Discreet but good vets in Oregon?

[PDXErik]

I want to get my girl spayed.

She's in and out and in and out and I don't want to contribute to the invasive species that are displacing the Western Greys, but it wasn't her choice to be born here.

Does anyone know of a vet that would do the deed? (say 'companion pet' and I'll never listen to another thing you say for the rest of my life).

Also, how old do they need to be to be "viable"? How old do they need to be to be spayed healthfully?

[CritterMom]

She is still too young to reproduce, and...

This is REALLY not recommended. Spaying is much more invasive surgery than neutering a male. You do NOT want to lose this little girl on the table...

[mugzeezma]

I want to get my girl spayed.

She's in and out and in and out and I don't want to contribute to the invasive species that are displacing the Western Greys, but it wasn't her choice to be born here.

Does anyone know of a vet that would do the deed? (say 'companion pet' and I'll never listen to another thing you say for the rest of my life).

Also, how old do they need to be to be "viable"? How old do they need to be to be spayed healthfully?
She will be ready as early as late December/January. I.m not sure I care for the ethics of this in regard to the fact that she is a wild and the surgery may put her at a disadvantage in some way especially if it doesn't go well.
I seriously doubt you'll find a vet to do it.

[gs1]

.... it's just not safe on a squirrel .... :grouphug

(even if you were to take her to florida and get her in with the best squirrel vets down there .... although if you were to do that i'd suggest rehoming her with jackie ....:D and not worrying about the operation....)

[PDXErik]

I OK with the ethics part (if she plans on being a pet, agreed wild animals shouldn't get fixed), I think there are plenty of humans that should get "worked on" (voluntarily, of course). The risk being so high wasn't something I was aware of.

It's just a matter of I don't want this little squirrel going out and getting "in trouble" (does anyone use that term anymore??) and not being prepared to go raise them outside where she needs to because she can't do that where we're living now.

Maybe I'm being paranoid. She's ~15-16 weeks and is still pretty lovey-dovey in the afternoons when she comes home. Also, is refusing to go out when it's cold.

Perhaps she'll wild up, but so far, it's not even a faint glimmer.

Thanks for your inputs.



She is still too young to reproduce, and...

This is REALLY not recommended. Spaying is much more invasive surgery than neutering a male. You do NOT want to lose this little girl on the table...

So, trap all the neighborhood males and... nvm, kind of a weak joke anyway.

[crazysquirrels]

Talula is my second peep and even with Jackie, she really showed no agression during tht time. Maybe its more the males that get agressive during mating. Not really sure. Jackie was pretty much the same. Talula is only 6 months so not sre about her yet. Most people I have asked the same question to says the risk is very high for death and not worth it. The chance of getting out and in trouble is not as good as a cat for say. Acat will get knocked up just looking at another cat. Squirrels have to chase their mates for a LONG time. Even then it may not happen. Is yours an Eastern Grey?

[Kristal]

IIRC, they are sexually mature at 6 months, but rarely breed before 1 year of age, often later. Grey moms also raise their infant kids alone, though they might live in shared nests either with neighbours or with their juvie kids during other times of the year. If she still loves and wants to be with mom, she is far from ready to be a mom, herself, so no risk there. Likely her hormones will kick in either spring or next autumn and she will respond to natures call by taking her leave of you. That's my best guess, anyway.

[mugzeezma]

Check out posts by MomOf2squirrels.
Her little Galileo has a baby that she brought in and out of the house.
pick a thread...
http://thesquirrelboard.com/forums/search.php?searchid=916878

[astra]

I hope this doesn't happen.

I will be blunt.
No offense, but it is one of the worst things when ppl start 'adjusting' animals, be it domestic or wild - no difference, to their own 'conveniences'. One should think first before taking on an animal.
In this case, she is not even meant to be a pet animal. Maybe, it is worth listening to the accumulated rehab information and basic points, such as what to expect from a wild animal and how to prepare it for release.

If I could only get a dollar for every time it's been said that indoor/outdoor combination works very rarely, that most squirrels do wild up sooner or later and want to be outside. Very seldom do they become 'convenient' animals.

This is very similar to when ppl take on skunks, remove their glands and then don't want them anymore.

Besides the health and life risks of such procedures, she is a "female" squirrel, she is meant to have baby squirrels and experience/enjoy her squirrelly motherhood.
Moreover, hormones are what gives creatures, both human and not, their character, their temperament and everything that's included in that. Just recall how similar procedures on humans (for health reasons or accidents) change people.
For the wild it might mean being less spunky, less alert, less aggressive when necessary, and in the long run it will mean to be an easier prey and unable to stand up to other squirrels when fighting for food or territory.

This is a selfish decision, made according to what's convenient for the human without consideration for the squirrel's future, and I hope it can never happen, so that she can make it through the winter and finally become a normal wild squirrel, experiencing the fullness of squirrelly life, just as she is meant to be.

[astra]

I hope this doesn't happen.

I will be blunt.
No offense, but it is one of the worst things when ppl start 'adjusting' animals, be it domestic or wild - no difference, to their own 'conveniences'. One should think first before taking on an animal.
In this case, she is not even meant to be a pet animal. Maybe, it is worth listening to the accumulated rehab information and basic points, such as what to expect from a wild animal and how to prepare it for release.

If I could only get a dollar for every time it's been said that indoor/outdoor combination works very rarely, that most squirrels do wild up sooner or later and want to be outside. Very seldom do they become 'convenient' animals. Most 'pet' squirrels don't even want to be outside, always running back to the house when taken out. The fact that she seems to be enjoying exploring outside might be a sign that at one point she will want to be there for good. And when a squirrel displays signs of wanting to be outside, s/he often needs help with wilding up - that's what soft release/widling up process are about.


Besides the health and life risks of such procedures, she is a "female" squirrel, she is meant to have baby squirrels and experience/enjoy her squirrelly motherhood.
Moreover, hormones are what gives creatures, both human and not, their character, their temperament and everything that's included in that. Just recall how similar procedures on humans (for health reasons or accidents) change people.
For the wild it might mean being less spunky, less alert, less aggressive when necessary, and in the long run it will mean to be an easier prey and unable to stand up to other squirrels when fighting for food or territory.

This decision, made according to what's convenient for the human without consideration for the squirrel's future, and I hope it can never happen, so that she can make it through the winter and finally become a normal wild squirrel, experiencing the fullness of squirrelly life, just as she is meant to.

And if she does end up being an indoor/outdoor kind, which is very rare, but happens, then, it is the human who must adjust to that, and not a wild animal to be adjusted to the human. Perhaps, if you start widling her up towards the Spring, she will make her choice known.


This is somewhat similar to when ppl take on skunks, remove their glands and then don't want them anymore.

I am sorry if this post comes across as harsh - wasn't meant so; however, recently it seems there have been a few situations when ppl think they will become an exception to the basic rehab suggestions and points, only proving them, sometimes sadly; looks like sugarcoating is often counterproductive.


Sorry - for some reason it got posted twice - could the 1st post be deleted by the Administration?... Thanks (have no idea how it happened)

[PDXErik]

Ok.

Ethically, I have no problem with terminating the ability to spawn babies. I now understand that it is extraordinarily more risky with squirrels, I can dig that, so ok, her being happy and healthy is my primary concern.

Eastern Greys are an invasive species here. They have pretty much displaced the Western Greys that are now difficult to find. I thought that by spaying her, it would let her be a squirrel and not contribute to the invasive population. (I am very big on the foriegn species thing)

I want her to wild up. I want her to be a squirrel. I see her as a pet for now because I have no experience as a Dad and that's how I relate to her.

I will withhold taking offence to the 'convenience' remark. I can see how I may have been misunderstood. I am not willing to risk her life over making her less of an impact on my environment, let alone my life (I have a half-dozen snakes that would gladly take her out of the gene pool if that were my goal). I worry my ass off while I'm at work because she's outside with cars, give me a break.

So, consensus seems to be, keep on truckin, let her be outside, she'll eventually move out (true goal).

I just don't want her raising babies in my living room, I love her, I'd have to let her, but man that would suck.


And if she does end up being an indoor/outdoor kind, which is very rare, but happens, then, it is the human who must adjust to that, and not a wild animal to be adjusted to the human. Perhaps, if you start widling her up towards the Spring, she will make her choice known.

[...]

I am sorry if this post comes across as harsh - wasn't meant so; however, recently it seems there have been a few situations when ppl think they will become an exception to the basic rehab suggestions and points, only proving them, sometimes sadly; looks like sugarcoating is often counterproductive.

I have adjusted my home as much as I can to her needs. I understand that she is a wild animal and will do what she will do, hence cat door to allow her to go wherever she pleases, whenever it pleases her. I have tried to show her the things she can eat and such. I am not trying to mold her into a domestic animal, don't get me wrong.

Second note: Sugarcoating sucks complete ass, run with the opinion you believe in, I'm all for that.

[PDXErik]

Also, She's never locked in a cage unless she's in trouble. She has run of the living room + cat door.

I <3 this little animal, hahaha, I'm sounding like a Mom when her kids are 17 years old and hoping that they'll move out. hahaha.

[Kristal]

Having seen your videos I am sure you are just about as decent to her as you could be. I pasted one on here, BTW. It was the get your own damned almond one. It still makes me laugh :D

[astra]

Eastern Greys are an invasive species here. They have pretty much displaced the Western Greys that are now difficult to find. I thought that by spaying her, it would let her be a squirrel and not contribute to the invasive population. (I am very big on the foriegn species thing)

Ok, so the invasiveness issue...

The issue of invasive species and ways to deal with them so as to preserve the native species, IF they are threatened by the invasive (that’s not always the case), can only be successfully solved when the causes of certain species having become invasive are identified first.

Still, mechanisms causing certain species (animal and plant) to become invasive are only proposed and not confirmed. Generally, two major groups are defined: species-based mechanisms and ecosystem-based mechanisms. In both cases, the overwhelming majority of species becoming invasive results from various human activities that change ecosystem. Even native species can become invasive due to humans changing their environment.As with pretty much all introduced species, it is human’s fault that there greys are considered invasive. It’s a separate topic in itself, but since you’ve focused on breeding of greys as a means to make them noninvasive, I will say that
it is not proven that it is greys’ breeding/their numerousness that causes greys to outnumber native squirrels, such as reds in UK and Western Grey where you are. Breeding patterns among various squirrel species do not vary at all or not enough to cause the greys’ numbers outweigh the others.

Greys do not do anything ( e.g. attack, chase away, kill etc) to the native species. Their only fault seems to be their greater adaptability compared to the reds in UK – the sad and infamous example.

However, it is human activities, such as destroying red squirrels habitat (e.g., conifer forests etc) that lead to the reds’ numbers dwindling. It was humans who introduced greys there to begin with. And it is the same with the Western Greys – humans’s fault.

So if you are so concerned about Western Grey population – wonderful.
First constructive thing you could do is to research and do some studies about what causes some species become invasive.
Then, it will be very helpful to study how and which human activities contribute to that, and see how that can be traced and observed in regard to Western and Eastern greys ( the time range for such research will have to embrace at least the moment when greys were first introduced to the area, or when the first signs of Western greys dwindling were recorded)…
A thorough research will be much more productive than simply killing poor innocent greys, or mutilating them by the suggested medical procedure.

Also, with such a deep concern for the native vs. invasive species, it might have been better not to raise her at all (e.g., pass her on to someone who doesn’t have such concerns, even if that person is in another state), than to raise her only to even consider mangling her little body for nothing.

I think, if even scientist cannot agree and 100% confirm causes of invasiveness, it is too premature (and cruel) to start killing/abusing innocent animals (as they do it in UK – who’d better spend all that energy on restoring reds’ habitat and vaccinating them against pox, but that would require true commitment, dedication and true effort - killing vulnerable animals is so much easier)

[Kristal]

Also, at least according to the wiki article, Eastern Greys are not considered a major threat, just a competitor, and Eastern Greys will happily live close to people, while the Western prefers more remote forest habitat. It has the same problems that the Red does, too. It is sensitive, territorial/combative and depends heavily on certain trees. Western Greys also mature very slowly. They are not ready to leave the nest until 6 months of age while their cousins are out and about in half that time or less. I am betting that climate change and the resultant forest fires is the real culprit here, because the Western Grey depends on stable forest habitat. Our greys can live almost anywhere, by comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Gray_Squirrel#Recent_Troubles

[PDXErik]

Having seen your videos I am sure you are just about as decent to her as you could be. I pasted one on here, BTW. It was the get your own damned almond one. It still makes me laugh :D

It is absolutely tragic that she is so fun to tease.

I hold back a lot, tho. I still love to hear that arguing, hilarious.


Also, at least according to the wiki article, Eastern Greys are not considered a major threat, just a competitor, and Eastern Greys will happily live close to people, while the Western prefers more remote forest habitat. It has the same problems that the Red does, too. It is sensitive, territorial/combative and depends heavily on certain trees. Western Greys also mature very slowly. They are not ready to leave the nest until 6 months of age while their cousins are out and about in half that time or less. I am betting that climate change and the resultant forest fires is the real culprit here, because the Western Grey depends on stable forest habitat. Our greys can live almost anywhere, by comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Gray_Squirrel#Recent_Troubles

Survival of the what, now?

[Kristal]

Ok, so the invasiveness issue...

The issue of invasive species and ways to deal with them so as to preserve the native species, IF they are threatened by the invasive (that’s not always the case), can only be successfully solved when the causes of certain species having become invasive are identified first.


Yes, that brings to mind the case of the Red and the poor, scapegoated Eastern Grey. Eastern Greys were introduced to the UK in the 19th century, and we are supposed to believe that they are just NOW becoming a problem, as in in the last decade?? How on earth does that make sense to rational human beings? It's very naïve, and a typical example of human beings trying to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and the effects of their actions. Meanwhile, they are masskilling thousands and thousands of greys every year in a misguided effort to protect the Reds and their British Forest. It's disgusting.

[astra]

Yes, that brings to mind the case of the Red and the poor, scapegoated Eastern Grey. Eastern Greys were introduced to the UK in the 19th century, and we are supposed to believe that they are just NOW becoming a problem, as in in the last decade?? How on earth does that make sense to rational human beings? It's very naïve, and a typical example of human beings trying to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and the effects of their actions. Meanwhile, they are masskilling thousands and thousands of greys every year in a misguided effort to protect the Reds and their British Forest. It's disgusting.
:goodpost yes, it is... when I first read about poor greys in UK, I literally felt sick to my stomach. All their 'premises' on which they base their conclusion that greys must be exterminated are absolutely groundless! One doesn't have to be a seasoned biologist/whoever to see how ridiculous they are!... It is humans and only humans who created the situation, but do not want to take responsibility (so characteristic of the majority of humans) for the consequences of their actions.
It has been suggested by some that what reds need (among other things) is restoration and preservation of their habitat, and, maybe, vaccination against pox. Vaccination is feasable- that's what they did to raccoons in ON - they trapped them, vaccinated for rabies and released back into the wild. So, it has been suggested to trap the reds, vaccinate them for pox and release. But that's way too much of an effort, too much commitment, too strenuous for lazy humans. Much easier to just go killing greys. But the most tragic and horrendous thing is that because it's not the greys' fault that the number of reds is dwindling, the killing of greys will not solve the problem! The reds will continue to disappear, but along with the greys being so brutally killed.

[Kristal]

I remember reading somewhere that they developed a means to deliver the vaccine orally. They'd make large dumps of dosed raccoon treats in the forest and so vaccinate hundreds of animals inexpensively and at a single shot. It is a very innovative solution. But the UK has such tiny areas of somewhat-intact wilderness that even a needle administered vaccine would be practical for them.

A true mass kill of the greys would have a temporary effect of slightly or somewhat increasing the red population as they filled the vacuum left by the greys, but only in dense forest areas - of which there are now very few. It would not address the pox problem, which must have existed since the grey first lived in the UK (more than 100 years by now). Pox is wild in the red population, too. Why are they not doing anything about it?

The greys live in downtown London, for god's sake. There is such a paucity of park space in that city (and what is there is often inhabited by tent cities of the extremely poor) that another red will never be seen within those city limits, regardless of the presence of grey squirrels. In the recent few decades they have also developed all the wild and semi wild industrial spaces surrounding the city. It's part of the worldwide phenomenon of moving jobs offshore in the developed world. Those areas are not hospitable to reds anymore, either.

The true problem is that greys are tolerant and adaptable enough to live in close quarters to each other and to other competing species. Reds are not.

[astra]

I remember reading somewhere that they developed a means to deliver the vaccine orally. They'd make large dumps of dosed raccoon treats in the forest and so vaccinate hundreds of animals inexpensively and at a single shot. It is a very innovative solution. But the UK has such tiny areas of somewhat-intact wilderness that even a needle administered vaccine would be practical for them.

A true mass kill of the greys would have a temporary effect of slightly or somewhat increasing the red population as they filled the vacuum left by the greys, but only in dense forest areas - of which there are now very few. It would not address the pox problem, which must have existed since the grey first lived in the UK (more than 100 years by now). Pox is wild in the red population, too. Why are they not doing anything about it?

The greys live in downtown London, for god's sake. There is such a paucity of park space in that city (and what is there is often inhabited by tent cities of the extremely poor) that another red will never be seen within those city limits, regardless of the presence of grey squirrels. In the recent few decades they have also developed all the wild and semi wild industrial spaces surrounding the city. It's part of the worldwide phenomenon of moving jobs offshore in the developed world. Those areas are not hospitable to reds anymore, either.

The true problem is that greys are tolerant and adaptable enough to live in close quarters to each other and to other competing species. Reds are not.
:goodpost that's why to save reds it's crucial to focus on creating and preserving their habitat, since they have such, say, 'special needs', and vaccination. Actually, I did hear something about 'edible' vaccine - I think they started implementing it recently, to avoid the trouble of trapping and all that.

[crazysquirrels]

If this becomes a major issue let me know. Perhaps she and Talula can go together to the forrest.

[PDXErik]

And land and food resources are plentiful, almost infinite.

Oh wait.

[Kristal]

Well, I think that the point here is that human beings are the ultimate invasive species. And we don't do a whole lot to mitigate the effects of our actions. We use land however is the fashion, working on it when it is profitable while never accounting for the real costs of our resource extraction or processing in our balance sheets, passing these on to less privileged and unaware humans and animals alike. And we develop land in especially good times, turning it over for a quick profit while the costs of displacing people and other animals is never accounted for in the transaction.

I don't really mean to sound like a hippy, either, but this is just what we do. And then we bitch and moan and project all our nastiest qualities on whatever species survive in spite of us and sometimes because of us. The wolf, the raccoon, the coyote, the squirrel, etc, etc, all of them get a price attached to their heads and we go off on a killing spree in the name of stewardship when it is really our lack of foresight that is to blame. We seek to recapture that which we, ourselves, have tarnished or destroyed, and displace the blame that belongs with us onto other species. Most of these efforts throughout history have been completely ineffective, and many of them have had disastrous unintended consequences. Consider the massive habitat destruction in yellowstone park, finally amended by a very costly reintroduction of the timber wolf which only survived in Canada after it was killed off in the US. These crazy decisions are not taken from recommendations of scientists, most of the time, either. It's stupid humans who want to blame the otter, the seal, the first nations people for the loss of their fish stocks, for example. Rather the contrary. Biologists railed against the wolf kill in northern Canada to no effect. Trappers and hunting guides wanted it, not to mention the wolf bounty hunters.

So you get the idea. You are not a stupid person, after all. It's really us that is the invasive species here. Capitalism is fantastic, but we need to account for the real costs of our enterprises, including the ones that we blithely dump on the forest and pass on to future generations of humans - all for absolutely free. It's like a global credit card or something. In effect we are borrowing against the future and throwing little tantrums when the debts come to call today.

[astra]

Well, I think that the point here is that human beings are the ultimate invasive species. And we don't do a whole lot to mitigate the effects of our actions. We use land however is the fashion, working on it when it is profitable while never accounting for the real costs of our resource extraction or processing in our balance sheets, passing these on to less privileged and unaware humans and animals alike. And we develop land in especially good times, turning it over for a quick profit while the costs of displacing people and other animals is never accounted for in the transaction.

I don't really mean to sound like a hippy, either, but this is just what we do. And then we bitch and moan and project all our nastiest qualities on whatever species survive in spite of us and sometimes because of us. The wolf, the raccoon, the coyote, the squirrel, etc, etc, all of them get a price attached to their heads and we go off on a killing spree in the name of stewardship when it is really our lack of foresight that is to blame. We seek to recapture that which we, ourselves, have tarnished or destroyed, and displace the blame that belongs with us onto other species. Most of these efforts throughout history have been completely ineffective, and many of them have had disastrous unintended consequences. Consider the massive habitat destruction in yellowstone park, finally amended by a very costly reintroduction of the timber wolf which only survived in Canada after it was killed off in the US. These crazy decisions are not taken from recommendations of scientists, most of the time, either. It's stupid humans who want to blame the otter, the seal, the first nations people for the loss of their fish stocks, for example. Rather the contrary. Biologists railed against the wolf kill in northern Canada to no effect. Trappers and hunting guides wanted it, not to mention the wolf bounty hunters.

So you get the idea. You are not a stupid person, after all. It's really us that is the invasive species here. Capitalism is fantastic, but we need to account for the real costs of our enterprises, including the ones that we blithely dump on the forest and pass on to future generations of humans - all for absolutely free. It's like a global credit card or something. In effect we are borrowing against the future and throwing little tantrums when the debts come to call today.
:goodpost :thumbsup

[mugzeezma]

Well, I think that the point here is that human beings are the ultimate invasive species. And we don't do a whole lot to mitigate the effects of our actions. We use land however is the fashion, working on it when it is profitable while never accounting for the real costs of our resource extraction or processing in our balance sheets, passing these on to less privileged and unaware humans and animals alike. And we develop land in especially good times, turning it over for a quick profit while the costs of displacing people and other animals is never accounted for in the transaction.

I don't really mean to sound like a hippy, either, but this is just what we do. And then we bitch and moan and project all our nastiest qualities on whatever species survive in spite of us and sometimes because of us. The wolf, the raccoon, the coyote, the squirrel, etc, etc, all of them get a price attached to their heads and we go off on a killing spree in the name of stewardship when it is really our lack of foresight that is to blame. We seek to recapture that which we, ourselves, have tarnished or destroyed, and displace the blame that belongs with us onto other species. Most of these efforts throughout history have been completely ineffective, and many of them have had disastrous unintended consequences. Consider the massive habitat destruction in yellowstone park, finally amended by a very costly reintroduction of the timber wolf which only survived in Canada after it was killed off in the US. These crazy decisions are not taken from recommendations of scientists, most of the time, either. It's stupid humans who want to blame the otter, the seal, the first nations people for the loss of their fish stocks, for example. Rather the contrary. Biologists railed against the wolf kill in northern Canada to no effect. Trappers and hunting guides wanted it, not to mention the wolf bounty hunters.

So you get the idea. You are not a stupid person, after all. It's really us that is the invasive species here. Capitalism is fantastic, but we need to account for the real costs of our enterprises, including the ones that we blithely dump on the forest and pass on to future generations of humans - all for absolutely free. It's like a global credit card or something. In effect we are borrowing against the future and throwing little tantrums when the debts come to call today.
I have always stated that WE, humans, are the true vermin of this planet. We are worse than the biblical locust in our raping of resources.
I see land blighted because a retailer decided that the location is not GOOD enough and literally moves to the opposite corner only to move again 2 blocks....thank you Safeway! Acres of land paved for nought.
Capitalism needs to be tempered with a planetary ethic in order to be truly profitable. We cannot continue to s**t where we eat.
You CAN call me a tree hugging granola eating flower child...I would be honored!

[CritterMom]

I have always stated that WE, humans, are the true vermin of this planet. We are worse than the biblical locust in our raping of resources.
I see land blighted because a retailer decided that the location is not GOOD enough and literally moves to the opposite corner only to move again 2 blocks....thank you Safeway! Acres of land paved for nought.
Capitalism needs to be tempered with a planetary ethic in order to be truly profitable. You cannot continue to s**t where we eat.
You CAN call me a tree hugging granola eating flower child...I would be honored!


What she said:thumbsup