if you are in snake country. I don't see any reason not to.

Ezzy

I see reasons not to. If the "vaccine" is not effective (and the jury seems out on this question) and one proceeds under a feeling of false confidence that a dog is protected (when it is not) then people may take risks they might otherwise take. Speaking for myself, one of the attractive features of a rattlesnake vaccine (aside for protection against bite) would be to increase opportunities to get in to places (and more freely) during periods when rattlesnakes are likely to be active. I don't think I'm alone in that. A vaccine that really expanded opportunity by being highly effective would be worth a good deal.

But if the vaccine is not efficacious (and leading Veterinary programs seem to doubt it), then beilieving something *works* (when it doesn't) is liable to expand opportunities for a dog to get bitten, by being taken out in conditions that might not be risked if the owner did not believe his or her dog was protected. That is a real risk.

The "vaccine" itself is a poison. It is proposed to work by acclimatizing the dog to poison, not by generating a classic immune response. Personally I'd prefer not to introduce a poison into my dogs system, if the "vaccine" is not going to work anyway.

Bill

I have to agree with you if people really think that way. But anyone with any common sense and has any understanding of what the vaccine can do would not put his dog in jeopardy just because it has been vaccinated. That's like thinking that you will go play with the rattlers since you are vaccinated. I still have faith in most people having a little common sense but I might be wrong it sounds like.

Spy Car wrote:I see reasons not to. If the "vaccine" is not effective (and the jury seems out on this question) and one proceeds under a feeling of false confidence that a dog is protected (when it is not) then people may take risks they might otherwise take. Speaking for myself, one of the attractive features of a rattlesnake vaccine (aside for protection against bite) would be to increase opportunities to get in to places (and more freely) during periods when rattlesnakes are likely to be active. I don't think I'm alone in that. A vaccine that really expanded opportunity by being highly effective would be worth a good deal.

But if the vaccine is not efficacious (and leading Veterinary programs seem to doubt it), then beilieving something *works* (when it doesn't) is liable to expand opportunities for a dog to get bitten, by being taken out in conditions that might not be risked if the owner did not believe his or her dog was protected. That is a real risk.

The "vaccine" itself is a poison. It is proposed to work by acclimatizing the dog to poison, not by generating a classic immune response. Personally I'd prefer not to introduce a poison into my dogs system, if the "vaccine" is not going to work anyway.

Bill

Anybody who actually thinks the vaccine is more than a tool to reduce the severity of a bite that they would do everything in their power to avoid, please raise their hand.

Anyone?

X2 .... 41magsnub

ezzy333 wrote:I have to agree with you if people really think that way. But anyone with any common sense and has any understanding of what the vaccine can do would not put his dog in jeopardy just because it has been vaccinated. That's like thinking that you will go play with the rattlers since you are vaccinated. I still have faith in most people having a little common sense but I might be wrong it sounds like.

Anytime one runs a dog in rattlesnake territory one takes a risk. In the mental calculus of what is a reasonable risk one needs to consider the time of year, the temperatures, the conditions (including the cover), known activity in the area, the nature of the dog and its training, and such. My common sense tells me that people who believe their dogs are protected by a rattlesnake vaccine are likely to factor that perception of "protection" into the risk assessment.

If the vaccine is not protective—and leading Veterinary experts seem to doubt it—then the risk assessment is being skewed by a false premise. That is "common sense."

Your comment about "playing with rattlesnakes" is just a dumb-"bleep" thing to say. Moderators ought to do better.

Bill

Spy Car wrote:

ezzy333 wrote:I have to agree with you if people really think that way. But anyone with any common sense and has any understanding of what the vaccine can do would not put his dog in jeopardy just because it has been vaccinated. That's like thinking that you will go play with the rattlers since you are vaccinated. I still have faith in most people having a little common sense but I might be wrong it sounds like.

Anytime one runs a dog in rattlesnake territory one takes a risk. In the mental calculus of what is a reasonable risk one needs to consider the time of year, the temperatures, the conditions (including the cover), known activity in the area, the nature of the dog and its training, and such. My common sense tells me that people who believe their dogs are protected by a rattlesnake vaccine are likely to factor that perception of "protection" into the risk assessment.

If the vaccine is not protective—and leading Veterinary experts seem to doubt it—then the risk assessment is being skewed by a false premise. That is "common sense."

Your comment about "playing with rattlesnakes" is just a dumb-"bleep" thing to say. Moderators ought to do better.



Bill

Well, thank you for that bit of wisdom.

In other news:
Seat belts and airbags make people drive recklessly.

Modern healthcare makes people ignore their health.

There is no common sense in this. You can believe the vaccine doesn't do anything, that is a valid reason not to use it. But, the argument that folks will do risky things because of the vaccine is silly, unless vets are giving their customers a wrong impression.

41magsnub wrote:In other news:
Seat belts and airbags make people drive recklessly.

Modern healthcare makes people ignore their health.

There is no common sense in this. You can believe the vaccine doesn't do anything, that is a valid reason not to use it. But, the argument that folks will do risky things because of the vaccine is silly, unless vets are giving their customers a wrong impression.

These are false analogies. Let's stick to real scenarios. If a person believes a rattlesnake vaccine affords some measure of protection to their dog, and they factor that into their risk assessment, and it turns out that the vaccine is not effective, then one is operating under a false premise.

Leading Veterinary schools are skeptical that this "vaccine" is effective.

Bill

How are those false analogies?

Sure, some idiot somewhere probably thinks it does more than it does. That's their problem. I'll even allow for the possibility it is totally ineffective. But, nobody I've ever talked to does anything different because the dog is vaccinated or not. We don't hunt when/where there is a high probability of snake interaction. As stated, repeatedly, it is a belt and suspenders approach. Maybe it does nothing, maybe it helps. Around here, there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds.

Maybe you hang out with less intelligent people?

41magsnub wrote:How are those false analogies?

Sure, some idiot somewhere probably thinks it does more than it does. That's their problem. I'll even allow for the possibility it is totally ineffective. But, nobody I've ever talked to does anything different because the dog is vaccinated or not. We don't hunt when/where there is a high probability of snake interaction. As stated, repeatedly, it is a belt and suspenders approach. Maybe it does nothing, maybe it helps. Around here, there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds.

Maybe you hang out with less intelligent people?

You want an analogy?

Guy purchases snow tires that the manufacturer claims provide extra safety in bad snow conditions. A blizzard hits, conditions are poor. Driver decides to drive because he expects the snow tires will provide the necessary margin of safety necessary. But it turns out the tires don't provide extra traction the manufacturer claims, and guy drives off road.

The snide remake ares not called for from you any more than they are from Ezzy. Intelligent people ought to be able to discuss ideas without the insults.

Bill

Spy Car wrote:

41magsnub wrote:How are those false analogies?

Sure, some idiot somewhere probably thinks it does more than it does. That's their problem. I'll even allow for the possibility it is totally ineffective. But, nobody I've ever talked to does anything different because the dog is vaccinated or not. We don't hunt when/where there is a high probability of snake interaction. As stated, repeatedly, it is a belt and suspenders approach. Maybe it does nothing, maybe it helps. Around here, there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds.

Maybe you hang out with less intelligent people?

You want an analogy?

Guy purchases snow tires that the manufacturer claims provide extra safety in bad snow conditions. A blizzard hits, conditions are poor. Driver decides to drive because he expects the snow tires will provide the necessary margin of safety necessary. But it turns out the tires don't provide extra traction the manufacturer claims, and guy drives off road.

The snide remake ares not called for from you any more than they are from Ezzy. Intelligent people ought to be able to discuss ideas without the insults.

Bill

There is no getting through to you. It's like talking to a wall and a waste of time.

Spy Car wrote:

41magsnub wrote:How are those false analogies?

Sure, some idiot somewhere probably thinks it does more than it does. That's their problem. I'll even allow for the possibility it is totally ineffective. But, nobody I've ever talked to does anything different because the dog is vaccinated or not. We don't hunt when/where there is a high probability of snake interaction. As stated, repeatedly, it is a belt and suspenders approach. Maybe it does nothing, maybe it helps. Around here, there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds.

Maybe you hang out with less intelligent people?

You want an analogy?

Guy purchases snow tires that the manufacturer claims provide extra safety in bad snow conditions. A blizzard hits, conditions are poor. Driver decides to drive because he expects the snow tires will provide the necessary margin of safety necessary. But it turns out the tires don't provide extra traction the manufacturer claims, and guy drives off road.

The snide remake ares not called for from you any more than they are from Ezzy. Intelligent people ought to be able to discuss ideas without the insults.

Bill

Bill, I like this.

The snide remake ares not called for from you any more than they are from Ezzy. Intelligent people ought to be able to discuss ideas without the insults.

I think we have expressed our thoughts and ideas, even given examples, and the results are "snide remarks". Practice what you preach. I have posted exactly what I have seen and heard from people and vets and not a single one has ever expressed the idea you have posted. Not a problem that you feel like you do but it is a problem when you try to say others have those problems because they feel a vaccine allows you to hunt where you otherwise wouldn't. Best of luck.

Ezzy

41magsnub wrote:

Spy Car wrote:

41magsnub wrote:How are those false analogies?

Sure, some idiot somewhere probably thinks it does more than it does. That's their problem. I'll even allow for the possibility it is totally ineffective. But, nobody I've ever talked to does anything different because the dog is vaccinated or not. We don't hunt when/where there is a high probability of snake interaction. As stated, repeatedly, it is a belt and suspenders approach. Maybe it does nothing, maybe it helps. Around here, there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds.

Maybe you hang out with less intelligent people?

You want an analogy?

Guy purchases snow tires that the manufacturer claims provide extra safety in bad snow conditions. A blizzard hits, conditions are poor. Driver decides to drive because he expects the snow tires will provide the necessary margin of safety necessary. But it turns out the tires don't provide extra traction the manufacturer claims, and guy drives off road.

The snide remake ares not called for from you any more than they are from Ezzy. Intelligent people ought to be able to discuss ideas without the insults.

Bill

There is no getting through to you. It's like talking to a wall and a waste of time.

You say:

1)We don't hunt when/where there is a high probability of snake interaction.

Then you say:

2) Around here, there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds.

If one follows the logic, you never hunt. You see that, right?

I'm sure you, like most of us, try to use our best judgements about when the risks aren't worth it. Unless one never goes out, and if (as you say) "there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds," then it is always a judgement call. I believe many people would push the edges of risk if they believed there dogs were significantly protected from the effects of rattlesnake bites. That would, in fact, be one of the compelling reason to get a dog vaccinated. So one could get out more.

There are serious doubts about whether this vaccine is effective. People counting on it reducing the risks may act differently than those who know there dogs are fully vulnerable. If you don't rely on the vaccine at all in your risk assessment, this concern does not apply to you. But Red Rocks markets this as something that works. That is doubtful.

Bill

ezzy333 wrote:

Spy Car wrote:

41magsnub wrote:How are those false analogies?

Sure, some idiot somewhere probably thinks it does more than it does. That's their problem. I'll even allow for the possibility it is totally ineffective. But, nobody I've ever talked to does anything different because the dog is vaccinated or not. We don't hunt when/where there is a high probability of snake interaction. As stated, repeatedly, it is a belt and suspenders approach. Maybe it does nothing, maybe it helps. Around here, there are snakes pretty much everywhere there are upland birds.

Maybe you hang out with less intelligent people?

You want an analogy?

Guy purchases snow tires that the manufacturer claims provide extra safety in bad snow conditions. A blizzard hits, conditions are poor. Driver decides to drive because he expects the snow tires will provide the necessary margin of safety necessary. But it turns out the tires don't provide extra traction the manufacturer claims, and guy drives off road.

The snide remake ares not called for from you any more than they are from Ezzy. Intelligent people ought to be able to discuss ideas without the insults.

Bill

Bill, I like this.

The snide remake ares not called for from you any more than they are from Ezzy. Intelligent people ought to be able to discuss ideas without the insults.

I think we have expressed our thoughts and ideas, even given examples, and the results are "snide remarks". Practice what you preach. I have posted exactly what I have seen and heard from people and vets and not a single one has ever expressed the idea you have posted. Not a problem that you feel like you do but it is a problem when you try to say others have those problems because they feel a vaccine allows you to hunt where you otherwise wouldn't. Best of luck.

Ezzy

Ezzy, I linked to the UC Davis Veterinary School's judgement on the matter. They are among the most respected Vet schools in the nation. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much when snakebites are as variable as they are with respect to the amount of venom in a given bite.

There are no studies to show this "vaccine" works. Them's the facts.

Questioning people's "common sense" or intelligence (or the intelligence of one's friends) just because one has a difference of opinion isn't cool.

Bill

Doing all you can do to protect your dogs is common sense. If there is a chance the vaccine will give your dog any edge at all one might use it. My niece happens to be in the vet department at Davis and she advocates the vaccine. My vet recommends it and I use it. If you buy the carton it comes out to about 10 or 11 bucks a shot. The vet I use also says dogs vaccinated recover more quickly with less after effects than unvaccinated dogs. I advocate avoidance training but most dogs in this area seem to be hit in run by situations so the avoidance training does not help much for every bite. I will continue to use the vaccine. If you want to use it, fine and if your don't, fine.