Comments on: Off Topic Not flea product related http://www.hartzvictims.org/2009/08/28/off-topic-not-flea-product-related/ One More Victim is One Too Many Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:22:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: chefzo http://www.hartzvictims.org/2009/08/28/off-topic-not-flea-product-related/comment-page-1/#comment-20264 chefzo Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:59:11 +0000 http://www.hartzvictims.org/?p=2926#comment-20264 Sorry- no. I can't support this. Although I love my pets dearly, and hate to think of anyone having to give theirs up, and subsequently have those pets killed, people come first. There are too many humanitarian problems in the world that need fixing before our government gives a tax break to pet owners. First of all, if you are having a tough time economically, you should not have pets to begin with; if you had them and you fall on tough times, you find someone to adopt them as fast as you can instead of dumping them off like yesterday's garbage. Second issue... $3500? Ridiculous. The healthy maintenance of a St. Bernard might come up to that much, but not much else would, provided the pet has no health complications. Anyone who spends that on their pet in a year is not caring for it, but pampering it. I could see a $500 deduction, but $3,500? Sheesh! I don't get deductions that big for donating to charity! I mean let's just do some math here. Let's say I have a Labrador retriever, and I buy him REALLY GOOD food, and I spend $100 a month on that. That would amount to $1200 a year, and that's really your biggest pet expense. Add a few vet trips for routine things, a couple bottles of shampoo for bathing, and let's call it $1500. Maybe $1600 if your pet goes through collars, leashes, or chew toys really fast. Still, where do they justify this extra $1900- $2000? Honestly. People would start adopting pets merely for the enormous tax break involved, and those pets would subsequently be treated poorly. Better for some of these animals to be mercifully put to sleep, than live harsh, neglected lives at the hands of someone looking to cheat the IRS. Sorry- no. I can’t support this. Although I love my pets dearly, and hate to think of anyone having to give theirs up, and subsequently have those pets killed, people come first. There are too many humanitarian problems in the world that need fixing before our government gives a tax break to pet owners. First of all, if you are having a tough time economically, you should not have pets to begin with; if you had them and you fall on tough times, you find someone to adopt them as fast as you can instead of dumping them off like yesterday’s garbage. Second issue… $3500? Ridiculous. The healthy maintenance of a St. Bernard might come up to that much, but not much else would, provided the pet has no health complications. Anyone who spends that on their pet in a year is not caring for it, but pampering it. I could see a $500 deduction, but $3,500? Sheesh! I don’t get deductions that big for donating to charity! I mean let’s just do some math here. Let’s say I have a Labrador retriever, and I buy him REALLY GOOD food, and I spend $100 a month on that. That would amount to $1200 a year, and that’s really your biggest pet expense. Add a few vet trips for routine things, a couple bottles of shampoo for bathing, and let’s call it $1500. Maybe $1600 if your pet goes through collars, leashes, or chew toys really fast. Still, where do they justify this extra $1900- $2000? Honestly. People would start adopting pets merely for the enormous tax break involved, and those pets would subsequently be treated poorly. Better for some of these animals to be mercifully put to sleep, than live harsh, neglected lives at the hands of someone looking to cheat the IRS.

]]> By: Kelly Graves http://www.hartzvictims.org/2009/08/28/off-topic-not-flea-product-related/comment-page-1/#comment-16074 Kelly Graves Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:24:06 +0000 http://www.hartzvictims.org/?p=2926#comment-16074 I have been trying to register my story to no avail. I was researching Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc. affter an incident occurred with our Boston Terrier Puppy, Jax. I came upon this website and was very moved by all the horrible stories caused by Sergeant's/Hartz flea medication. I just wanted to make everyone aware of another dangerous product that Sergeant's still has on the market without a warning lable. Here is Jax's story:  On or about May 2, 2009 Jax was given a Sergeant’s puppy teething bone. Jax subsequently swallowed a portion of the Sergeant's Puppy Teething bone and it became lodged in his esophagus. I took Jax to two emergency veterinarians who could not help the animal. I was forced to take the Jax to the Cornell University Hospital for Animals in Ithaca, New York in order to save the his life. The medical team attempted to remove the bone through endoscopy, but was unsuccessful and the bone was finally removed after a thoracotomy and esophagotomy which entailed removing the bone through his chest cavity. Fortunately, Jax was saved but the recovery was slow and he required constant medical supervision for 6 to 8 weeks after the incident. His feeding tube was finally removed on May 21, 2009. The medical expenses have been substantial. To date, over $ 5,500.00 in actual veterinary costs has been expended. AGAIN, there is no warnings whatsoever on the packaging. This is a dangerous product and should be removed from consumer distribution. If you have any questions or would like x rays or other medical documentation I would be happy to provide to be posted on your website so that other people can be aware of this dangerous puppy treat. Thank you for your forum. Kelly I have been trying to register my story to no avail.

I was researching Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc. affter an incident occurred with our Boston Terrier Puppy, Jax. I came upon this website and was very moved by all the horrible stories caused by Sergeant’s/Hartz flea medication. I just
wanted to make everyone aware of another dangerous product that Sergeant’s still has on the market without a warning lable. Here is Jax’s story:
 On or about May 2, 2009 Jax was given a Sergeant’s puppy teething bone. Jax subsequently swallowed a portion of the Sergeant’s Puppy Teething bone and it became lodged in his esophagus. I took Jax to two emergency veterinarians who
could not help the animal. I was forced to take the Jax to the Cornell University Hospital for Animals in Ithaca, New York in order to save the his life. The medical team attempted to remove the bone through endoscopy, but was
unsuccessful and the bone was finally removed after a thoracotomy and esophagotomy which entailed removing the bone through his chest cavity.

Fortunately, Jax was saved but the recovery was slow and he required constant medical supervision for 6 to 8 weeks after the incident. His feeding tube was finally removed on May 21, 2009. The medical expenses have been substantial. To date, over $ 5,500.00 in actual veterinary costs has been expended.

AGAIN, there is no warnings whatsoever on the packaging. This is a dangerous product and should be removed from consumer distribution.

If you have any questions or would like x rays or other medical documentation I would be happy to provide to be posted on your website so that other people can
be aware of this dangerous puppy treat. Thank you for your forum. Kelly

]]>