I'm thinking that it might be a nice idea to add "pet safe or pet toxic to the descriptive part of plants in the database under toxicity.

Anyone else agree? Disagree?

toxicity to livestock and pets.

I agree!

Don't we already have a box for toxicity?

edited to add: Duh, just re-read the original question.

Seems to me most animals figure this out themselves.

Since some plants and/or parts of plants are toxic for some animals and safe for others maybe using the 'other' section or the 'comments' section to explain which is which. I mean, for example: we humans eat onions but eating onions can cause dogs to become anemic. Some plants require too much information that cannot be confined in a small box.

I would be leery of just checking a box for either toxic or safe. I think it's better to be specific about which parts are toxic and to which pets. And I personally would never want to take the responsibility of blithely saying that any plant is "pet safe." But that's just me.

I don't know why anyone would trust their pet's life with advice from a pet safety data base that has no source credentials.

Ok .. bad idea.

I think it is a good idea, it just won't fit in a box. We should continue to add bits of information as it can and may be helpful to folks making decisions about what to plant, especially if they have curious children and pets.

A few months ago my dog tried eating most of a lily bulb. If not for the bit of knowledge I had gained from plant sites like this one, I would have thought his antics were cute. Instead, I kicked into high gear and my dog is alive and well. It wasn't important for me to know the exact details/botanical names/etc....just equated 'lily' with 'take action' and got the job done.

Before we start spreading rumors, can you be specific?

What kind of "lily bulb"?
True lily (Lilium)
Lily of the valley
daylily
calla lily
???

I was not giving specific information about any lily. When this 'incident' occurred I just knew that some kinds of lily bulbs would be bad if ingested by my small dog. I decided that my actions (perhaps too gross for after dinner conversation) would be a better alternative than taking a chance on the dog getting sick (or possibly dead).

This discussion was about having a check box for toxicity. My opinion was and is that a box is not enough space to say yea or nay and the comment section would be a better place to put detailed information about potential toxicity.

You had said (and I agree): "I don't know why anyone would trust their pet's life with advice from a pet safety data base that has no source credentials."

The example I used was supposed to show that a person (me )can learn something from a plant site (ATP) - even if what I learned is that some lily types may be toxic at some level. I took the 'better safe than sorry route' when the incident occurred. Perhaps I did not use a good example, but I do know that on that day I was happy that I paid attention when folks were chit-chatting about lilies. When I decide what and where to plant in my yard, I now take into consideration the possibility that the dogs might try to snack on things and I take measures to keep plants and pets separated.

But since you asked, it was a honking huge Crinum lily bulb, bigger than a softball and he ate most of it (Yes, I was a bad dog mother that day.) Since he weighs only 26 pounds even a bad case of uncontrolled vomiting and diarrhea (yuck ) could cause him a problem; dermatitis, another potential reaction would be uncomfortable for him and expensive for me and might involve prescription steroids which have their own set of side effects.

At the time of the incident there was no time to think; only time to react. Afterward, once things calmed down, I was able to do research; here is a good example from the University of California that makes me know in this instance I did take the correct measures. http://ucanr.edu/sites/poisono...

After completing more research I gave away some plants, moved a few to other parts of the yard/garden and monitor my dog much more closely. Anyway, sorry this is all too much information, but it is an example of what will not fit into a check box.

That was a wise move, Greene. You did spare your dog grief. I appreciate your post and your explanation. Thank you.

greene said:At the time of the incident there was no time to think; only time to react. Afterward, once things calmed down, I was able to do research; here is a good example from the University of California that makes me know in this instance I did take the correct measures. http://ucanr.edu/sites/poisono...

It's always better to be safe than sorry. Greene, your gut reaction was certainly a wise decision.

From the beginning, I've only strove to correct unintentional misinformation, nothing more. Regarding the University of California site as affirmation of your canine pet decision, I am reluctant to dispute, but please allow me to display another page on the same site for future reference:
http://ucanr.edu/sites/poisono...

Thank you. That was an interesting page. The heading was 'Plants Toxic to Animals' and the first line reads:
Information on this website is about plants poisonous to people. Do not use the plant lists on this site to learn about safe or toxic plants for animals. What is the reader to think??

This thread started out as a question about a little check box. We have traveled a bit but it has been educational.

The following are lists of toxic plants at the ASPCA website.

Plants TOXIC to Canines:
https://www.aspca.org/pet-care...

Plants TOXIC to Felines:
https://www.aspca.org/pet-care...

All of which makes me think that perhaps a "Toxic to Pets" checkbox might be appropriate, with a fill-in space for a bit more detail?

There go all of my plants! Thankfully, Smitty prefers being inside on my husband's lap than the great outdoors.

Fortunately, my lap puppy is only interested in digging things up, not eating them!

But I do try to research anything that is planted where my dogs have access.

Whew, what a relief to see that roses aren't toxic to cats. That's a great comfort to someone with more roses and cats than the average person.