Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it's quite clear what most of the discussion here is about. A dog has died, suddenly and quite horribly, very possibly (but not certainly) after exposure to something toxic in Peckham Rye. This may have been misplaced rat poison (in which case the council needs to investigate pronto) or - possibly - a toxic fungus - in which case such investigation is also important. It is also possible (but not probable) that the death was caused by an infection - only a proper set of lab tests can determine what actually caused the death, and therefore what follow-up/ remedies need to be applied to avoid any occurrence.


I think we can all agree that actions to avoid another dog suffering in this way would be good, but until the actual cause can be established it is difficult to know what these actions would optimally be (nor what other dog owners should be looking out for). Posters have simply been suggesting that jumping to any conclusion - however 'probable' that might be without evidence - may mean that something important is being missed.


I would certainly say that keeping dogs close to you, and intervening if they seem to want to be eating something in the park would be a good idea. But what exactly to watch out for is at the moment moot.


I would not wish the horror and tragedy that has hit the first owner should be visited on another.

I posted something on here back in August about my dog in relation to Peckham Rye park. She collapsed, had a very bad seizure and very nearly died. Thankfully various brilliant vets got her back on her feet. Their view was she had ingested some sort of toxin, Although they were unable to say what.


I've thought long and hard about where she might have been poisoned. About one hour prior to her collapse she had been drinking the water from the stream under the small bridge in Peckham Rye, near where this incident took place. she was sniffing around the fallen tree too, looking for dropped food. I can't be certain that's where she ingested whatever it was that poisoned her. But this incident has made me think again. Fungi and mold can certainly poison dogs. It's called Mycotoxicosis.


I think the parks people should have a look at this.

My sincere condolences to the owners of this dog.


As a rule it is unwise to let dogs drink from streams, ponds or puddles. I'd even go so far as saying don't let your dog splash around in park water, they can still ingest water while playing or afterwards when they lick their fur. Still water in particular carries a range of potentially dangerous micro-organisms.

taper Wrote:

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

> I posted something on here back in August about my

> dog in relation to Peckham Rye park. She

> collapsed, had a very bad seizure and very nearly

> died. Thankfully various brilliant vets got her

> back on her feet. Their view was she had ingested

> some sort of toxin, Although they were unable to

> say what.

>

> I've thought long and hard about where she might

> have been poisoned. About one hour prior to her

> collapse she had been drinking the water from the

> stream under the small bridge in Peckham Rye, near

> where this incident took place. she was sniffing

> around the fallen tree too, looking for dropped

> food. I can't be certain that's where she ingested

> whatever it was that poisoned her. But this

> incident has made me think again. Fungi and mold

> can certainly poison dogs. It's called

> Mycotoxicosis.

>

> I think the parks people should have a look at

> this.



Thanks for that, I remember your original post and wondered what the outcome was. I am so glad he/she survived.☺

Hi B777,

I'm really, really sorry to hear about the death of your friend's dog. If/when your friend is able to )and if they have additional information from the vet please could they pm me (or you on their behalf). If it was rat poison than the police and park staff need to know and if it was some natural poison eg from a fungus than the parks staff need to know (to have it removed from the fallen tree or cordon it off to prevent this happening again to another dog). I am glad to hear, Taper that your dog has recovered from what may have been a similar incident.

Renata

taper Wrote:

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

> Thanks. She was very ill. And it cost me (or

> rather Petplan) ?5k to get here right.

>

> The water she drank from was the fast flowing

> stream under the bridge and not still water.

> Wouldn't necessarily have been that that poisoned

> her.



As a matter of interest which vet did you use?

Gosh sorry to hear this, concern also for other dogs, wildlife and humans including kids who could potentially be exposed to this. I would have thought any poison put down by park authorities targetting vermin would have been properly signposted or cordoned off.

I am also concerned that the suspected site of the poisoning is so close to the children's playground. Does anyone know whether the park staff will be investigating?


I say this as a parent of a 23-year old who used to play there frequently. And the owner of two dogs who walk near there every day.

So sorry to hear about the dog, and glad the first one has recovered.


It is the season for fungi at the moment, isn't it?


This may be a stupid question, but has anybody actually looked at the tree to see if there are signs of rat poison or fungi around it in a place which could be accessible to dogs?


Also, given that at least two dogs have sadly been poisoned in the same general area, it would seem sensible for lab tests to be carried out to clearly identify the poison, or other cause as suggested by Saffron, if possible.


That would be a first step towards eliminating the cause and preventing any more dogs (and owners) suffering in this way.


It could also flag up whether there is a possibility that poison was deliberately placed, and if so what action the police might take.

Hi Sue


Not a stupid question. A real probablity..


Mushroom poisoning occurs as a result of ingesting toxic mushrooms, which is a common hazard for dogs because of the amount of time they spend outdoors or in wooded areas, particularly in the summer and fall.



http://www.petmd.com/dog/conditions/digestive/c_dg_mushroom_poisoning


Foxy

In addition to ingestion toxicity, fungal infections can also occur. These are similar to bacterial infections, and the pathogenic agents are microscopic. These infections are often tricky to diagnose and treat.


It's normally very difficult to retrospectively identify toxins or infections unless sample material remains available. It might be more useful to get a survey of how many dogs (or cats) locally exhibit trace amounts of rodentacide. This could be done by teaming up with a local vet(s) to apply for some grant funding. It would be a really good topic for anyone doing a PhD in toxicology or for a veterinary student.

But in the meantime...two dogs have fallen seriously ill, one fatally, (anecdotally) closely following incidents in Peckham Rye where the dogs were assumed to have ingested something. A reasonable prima facie assumption is that the dogs were effected by something in the park - whether that was a rodenticide or something else (fungus?) toxic is unclear. At the least the area where the most recent incident possibly occurred should be examined, presumably by park gardening staff who may be able to identify possible culprits (misplaced rat poison or toxic mushrooms) should they be present as a matter of urgency. If nothing is found that doesn't necessarily rule out the incident(s) being park related, but at least it has been checked.

The purpose of my original post was to highlight to dog owners and users of PRP of a potential problem with poison in the park. Successfully done as over 2800 views.

It was not to start a discussion for pedants arguing about the poison. It was unlikely to be rat poison the parks put down as they are aiming to poison an animal weighing 300g not an animal weighing 40 times that. The dog had never eaten mushrooms before or bark from trees......I think it safe to assume it didn't start that day.

B777 Wrote:

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

> The purpose of my original post was to highlight

> to dog owners and users of PRP of a potential

> problem with poison in the park. Successfully done

> as over 2800 views.

> It was not to start a discussion for pedants

> arguing about the poison. It was unlikely to be

> rat poison the parks put down as they are aiming

> to poison an animal weighing 300g not an animal

> weighing 40 times that. The dog had never eaten

> mushrooms before or bark from trees......I think

> it safe to assume it didn't start that day.


And well done for doing so, but I don't think it's that objectionable for people to discuss what the cause might be - I've actually learned a couple of useful bits of information from this thread which I've passed on to my dog owning mother - it's a discussion board!

I was informed today from the park warden the dog who took ill was by the mulberry tree not the children's playground and also that of late they haven't been using any poison for rats in the park so must have been caused by either fungi or even could have been something digested before coming into the park ?!

Or something been dumped there carelessly or on purpose. Or perhaps flowed down the stream from upstream.


Do you remember the start to this very odd thread?


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1546811,1709334#msg-1709334


I'd like to know whether it was a wind up or based on something.


Where's the mulberry bush?

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...