Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A friend walked her spaniel in Peckham Rye yesterday and he rummaged near the tree on its side. Today he is extremely sick vomiting blood and staying at the vets. He may not survive. Please be aware when walking your dog and look out for people leaving food that dogs might eat. Please inform the park staff if you see anything concerning.

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend's dog. It must have been a horrifying experience for everyone involved.


I think there have been other incidents in recent years that people have mentioned in this forum, and I wondered if you were planning to let the police know in case this isn't an accident?

All the questions I asked were to clarify what was being said.

Loads of terms are used on this forum such as racist, sexist, mysoginist, whatever, and poisoning is a serious situation which anyone with any sense would want to be clear about the specifics rather than getting carried away when you don't think you've actually heard it through.

It's nasty the dog has died.

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Was warfare or another toxin confirmed by a lab

> test?

>

> Vomiting and renal failure are also signs of

> Alabama Rot and similar diseases which were rare

> in the UK but becoming more common.


What is it you don't understand about the vet having confirmed it was poisoned as stated above.

The park authorities have been trying to control the robust rat population around the lake and surrounds. There are many rodent control points - small black plastic things with bait and poison. On one walk last week I saw over 6 different rats.

I am sure that the park people try to site the baited traps away from areas that might be accessible to dogs, Dog walkers beware.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Was warfare or another toxin confirmed by a lab

> > test?

> >

> > Vomiting and renal failure are also signs of

> > Alabama Rot and similar diseases which were

> rare

> > in the UK but becoming more common.

>

> What is it you don't understand about the vet

> having confirmed it was poisoned as stated above.


I think people need to calm down a bit - if the poor dog was showing symptoms of Warfarin-type poisoning then it's very likely s/he found some rat poison laid down by the authorities as mentioned by Louise - a broken trap maybe? Let's not immediately leap to conclusions that some evil person is deliberately poisoning dogs, and it's perfectly legitimate for people to ask further questions about what might have happened.


Deepest sympathies to the owners.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Saffron Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Was warfare or another toxin confirmed by a

> lab

> > > test?

> > >

> > > Vomiting and renal failure are also signs of

> > > Alabama Rot and similar diseases which were

> > rare

> > > in the UK but becoming more common.

> >

> > What is it you don't understand about the vet

> > having confirmed it was poisoned as stated

> above.

>

> I think people need to calm down a bit - if the

> poor dog was showing symptoms of Warfarin-type

> poisoning then it's very likely s/he found some

> rat poison laid down by the authorities as

> mentioned by Louise - a broken trap maybe? Let's

> not immediately leap to conclusions that some evil

> person is deliberately poisoning dogs, and it's

> perfectly legitimate for people to ask further

> questions about what might have happened.

>

> Deepest sympathies to the owners.



Calm down? The point of the above post was that it was poison, as identified by the vet, yet some people continue to post to say it may have been disease. This needs to be clearly pointed out. The vet has confirmed it was poison. Let's clear about that.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Calm down? The point of the above post was that it

> was poison, as identified by the vet, yet some

> people continue to post to say it may have been

> disease. This needs to be clearly pointed out. The

> vet has confirmed it was poison. Let's clear about

> that.


Yes, the OP says the vet has confirmed it was probably rat poison. By calm down I meant people shouldn't immediately be jumping to the conclusion that we must "look out for people leaving food that dogs might eat" as if there's some mad poisoner about the place, when it would seem far more likely, given that the authorities are laying down rat poison, that the poor dog ate some poison intended for rats - or even a rodent which had been killed by poison itself, secondary poisoning is more than possible.


ETA: Also, there are several common mushrooms and fungi which can be fatal to dogs, generally causing the exact symptoms mentioned, i.e. massive vomiting and kidney damage. Unless the vet has run a tox screen it seems only that it can be said the poor thing was poisoned, but whether deliberately or accidentally, by a manmade substance or a natural one, is not at all clear.

The time-line on this is that the vet did not start to treat the dog until Sunday (as far as I can see) - it is thus most unlikely that he/ she could have got definitive test results back (it's not like CSI when you get results in the next shot) - therefore he/ she made a reasonable assumption that the symptoms (and x-ray evidence) were most likely to be poisoning based on the speed of the onset of sickness and its symptoms. These symptoms are also, apparently, noticed in infections (such as Alabama Rot). Until (and if) there are tests to identify definitively the cause of death it is a reasonable precaution to assume the most likely cause - poison - although this could well be a tragic accident (with rat poison inadvertently moved to where dogs might get it) rather than any intent. I doubt (outwith appropriate tests) that the vet could, at this stage, 'confirm' it's poison - amongst other things I doubt that they normally carry appropriate testing kits for such screening. It is worth pointing out that it would need a huge dose of warfarin to kill, so quickly, even a quite small dog. Rats take some time to die from ingesting it (normally dying from internal haemorrhage). That suggests that it may have been a far quicker acting toxin, or a mixture of toxins.


Amended to say - this was a cross-post with rendalharris - I agree that fungal toxins can act in this way - if it was a fungus/ mushroom then it is worth checking (and quite quickly) - this sadly may not be the only dog to be poisoned if such mushrooms are growing locally. People also can pick, eat and die from poisonous mushrooms.

This argument is not helping the situation and , in my opinion, is in very bad taste. No one has said the dog was deliberately poisoned, just to be aware. Dogs have been deliberately poisoned in other areas of the country, so all possibilities have to considered. If, in the likely event, it is from a broken trap then the council need to be aware and check their equipment more often. But how sad that a beautiful dog has died a sad death, lets remember that and all dog lovers be aware, as that is all the original poster was trying to ensure. thinking of you JJ. X

turtle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This argument is not helping the situation and ,

> in my opinion, is in very bad taste. No one has

> said the dog was deliberately poisoned, just to be

> aware. Dogs have been deliberately poisoned in

> other areas of the country, so all possibilities

> have to considered. If, in the likely event, it is

> from a broken trap then the council need to be

> aware and check their equipment more often. But

> how sad that a beautiful dog has died a sad death,

> lets remember that and all dog lovers be aware, as

> that is all the original poster was trying to

> ensure. thinking of you JJ. X


Oh for goodness' sake, how is it in bad taste? There's information that a dog has been poisoned in a park and concerned people are discussing what may have caused it, at the same time as offering their sympathy to the dog owner.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Was warfare or another toxin confirmed by a lab

> > test?

> >

> > Vomiting and renal failure are also signs of

> > Alabama Rot and similar diseases which were

> rare

> > in the UK but becoming more common.

>

> What is it you don't understand about the vet

> having confirmed it was poisoned as stated above.


Mick Mac, it's very plain from my post that I'm enquiring about the toxicology specifically. I can assure you that there's no hidden agenda in my post, and no intent to be trollish.


Just to clarify in answer to your question, a vet can only make a 'symptomatic' confirmation of poisoning based on an animal's appearance. The specific toxin would have to be confirmed by laboratory analysis. Although there are some rapid lab diagnostics available, a full toxicological assessment would usually take several days to be completed. So it doesn't look like from the OP's time frame that a complete toxicological assessment could have been made.


It's important to establish, if possible, what the toxin was, and to rule out other causes. There's absolutely no point in taking the park managers to task for inappropriate placement of rat poison, if in fact it transpires that warfarin is not the cause. Likewise failure to adequately identify the correct cause could mean that people are looking out for rat bait, when they should be looking out for something else.


Warfarin is not the only chemical that causes vomiting and rapid renal failure. Antifreeze also causes these symptoms, and dogs can easily come in contact with it on accident. In addition, vomiting and rapid renal failure can be caused by fungal pathogens or bacteria such as the E. coli strain that is linked to Alabama Rot. Alabama Rot is a serious infection with a high mortality rate. It's only been confirmed in the UK very recently, so it's not something with which many vets and pet owners are necessarily familiar.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> turtle Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This argument is not helping the situation and

> ,

> > in my opinion, is in very bad taste. No one has

> > said the dog was deliberately poisoned, just to

> be

> > aware. Dogs have been deliberately poisoned in

> > other areas of the country, so all

> possibilities

> > have to considered. If, in the likely event, it

> is

> > from a broken trap then the council need to be

> > aware and check their equipment more often. But

> > how sad that a beautiful dog has died a sad

> death,

> > lets remember that and all dog lovers be aware,

> as

> > that is all the original poster was trying to

> > ensure. thinking of you JJ. X

>

> Oh for goodness' sake, how is it in bad taste?

> There's information that a dog has been poisoned

> in a park and concerned people are discussing what

> may have caused it, at the same time as offering

> their sympathy to the dog owner.



Some peoples comments have been quite insensitive.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...