In keeping with controversial topics this week (Michael Vick being the big controversy), I found a story out of Virginia about a man who is suing his former domestic partner for emotional distress after the death of his Chihuahua.
In a nutshell…here’s the story: Jeffrey Nanni and Maurice Smith were former domestic partners. Two years ago, Smith allegedly beat their 12 lb Chihuahua with a wooden board. Smith was found guilty of assault and battery as well as cruelty to animals in connection with this event. An autopsy of the dog found that he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
Nanni, who is a paralegal, maintains that he continues to suffer emotional distress and should be compensated for that. He is asking for no less than $15,000, which is the minimum amount that will ensure the case will be heard in this particular court (Arlington Circuit Court).
So…it certainly is a sad case and one that should have never happened (Nanni evidently picked up the dog as he and Smith here fighting and Smith attempted to hit him with the board). Smith served 10 days in jail and was on probation for a year. But, my bigger concern is the precedent that this case could set.
Currently, in almost every state, emotional damages are not allowed to be collected by pet owners. Most states simply allow the owner to collect the “fair market value” of the pet. A recent case in New Jersey though did set another precedent stating that a pet’s “special subjective value” needs to be considered in custody cases. This has now opened up the doors that will move pets from “property” or chattel to another classification that we don’t even have yet (sentient property?).
Another case in California sided against an attorney who was suing a veterinarian for wrongful death of her Maltese. The court stated that pets were considered property and you can’t get damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship with property. Furthermore, parents can’t sue doctors accused of medical malpractice after the death of their child and expect damages for emotional distress either. In case after case across the United States, the courts normally find that there is no basis for damages based on emotional distress because (again) “pets are property”. There are a few states that have broken away (Idaho, Kentucky, Florida, Alaska, New York, New Jersey and Hawaii) from this traditional view of pets as property, but they are still reluctant to award substantial damages based on emotional distress. Instead, the “intrinsic value” of the pet is calculated.
There is no doubt that pets are special to almost every one of us and we cherish their special value…but how do you adequately put a price tag on that in the event of the pet’s death? Should purebreds be worth more? Should dog owners get more money than cat owners? Should it depend on how much money you spent at the veterinary office in wellness care, etc?
The scary thing about this case is that a jury who awards Nanni a substantial amount of money will open the floodgates to a landslide of wrongful death lawsuits. Veterinarians will be forced to carry larger amounts of malpractice insurance simply because the insurance carriers won’t want to take these cases to court…they will settle out of court in order to “make things go away”. If veterinarians have to pay more for insurance, you can be very certain that those costs will be passed on in the forms of higher medical invoices.
And, as many already know, there are people who have a hard time paying for veterinary expenses, despite the fact that it is a true bargain when compared to human medicine. But rest assured, a case like this that sets a precedent will cause veterinary costs to increase.
So, what is the answer? Do we have a new classification for pets beyond property but short of human life? Should you be able to get emotional damages after the loss of your pet?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Request from KittyMadGrrrr on Twitter
So, I am being told in Twitter world that I have been remiss in posting Nutro's reply to me. As I mentioned in a previous blog, the first time Nutro sent information to me, it was nothing more than corporate speak. In other words, a lot of words really saying nothing.
When I followed up with Nutro, I spoke with their communications person who explained this to me: In the lots that were affected there were bags of premix that contained the excess zinc along with bags of premix that were correctly proportioned. Since both types of premix were used in the manufacturing process of these lots, the quality testing done after completion did not reveal any significant aberrations in the final product.
I can understand that. If I wanted to make up 10 batches of brownies all at once and just combined 10 bags of brownie mix into a bowl, I might not know immediately if 1 of those bags of brownie mix had too much of some ingredient in it. AND...a random check of my freshly baked brownies at the end might not find the small number of brownies that had excess ingredient "X". But, if I heard Betty Crocker had recalled the brownie mix after I baked the brownies, I would likely toss the whole tray rather than chance a problem that someone would eat a "bad" brownie.
She also mentioned to me the problems with the premix were noted during a paper audit after the lot had been sent. In an abundance of caution, the decision was made to recall the food, even though it was still unclear as to the effects of excess dietary zinc.
Again, as I have previously mentioned, this seems pretty straightforward to me. Recall the product to prevent any damage. Some posters have questioned the fact that they still saw bags of food on store shelves weeks after the recall and why didn't Nutro do more to get those bags away from consumers.
Well, again, we have to look at the complexity of the food industry. Do you realize that for 4 straight months we had daily recalls on peanut butter based products? More than 2000 products were eventually recalled, some as late as 4 months after the initial recall? My question is this: how does a company not know if it used those products? And the answer isn't clear....even Marion Nestle, noted food blogger, doesn't have an answer for that. So, I guess I am not surprised that some stores still had Nutro Cat food stocked weeks later. Do you think its possible that some stores simply ignored the recall? Maybe some were informed, but didn't follow through by informing employess to pull the product promptly....maybe some got the letter, the manager was on vacation, on his/her return, saw the Nutro envelope and assumed it was an advertisement or program his/her store didn't want to follow and trashed it. Our food supply system, for people and pets, is unbelievably complex and global in scale. There are going to be forgotten corners and out of the way stores that don't get the information as promptly as they should...but that is not the fault of the manufacturing company. As far as consumers, can we make someone watch TV or browse the Internet? NO...and, we as a country value our privacy, so trying to find out who bought what food when is a task that will never be accomplished.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a rare blogger or "twitterer" who has a workable solution to this on-going problem. It's much easier to say "bad company" than try to find ideas that might prevent the problems from recurring.
And finally, for KittyMadGrrr on Twitter...I posted this simply because I knew you would not rest until I did. Does it make you feel better reading it? No...you are convinced that Nutro (and probably a lot of other companies) are simply out there to screw people. Nothing I say, nothing Nutro says will ever make you change your mind.
Did Nutro food kill cats? Right now the evidence is scant. There are very few discussions about zinc toxicosis on any veterinary boards I have visited and these were all focused at the time of the recall.(and I did check as of this morning, looking back over the last 150 days). Addtionally, veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists have not given any indication that cats are dying from eating Nutro food. Yes, clients are saying that their cats got sick after eating Nutro food, but I will reiterate ONCE AGAIN, not all clients are reliable about providing all the needed facts to their veterinarian. Here's a personal example...my new Mastiff puppy is on Iams. I got a new 20 lb bag and within a day he had developed very soft stools and needed to defecate frequently. It would be really easy to blame Iams for producing a "bad" product unless you also knew that I have a 2 year old toddler at home who enjoys sharing his food and snacks with the dog. Maybe it's the "other" food my puppy is getting that is actually causing the issue and not the new brand of food.
Until it can be shown otherwise, I think I am moving on from this discussion. I apologize for the tardiness of this blog, along with any new ones, but I am still trying to feed my family and perform my job. I will be moving on to new topics...hopefully ones that are more productive than this one.
When I followed up with Nutro, I spoke with their communications person who explained this to me: In the lots that were affected there were bags of premix that contained the excess zinc along with bags of premix that were correctly proportioned. Since both types of premix were used in the manufacturing process of these lots, the quality testing done after completion did not reveal any significant aberrations in the final product.
I can understand that. If I wanted to make up 10 batches of brownies all at once and just combined 10 bags of brownie mix into a bowl, I might not know immediately if 1 of those bags of brownie mix had too much of some ingredient in it. AND...a random check of my freshly baked brownies at the end might not find the small number of brownies that had excess ingredient "X". But, if I heard Betty Crocker had recalled the brownie mix after I baked the brownies, I would likely toss the whole tray rather than chance a problem that someone would eat a "bad" brownie.
She also mentioned to me the problems with the premix were noted during a paper audit after the lot had been sent. In an abundance of caution, the decision was made to recall the food, even though it was still unclear as to the effects of excess dietary zinc.
Again, as I have previously mentioned, this seems pretty straightforward to me. Recall the product to prevent any damage. Some posters have questioned the fact that they still saw bags of food on store shelves weeks after the recall and why didn't Nutro do more to get those bags away from consumers.
Well, again, we have to look at the complexity of the food industry. Do you realize that for 4 straight months we had daily recalls on peanut butter based products? More than 2000 products were eventually recalled, some as late as 4 months after the initial recall? My question is this: how does a company not know if it used those products? And the answer isn't clear....even Marion Nestle, noted food blogger, doesn't have an answer for that. So, I guess I am not surprised that some stores still had Nutro Cat food stocked weeks later. Do you think its possible that some stores simply ignored the recall? Maybe some were informed, but didn't follow through by informing employess to pull the product promptly....maybe some got the letter, the manager was on vacation, on his/her return, saw the Nutro envelope and assumed it was an advertisement or program his/her store didn't want to follow and trashed it. Our food supply system, for people and pets, is unbelievably complex and global in scale. There are going to be forgotten corners and out of the way stores that don't get the information as promptly as they should...but that is not the fault of the manufacturing company. As far as consumers, can we make someone watch TV or browse the Internet? NO...and, we as a country value our privacy, so trying to find out who bought what food when is a task that will never be accomplished.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a rare blogger or "twitterer" who has a workable solution to this on-going problem. It's much easier to say "bad company" than try to find ideas that might prevent the problems from recurring.
And finally, for KittyMadGrrr on Twitter...I posted this simply because I knew you would not rest until I did. Does it make you feel better reading it? No...you are convinced that Nutro (and probably a lot of other companies) are simply out there to screw people. Nothing I say, nothing Nutro says will ever make you change your mind.
Did Nutro food kill cats? Right now the evidence is scant. There are very few discussions about zinc toxicosis on any veterinary boards I have visited and these were all focused at the time of the recall.(and I did check as of this morning, looking back over the last 150 days). Addtionally, veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists have not given any indication that cats are dying from eating Nutro food. Yes, clients are saying that their cats got sick after eating Nutro food, but I will reiterate ONCE AGAIN, not all clients are reliable about providing all the needed facts to their veterinarian. Here's a personal example...my new Mastiff puppy is on Iams. I got a new 20 lb bag and within a day he had developed very soft stools and needed to defecate frequently. It would be really easy to blame Iams for producing a "bad" product unless you also knew that I have a 2 year old toddler at home who enjoys sharing his food and snacks with the dog. Maybe it's the "other" food my puppy is getting that is actually causing the issue and not the new brand of food.
Until it can be shown otherwise, I think I am moving on from this discussion. I apologize for the tardiness of this blog, along with any new ones, but I am still trying to feed my family and perform my job. I will be moving on to new topics...hopefully ones that are more productive than this one.
Friday, June 26, 2009
When You Don't Want to Board Your Pets...Shoot them??
Ok, this story has irritated me in ways that I can't even begin to explain!! And, I have seen a lot of weird and stupid things that have happened to pets because of their owners.
The Columbus Dispatch has reported that 43 year old firefighter did not want to board his two dogs over vacation. So, he took them to the basement, laid down plastic, tied their leads to a pipe, partially suspended both dogs and proceeded to shoot both of them. One dog was shot 6 times in the head and a total of 11 shots were dealt to both dogs. To keep things quiet, this "gentleman" even fashioned a silencer out of a plastic bottle. Quite considerate!!
He took the dogs' bodies to the fire station where he worked and dumped them in a trash bin behind the station. He bragged to his co-workers about what he did. Thankfully, his co-workers were so disgusted by his attitude, they called the local humane organization to investigate.
The guy even made up a story for his wife and his kids about what happened to Sloopy and Skeeter. Then , when confronted with his crime, he said the dogs drank antifreeze and he was putting them out of their misery. But, that too was a lie.
At his sentencing (5 years probation, $4,500 in fines, and 90 days in jail that can be spent in 10 day stretches over 2 years!), his attorney said that this was "totally out of character for his client and that he was very remorseful". His client (the firefighter) then gave the middle finger to the press. What a class act!!
Does anyone other than me think this guy is getting off a little easy? He is even able to stay on active duty while the fire chief thinks about his discipline.
I have the utmost respect for anyone who puts his or her life on the line on a daily basis to keep me, my family and friends safe. But, I have to admit that I have serious reservations about allowing this guy to keep a job where the public has to trust him. What do you think? Should he lose his job?
The Columbus Dispatch has reported that 43 year old firefighter did not want to board his two dogs over vacation. So, he took them to the basement, laid down plastic, tied their leads to a pipe, partially suspended both dogs and proceeded to shoot both of them. One dog was shot 6 times in the head and a total of 11 shots were dealt to both dogs. To keep things quiet, this "gentleman" even fashioned a silencer out of a plastic bottle. Quite considerate!!
He took the dogs' bodies to the fire station where he worked and dumped them in a trash bin behind the station. He bragged to his co-workers about what he did. Thankfully, his co-workers were so disgusted by his attitude, they called the local humane organization to investigate.
The guy even made up a story for his wife and his kids about what happened to Sloopy and Skeeter. Then , when confronted with his crime, he said the dogs drank antifreeze and he was putting them out of their misery. But, that too was a lie.
At his sentencing (5 years probation, $4,500 in fines, and 90 days in jail that can be spent in 10 day stretches over 2 years!), his attorney said that this was "totally out of character for his client and that he was very remorseful". His client (the firefighter) then gave the middle finger to the press. What a class act!!
Does anyone other than me think this guy is getting off a little easy? He is even able to stay on active duty while the fire chief thinks about his discipline.
I have the utmost respect for anyone who puts his or her life on the line on a daily basis to keep me, my family and friends safe. But, I have to admit that I have serious reservations about allowing this guy to keep a job where the public has to trust him. What do you think? Should he lose his job?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Nutro Cat Food Recall
Ok...I managed to severely irritate some "tweeple" on Twitter over the course of the last two days simply because I think we should be a little more level headed and not jump to conclusions every time a pet food manufacturer has a recall.
Our story so far: On May 21st, Nutro Products voluntarily recalled several varieties of their Nutro Cat Food and Nutro Natural Choice Complete Care Cat Food due to a problem with a premix they buy from another vendor. The premixes (there were actually 2) were either low in potassium and had excessive zinc, or were low in potassium alone. Ok, so the company did what they were supposed to do in this type of event...get the product off the shelves via their distribution network. Nestle has just had to do the same thing, recalling frozen cookie dough due to Salmonella. I haven't seen any tweets (yet) hounding Nestle for being a bad company out to kill people for money...
Next, my "favorite" website, ConsumerAffairs.com did yet another disparaging piece on Nutro on June 3rd, claiming that they were receiving reports of sick and dying cats. Yet, once again, in only one of these multiple cases was there any evidence of the food being tied to the unfortunate sick cats. In all other cases, the food being fed was a coincidence.
Now on June 16th, the Pet Food Products Safety Alliance announced that they had a bag of Nutro Cat tested at Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab and found 2100 ppm zinc in the food. YES! That is a very high number and obviously beyond what should be there. Wanting to know more about PFPSA I did a little research and found that the owner of the site, Don Earl, attempted to sue Menu Foods (on his own) and Kroger for adding cyanuric acid to his cat's food. He lost that suit, even after at least one appeal. AND, I believe the gentleman was told to pay the court costs of the defendants. I am not an attorney, but that sounds to me like he lost.
Ok...you are now caught up. So, being the Twitterphile that I am, I responded to a "tweet" and said simply this: "FYI group testing cat food also soliciting for class action lawsuit. Ulterior motive??" And now, the "you know what" has hit the fan....
From one tweeter: "Sad that you are more worried about a lawsuit than sick pets" Another tweeter sent me numerous references to journals discussing zinc toxicity. Actually, I am glad I got this response. First, because I love to get information and maybe we can find out what is actually happening and second, because I get to see how people use information for their own purposes.
I really appreciate the links to the journals....I have found some good stuff in the short time I read them. I also found that several of those links were to articles discussing zinc toxicity due to metal ingestions (like pennies).
Other tweeters asked me if I doubted the vet toxicologist...I am assuming that they are referring to Dr. Hansen at the ASPCA who is quoted in ConsumerAffairs.com's recent article. The quote is "That’s definitely a high level of zinc. Is it deadly? That’s an interesting question. It sure seems possible. But we don’t have access to information on the long term effects of high levels of zinc in cats.” Now, I read this as a concern, but one of unknown consequence at this time. According to Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, as obligate carnivores, cats seem to have a higher tolerance for zinc. PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying that they can handle 2100 ppm...I am simply quoting experts! Sidenote: Dr. Hansen has also repeatedly stated that he does not believe Nutro Dog foods are causing all of the deaths and illnesses that ConsumerAffairs reports. So, its okay to use his "sound bite" about the zinc levels in the cat food, but we ignore his expert opinion on the Nutro dog food? Just seems odd to me...
I follow a lot of veterinary news type of stories and to date, no one on the Veterinary Information Network is talking about this other than the original recall. The only discussion is coming from websites (as I have noted above) that have links to and interest in class action lawsuits. I have spoken with Nutro Products communications people and they are not reporting any proven connection with any consumer complaints and this recall. Even noted author Marion Nestle has said "Nobody really knows". Now, that may change in the future as we understand more about this problem...
Also, I have sent emails to veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists, including one at Washington State for their opinions. I am very interested in finding out what is going on here. BUT, the whole point of this blog is to make sure that all the information is presented, not just what one group (or the other group) wants to present. And, for everyone who says that Nutro (or any manufacturer) is all about profit and money, why does the same standard not apply to the people advertising for pet owners to join class action lawsuits?
Finally, my most recent Twitter reply comes from someone who says that the food should have been quality tested before it was sold. Ok...I agree with that, but in this world of increasing costs for ingredients, packaging, transportation, etc, where does the line get drawn? How much will people pay for their pet's food (or their own food ) to be tested, retested, and tested yet again? Is there a better way to insure our pet's safety and can we get there without driving companies out of business? And, in the meantime, can we try to avoid the mudslinging and attacks until some clear facts show up??
I am trying to keep updates going at PetDocsOnCall.com as more information arrives. Thinking I need to head over there and post some of these great articles folks sent to me via Twitter....
Update (later in the evening): The LA Times has picked up the recall story. Again Dr. Hansen is quoted as saying: Do those high levels of zinc pose health problems for cats?
"The problem in this case is that we believe no one actually knows (or at least has published) the effects of 2100 ppm dietary zinc long-term in cats. Typically, cats are more tolerant of high zinc than other species, including dogs and humans.
"But it’s certainly possible that those levels of zinc would likely cause health problems in cats that could involve significant intestinal upset and liver and kidney damage."
Our story so far: On May 21st, Nutro Products voluntarily recalled several varieties of their Nutro Cat Food and Nutro Natural Choice Complete Care Cat Food due to a problem with a premix they buy from another vendor. The premixes (there were actually 2) were either low in potassium and had excessive zinc, or were low in potassium alone. Ok, so the company did what they were supposed to do in this type of event...get the product off the shelves via their distribution network. Nestle has just had to do the same thing, recalling frozen cookie dough due to Salmonella. I haven't seen any tweets (yet) hounding Nestle for being a bad company out to kill people for money...
Next, my "favorite" website, ConsumerAffairs.com did yet another disparaging piece on Nutro on June 3rd, claiming that they were receiving reports of sick and dying cats. Yet, once again, in only one of these multiple cases was there any evidence of the food being tied to the unfortunate sick cats. In all other cases, the food being fed was a coincidence.
Now on June 16th, the Pet Food Products Safety Alliance announced that they had a bag of Nutro Cat tested at Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab and found 2100 ppm zinc in the food. YES! That is a very high number and obviously beyond what should be there. Wanting to know more about PFPSA I did a little research and found that the owner of the site, Don Earl, attempted to sue Menu Foods (on his own) and Kroger for adding cyanuric acid to his cat's food. He lost that suit, even after at least one appeal. AND, I believe the gentleman was told to pay the court costs of the defendants. I am not an attorney, but that sounds to me like he lost.
Ok...you are now caught up. So, being the Twitterphile that I am, I responded to a "tweet" and said simply this: "FYI group testing cat food also soliciting for class action lawsuit. Ulterior motive??" And now, the "you know what" has hit the fan....
From one tweeter: "Sad that you are more worried about a lawsuit than sick pets" Another tweeter sent me numerous references to journals discussing zinc toxicity. Actually, I am glad I got this response. First, because I love to get information and maybe we can find out what is actually happening and second, because I get to see how people use information for their own purposes.
I really appreciate the links to the journals....I have found some good stuff in the short time I read them. I also found that several of those links were to articles discussing zinc toxicity due to metal ingestions (like pennies).
Other tweeters asked me if I doubted the vet toxicologist...I am assuming that they are referring to Dr. Hansen at the ASPCA who is quoted in ConsumerAffairs.com's recent article. The quote is "That’s definitely a high level of zinc. Is it deadly? That’s an interesting question. It sure seems possible. But we don’t have access to information on the long term effects of high levels of zinc in cats.” Now, I read this as a concern, but one of unknown consequence at this time. According to Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, as obligate carnivores, cats seem to have a higher tolerance for zinc. PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying that they can handle 2100 ppm...I am simply quoting experts! Sidenote: Dr. Hansen has also repeatedly stated that he does not believe Nutro Dog foods are causing all of the deaths and illnesses that ConsumerAffairs reports. So, its okay to use his "sound bite" about the zinc levels in the cat food, but we ignore his expert opinion on the Nutro dog food? Just seems odd to me...
I follow a lot of veterinary news type of stories and to date, no one on the Veterinary Information Network is talking about this other than the original recall. The only discussion is coming from websites (as I have noted above) that have links to and interest in class action lawsuits. I have spoken with Nutro Products communications people and they are not reporting any proven connection with any consumer complaints and this recall. Even noted author Marion Nestle has said "Nobody really knows". Now, that may change in the future as we understand more about this problem...
Also, I have sent emails to veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists, including one at Washington State for their opinions. I am very interested in finding out what is going on here. BUT, the whole point of this blog is to make sure that all the information is presented, not just what one group (or the other group) wants to present. And, for everyone who says that Nutro (or any manufacturer) is all about profit and money, why does the same standard not apply to the people advertising for pet owners to join class action lawsuits?
Finally, my most recent Twitter reply comes from someone who says that the food should have been quality tested before it was sold. Ok...I agree with that, but in this world of increasing costs for ingredients, packaging, transportation, etc, where does the line get drawn? How much will people pay for their pet's food (or their own food ) to be tested, retested, and tested yet again? Is there a better way to insure our pet's safety and can we get there without driving companies out of business? And, in the meantime, can we try to avoid the mudslinging and attacks until some clear facts show up??
I am trying to keep updates going at PetDocsOnCall.com as more information arrives. Thinking I need to head over there and post some of these great articles folks sent to me via Twitter....
Update (later in the evening): The LA Times has picked up the recall story. Again Dr. Hansen is quoted as saying: Do those high levels of zinc pose health problems for cats?
"The problem in this case is that we believe no one actually knows (or at least has published) the effects of 2100 ppm dietary zinc long-term in cats. Typically, cats are more tolerant of high zinc than other species, including dogs and humans.
"But it’s certainly possible that those levels of zinc would likely cause health problems in cats that could involve significant intestinal upset and liver and kidney damage."
So again, he is stating that we need more information, as I keep saying as well. BUT, the fine folks in Twitterland still are finding fault with my plea for calm and rationale thinking. One tweeter actually tweeted "Dont f___ with pet parents trying to warn others of poisoned pet food" I guess it's ok to f___ with someone trying to call for more information though.
She also seems to think that I am selling something, actually accusing me of a pyramid scheme. I guess I have some income that I am unaware of! :-)
Friday, June 19, 2009
PETA Says "Stop Fishing"
I know I said that this blog was supposed to be about animals in the news and new pet health related topics, but I can't help but show my irritation at PETA's latest escapade. This will be brief, I promise!
PETA wants to stop fathers from fishing with their kids on Father's Day! I am not joking, you can read the brief story here as well as watch the news video. This spokesperson ("spokesgirl") says "that's no way to teach a child compassion to other animals, much less human beings".
Ok...how about PETA's antics of humilating models wearing fur? How about the evil offspring of PETA, Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front firebombing the cars of scientists in California? Is that their idea of compassion? PETA doesn't want us to own pets...how does that teach compassion??
Are there reports that PETA is losing money during this recession? It sure seems like they are stretching for new ways to get people's money from them!! Let me know what you think and share your opinions here.
PETA wants to stop fathers from fishing with their kids on Father's Day! I am not joking, you can read the brief story here as well as watch the news video. This spokesperson ("spokesgirl") says "that's no way to teach a child compassion to other animals, much less human beings".
Ok...how about PETA's antics of humilating models wearing fur? How about the evil offspring of PETA, Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front firebombing the cars of scientists in California? Is that their idea of compassion? PETA doesn't want us to own pets...how does that teach compassion??
Are there reports that PETA is losing money during this recession? It sure seems like they are stretching for new ways to get people's money from them!! Let me know what you think and share your opinions here.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
PETA Complaining Again!!
A few weeks ago a an article happened across my desk which mentioned that PETA was upset about a medical training school using anesthetized cats as training aids for students learning to pass an endotracheal tube. I sort of shrugged that story off until I see ANOTHER PETA complaint against a hospital in Missouri who is also using live cats to help train their staff.
First, let's examine what is being done. Ensuring a patent airway in any patient (human or pet) is a vital skill for nurses, technicians, doctors and veterinarians to have. Without an open airway, obviously, life giving oxygen can't make it into the body and organs begin to shut down. Endotracheal tubes also provide protection against accidental aspiration of vomited material, blood from the oral cavity, etc. So...lets agree that this is an important skill to learn.
Now, the complaint...PETA says that you don't need live animals, manniquins work just as well. I can tell from this staement that no one at PETA has spent time trying to pass an endotracheal tube. I spent 15 years working as a veterinary assistant and have literally passed thousands of tubes as part of my duties of helping anesthetize and keep animals safe. Often, there are challenges to this part of the procedure and although I have never intubated a human being, I can imagine, doctors, nurses, and paramedics deal with similar issues. Manniquins do not simulate the "real life" complications that occur.
As I was attempting wrap up this post, I just found another story where PETA is "outraged" at the Pike Place Fish Market in Seattle for their antics as they are selling their fish. In case you don't know of Pike's Place, this AMAZING store shows the way a group of people should work together. You focus on your job, have fun, be there for your fellow employees and customers, and make the decision that today is going to be a good day. This group of driven individuals has set a great work ethic and they have fun while they are working. There are books and videos that show their excitement at work and how ANY business can take Pike's Place ideas and translate them into profitable business. People spend their lunch hours watching these fish guys have fun at work and make money at the same time.
I guess PETA thinks we should all be sullen, morose, boring individuals at work with no hands on training. I could actually find some respect for PETA if they would stop focusing on these little tiny issues (donkey basketball, intubating cats, etc) and spend some time (and money) on educating people about the importance of spay/neuter, maybe even fund a low cost spay neuter clinic. How about doling out some money to local shelters who are desperate for funds during this recession?? How about helping pet owners understand the value and expertise of their veterinarians?
Better yet...how about we get some PETA volunteers to undergoing anesthesia so that new nurses and doctors can intubate them?
UPDATE(6/15/09): The AVMA says that the scheduled demonstration of tossing fish will go on as planned at their Seattle meeting.
First, let's examine what is being done. Ensuring a patent airway in any patient (human or pet) is a vital skill for nurses, technicians, doctors and veterinarians to have. Without an open airway, obviously, life giving oxygen can't make it into the body and organs begin to shut down. Endotracheal tubes also provide protection against accidental aspiration of vomited material, blood from the oral cavity, etc. So...lets agree that this is an important skill to learn.
Now, the complaint...PETA says that you don't need live animals, manniquins work just as well. I can tell from this staement that no one at PETA has spent time trying to pass an endotracheal tube. I spent 15 years working as a veterinary assistant and have literally passed thousands of tubes as part of my duties of helping anesthetize and keep animals safe. Often, there are challenges to this part of the procedure and although I have never intubated a human being, I can imagine, doctors, nurses, and paramedics deal with similar issues. Manniquins do not simulate the "real life" complications that occur.
As I was attempting wrap up this post, I just found another story where PETA is "outraged" at the Pike Place Fish Market in Seattle for their antics as they are selling their fish. In case you don't know of Pike's Place, this AMAZING store shows the way a group of people should work together. You focus on your job, have fun, be there for your fellow employees and customers, and make the decision that today is going to be a good day. This group of driven individuals has set a great work ethic and they have fun while they are working. There are books and videos that show their excitement at work and how ANY business can take Pike's Place ideas and translate them into profitable business. People spend their lunch hours watching these fish guys have fun at work and make money at the same time.
I guess PETA thinks we should all be sullen, morose, boring individuals at work with no hands on training. I could actually find some respect for PETA if they would stop focusing on these little tiny issues (donkey basketball, intubating cats, etc) and spend some time (and money) on educating people about the importance of spay/neuter, maybe even fund a low cost spay neuter clinic. How about doling out some money to local shelters who are desperate for funds during this recession?? How about helping pet owners understand the value and expertise of their veterinarians?
Better yet...how about we get some PETA volunteers to undergoing anesthesia so that new nurses and doctors can intubate them?
UPDATE(6/15/09): The AVMA says that the scheduled demonstration of tossing fish will go on as planned at their Seattle meeting.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Pet Health: Vaccines...What's the Controversy?
I am old enough now that I can still recall the days of taking my dachshund, Rusty to our veterinarian in Westerville OH and getting his "rabies, distemper, and lepto" vaccines (those were the days BEFORE parvo...if you can believe that). I remember Rusty having a reaction (hives) and we opted to not vaccinate for lepto anymore, but it was only after a long discussion with our veterinarian.
As you may have seen in another recent post I had, the Alabama House just okayed the use of 3 year rabies vaccines in that state
Fast forward to this morning as I spent a good 20 minutes on a pet forum carefully crafting an answer to someone who thinks that veterinarians are scamming clients by charging too much for vaccinations and that everyone should just buy the vaccines from the local farm and feed store. I followed that by reviewing news video from Georgia about vaccines can be problems for pets...(here's the linkbut you will have to search for "pet vaccines" to see the video)
WHY all the controversy? Why do "pet experts" on the Internet or in the media think that they know more than veterinarians??
We know that vaccines help prevent disease...that much is fact as we have seen from the literal extinction of smallpox, the reduction of polio, and our low rate of rabies among our dogs and cats. We also know that some vaccines create a longer lasting immunity than other vaccines. But, if you listen to the media (and I referenced this in the last posting) you would think that millions of pets are dying from vaccines and that these newer guidelines mean that you don't have to go to the veterinarian at all!! I am continually amazed at the sheer amount of BAD information on this subject that is prevalent in the mass media and the new media of the Web.
Let's do a little history here: When vaccines for pets first became prevalent (around the 1950s-1960s) little research was done as to the duration of immunity created by the vaccines. The manufacturers of vaccines said "re-vaccinate annually" and veterinarians did so. Also, vaccine technology has changed...we have moved from using "killed" viruses to modified live viruses and even recombinant DNA technology to create vaccines. As we have gotten "smarter" about vaccines, veterinary science started making changes to recommended protocols.
Around the mid 1990s, this topic really gathered steam as scientists and veterinarians started searching for a correlation between an aggressive cancer in cats (fibrosarcoma) and vaccines. Some people also believed that there was a connection between recent vaccine events and immune mediated problems in dogs. Science has shown that some cats do develop these terrible cancers when they are injected (vaccines, antibiotics, etc), but not all cats will develop them. I saw one study from showing that about 1 in 30,000 cats develop this cancer.
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) recommended going to an extended vaccine protocol as the science and information got better. This happened as early as 2001 and some veterinarians had already changed protocols at that time. The majority of veterinarians now recommend vaccinating for "core" vaccines, like canine distemper, feline distemper, canine parvovirus, and rabies every 3 years instead of annually. Other vaccines, like feline leukemia, Bordetalla, Lyme Disease, and others, should be used based on the risk factors that your individual pet has. The best way of determining those factors is to have an open discussion with your veterinarian.
So far, this seems pretty straightforward...but the confusion and the controversy comes about when people equate veterinary visits with vaccines. I can't stress this enough....the most important reason to see your veterinarian is to have a good physical examination done on your pet. I recommend twice yearly examinations, but all pets should go at least once yearly. Also, trying to save money by vaccinating your pets yourself is also a potential for disaster. First, how do you know that the vaccines have been handled properly at your local farm/feed store or pet store? Next, do you know all the components of the vaccine you are about to give? What if your pet isn't at risk? Why should you give that vaccine?
Veterinarians and their staff members want your pet to be "immunized" not just poked with a needle. If you have questions or concerns about your pet's vaccine schedule, talk with your veterinarian. Find out your pet's risk factors and the potential effects of not vaccinating. Titer tests are available to check antibody levels for certain diseases, but be forewarned that they are not 100% understood (is your pet truly protected) and they can be quite a bit more expensive than the vaccines themselves.
You can also post questions to veterinarians at www.PetDocsOnCall.com. Our doctors will be sure to provide you with accurate information that you can trust...after all, its from a veterinarian!
This topic is still quite controversial and has many tangents and side avenues to explore. I welcome your comments and questions and hopefully we can both learn a little bit more about keeping our furry friends safe!
As you may have seen in another recent post I had, the Alabama House just okayed the use of 3 year rabies vaccines in that state
Fast forward to this morning as I spent a good 20 minutes on a pet forum carefully crafting an answer to someone who thinks that veterinarians are scamming clients by charging too much for vaccinations and that everyone should just buy the vaccines from the local farm and feed store. I followed that by reviewing news video from Georgia about vaccines can be problems for pets...(here's the linkbut you will have to search for "pet vaccines" to see the video)
WHY all the controversy? Why do "pet experts" on the Internet or in the media think that they know more than veterinarians??
We know that vaccines help prevent disease...that much is fact as we have seen from the literal extinction of smallpox, the reduction of polio, and our low rate of rabies among our dogs and cats. We also know that some vaccines create a longer lasting immunity than other vaccines. But, if you listen to the media (and I referenced this in the last posting) you would think that millions of pets are dying from vaccines and that these newer guidelines mean that you don't have to go to the veterinarian at all!! I am continually amazed at the sheer amount of BAD information on this subject that is prevalent in the mass media and the new media of the Web.
Let's do a little history here: When vaccines for pets first became prevalent (around the 1950s-1960s) little research was done as to the duration of immunity created by the vaccines. The manufacturers of vaccines said "re-vaccinate annually" and veterinarians did so. Also, vaccine technology has changed...we have moved from using "killed" viruses to modified live viruses and even recombinant DNA technology to create vaccines. As we have gotten "smarter" about vaccines, veterinary science started making changes to recommended protocols.
Around the mid 1990s, this topic really gathered steam as scientists and veterinarians started searching for a correlation between an aggressive cancer in cats (fibrosarcoma) and vaccines. Some people also believed that there was a connection between recent vaccine events and immune mediated problems in dogs. Science has shown that some cats do develop these terrible cancers when they are injected (vaccines, antibiotics, etc), but not all cats will develop them. I saw one study from showing that about 1 in 30,000 cats develop this cancer.
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) recommended going to an extended vaccine protocol as the science and information got better. This happened as early as 2001 and some veterinarians had already changed protocols at that time. The majority of veterinarians now recommend vaccinating for "core" vaccines, like canine distemper, feline distemper, canine parvovirus, and rabies every 3 years instead of annually. Other vaccines, like feline leukemia, Bordetalla, Lyme Disease, and others, should be used based on the risk factors that your individual pet has. The best way of determining those factors is to have an open discussion with your veterinarian.
So far, this seems pretty straightforward...but the confusion and the controversy comes about when people equate veterinary visits with vaccines. I can't stress this enough....the most important reason to see your veterinarian is to have a good physical examination done on your pet. I recommend twice yearly examinations, but all pets should go at least once yearly. Also, trying to save money by vaccinating your pets yourself is also a potential for disaster. First, how do you know that the vaccines have been handled properly at your local farm/feed store or pet store? Next, do you know all the components of the vaccine you are about to give? What if your pet isn't at risk? Why should you give that vaccine?
Veterinarians and their staff members want your pet to be "immunized" not just poked with a needle. If you have questions or concerns about your pet's vaccine schedule, talk with your veterinarian. Find out your pet's risk factors and the potential effects of not vaccinating. Titer tests are available to check antibody levels for certain diseases, but be forewarned that they are not 100% understood (is your pet truly protected) and they can be quite a bit more expensive than the vaccines themselves.
You can also post questions to veterinarians at www.PetDocsOnCall.com. Our doctors will be sure to provide you with accurate information that you can trust...after all, its from a veterinarian!
This topic is still quite controversial and has many tangents and side avenues to explore. I welcome your comments and questions and hopefully we can both learn a little bit more about keeping our furry friends safe!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Alabama Okays 3 Yr Rabies Vaccines
This week, the state of Alabama joined most of the rest of the US in allowing veterinarians to administer 3 year rabies vaccines for pets instead of yearly boosters.
The Alabama House passed the bill unanimously and now it only needs the Governor's signature to become law.
I think that this is a great story, BUT...again, there seems to be a media bias against veterinarians in general. If you listen to the anchor as she gets ready to pitch the story to the reporter she talks about "costly veterinary visits" and how this law will help to reduce the number of veterinary visits. Then the reporter says that the law "allows pet owners to go to the vet once every 3 years".
Ok...I get the idea that they are focusing on the change from a 1 year vaccine protocol to a 3 year protocol, but it's still a good idea to take your pet to the veterinarian at least once a year...twice is actually better. As I used to tell my students when I was teaching at the veterinary hospital..."a second exam is a second chance to find little issues before they become BIG problems!"
So...for those of you pet owners in Alabama...CONGRATULATIONS! Your pets will be at less risk for the rare vaccine adverse events. BUT, please ignore what the media has told you and continue to keep up a routine visit schedule with your veterinarian!
The Alabama House passed the bill unanimously and now it only needs the Governor's signature to become law.
I think that this is a great story, BUT...again, there seems to be a media bias against veterinarians in general. If you listen to the anchor as she gets ready to pitch the story to the reporter she talks about "costly veterinary visits" and how this law will help to reduce the number of veterinary visits. Then the reporter says that the law "allows pet owners to go to the vet once every 3 years".
Ok...I get the idea that they are focusing on the change from a 1 year vaccine protocol to a 3 year protocol, but it's still a good idea to take your pet to the veterinarian at least once a year...twice is actually better. As I used to tell my students when I was teaching at the veterinary hospital..."a second exam is a second chance to find little issues before they become BIG problems!"
So...for those of you pet owners in Alabama...CONGRATULATIONS! Your pets will be at less risk for the rare vaccine adverse events. BUT, please ignore what the media has told you and continue to keep up a routine visit schedule with your veterinarian!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Pet Health: Greenies?
Once again I am amazed at the audacity and single-mindness of ConsumerAffairs.com!
Several weeks ago, I reported at PetDocsOnCall.com how Nutro, the parent company who acquired the rights to make Greenies, has decided to only sell their product in pet specialty stores and through veterinarians. Seems pretty straight forward...
Well, enter ConsumerAffairs.com...they took the same story and on May 4th released an article titled Nutro Pulls Greenies Dental Chews from Supermarkets. In this article, the journalist describes all of the terrible obstructions that have happened with pets who have been given Greenies. In fact, I became aware of their story simply because it was being repeated in various forums across the Internet, without the additional information that they will still be sold through veterinarians and certain pet stores.
First the facts: Have Greenies caused impactions in the past? The answer is most certainly yes, but so have pig ears, cow hooves, rawhides and many other numerous dog chew products. The most cited caseof Greenies is the Dachshund in New York who became obstructed after eating a Greenie and died of complications several days later. The owners attempted to sue the maker of Greenies for $5 million dollars for "product fraud". Now...the really interesting part...in the papers I read at the time (this was 2005), the lawsuit clearly stated that the owners had cut the Greenie into smaller pieces. The packaging that I remember said that cutting the treat was not advised.
Next, all dog chew toys should really be labeld "PG" for parental guidance. Some dogs get very excited about the whole chewing activity and often swallow pieces of material that won't pass or digest in a timely manner. As mentioned above, this happens with rawhide and many other products too, not just Greenies. BUT...rawhide obstructions aren't generally traceable to a brand name. Not too mention that the Internet has grown to a point where people from across the country or the world can get together and really attack a product they find fault with.
Finally, note that the majority of complaints on the ConsumerAffairs website are complaints from prior to 2007 when Greenies were reformulated. The one complaint from 2009 did not conclusively show that the Greenies were the issue. The x-ray was non-conclusive and the owner did not pursue other diagnostics or treatments. So...how can she KNOW that Greenies were the issue....
I am just stunned that ConsumerAffairs continues such strong attacks on Nutro...it's almost vendetta like. Note the last paragraph of the story.."A division of...FDA has denied it is investigating NUTRO products Inc, whose pet foods are the subject of more than 700 complaints..." I fail to see any sense of objectivity in anything that ConsumerAffairs does...
Again, I will gladly admit to my ignorance when and if a problem can be shown with the Nutro foods. But for now, I think ConsumerAffairs should forget about the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Nutro and look towards other issues.
Several weeks ago, I reported at PetDocsOnCall.com how Nutro, the parent company who acquired the rights to make Greenies, has decided to only sell their product in pet specialty stores and through veterinarians. Seems pretty straight forward...
Well, enter ConsumerAffairs.com...they took the same story and on May 4th released an article titled Nutro Pulls Greenies Dental Chews from Supermarkets. In this article, the journalist describes all of the terrible obstructions that have happened with pets who have been given Greenies. In fact, I became aware of their story simply because it was being repeated in various forums across the Internet, without the additional information that they will still be sold through veterinarians and certain pet stores.
First the facts: Have Greenies caused impactions in the past? The answer is most certainly yes, but so have pig ears, cow hooves, rawhides and many other numerous dog chew products. The most cited caseof Greenies is the Dachshund in New York who became obstructed after eating a Greenie and died of complications several days later. The owners attempted to sue the maker of Greenies for $5 million dollars for "product fraud". Now...the really interesting part...in the papers I read at the time (this was 2005), the lawsuit clearly stated that the owners had cut the Greenie into smaller pieces. The packaging that I remember said that cutting the treat was not advised.
Next, all dog chew toys should really be labeld "PG" for parental guidance. Some dogs get very excited about the whole chewing activity and often swallow pieces of material that won't pass or digest in a timely manner. As mentioned above, this happens with rawhide and many other products too, not just Greenies. BUT...rawhide obstructions aren't generally traceable to a brand name. Not too mention that the Internet has grown to a point where people from across the country or the world can get together and really attack a product they find fault with.
Finally, note that the majority of complaints on the ConsumerAffairs website are complaints from prior to 2007 when Greenies were reformulated. The one complaint from 2009 did not conclusively show that the Greenies were the issue. The x-ray was non-conclusive and the owner did not pursue other diagnostics or treatments. So...how can she KNOW that Greenies were the issue....
I am just stunned that ConsumerAffairs continues such strong attacks on Nutro...it's almost vendetta like. Note the last paragraph of the story.."A division of...FDA has denied it is investigating NUTRO products Inc, whose pet foods are the subject of more than 700 complaints..." I fail to see any sense of objectivity in anything that ConsumerAffairs does...
Again, I will gladly admit to my ignorance when and if a problem can be shown with the Nutro foods. But for now, I think ConsumerAffairs should forget about the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Nutro and look towards other issues.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Dog Health: Puppy Mills
Last night, the National Geographic channel aired a special Dog Whisperer episode about puppy mills. As always, there was lots of footage of poorly cared for dogs in wire cages and an abundance of tear-jerking emotional pictures and stories. All in all, I thought the episode was fairly typical for this topic. But again, I fail to understand why there are never any veterinarians interviewed in these stories. Hearing about the horrors of this type of a life for a dog would mean more to me coming from a veterinary professional.
HOWEVER, this story may have stimulated me to think of a potential workable plan to do away with puppy mills. If you follow any legislative alerts, you will see that regulating breeders is a common item on many states' law-making agendas this year. Right here in Indiana, a new law caps the number of dogs you can own (or breed) before you are considered to be a "commercial breeder" Many other states are looking at similar laws as well as the ideas to control pet over-population, such as mandatory spay-neuter laws. I don't know for certain, but my gut tells me that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is behind many of these legislative efforts. Although I do applaud their surface efforts to help, I can't help but continue to be concerned about their less than apparant motives. Both HSUS and PETA leaders have publically declared their goal of "no-more pets".
But let's be realistic, people want to own pets and the "don't shop..adopt" program is not working. American consumers will continue to buy puppies because 1) puppies in stores are cute and 2) its really convenient.
Instead of working through legislatures, why not put some money up front to help develop an enforcement agency/operation/organization that can help police breeders and help educate future pet owners? As it stands now, each new law that passes in every state adds to a financial burden at a time when it is difficult to get funding for any project.
The website, Charity Navigator shows that HSUS has in excess of $225 Million in assets. Why not free up some of those assets to develop an organization that will work with the American Kennel Club, veterinary organizations, and other dog-related groups to come up with a workable and fair outline of "good" breeding practices that is not solely determined by number of dogs or number of puppies sold?
Think on it...I don't know how much money the AKC has, but if HSUS could give about $20 Million (10% of their assets), the AKC could chip in and partner that money with funds already allocated for the USDA for enforcement of existing laws, we might make a bigger dent in the puppy mill industry. Its all about working together and stopping the "in-fighting" that accompanies any attempt at creating new laws.
Other benefits: Breeders who met "good" breeding practices could sell puppies through any outlet they choose...to individuals or to stores. People looking for puppies could buy them through "HSUS Approved Stores" to save the difficulties of finding a "good" breeder. Portions of all sales, through breeders or stores, would be funneled back into the organization for further enforcement and inspection of facilities. And best of all, we could avoid a lot of government interference. Breeders and stores who don't meet the requirements would eventually perish from lost business and consumers, good breeders and good stores would be able to work together to get puppies into homes.
This is just a basic outline and I know that many people will have a lot of issues with it, but...it's a much better start than simply throwing up some numbers and saying you can't breed dogs if you own x number of dogs. Work with DVMs to find good breeding practices, make potential breeders outline their breeding facilities/plans and submit them to this new organization annually along with their license fees, and finally, utilize technology to help eliminate the fraud that is often associated with AKC/CKC and other kennel club registrations. Maybe even mandate microchips for all new puppies that make it to 6 weeks of age.....
This obviously needs a lot of work and, of course, a lot of money. BUT...money is something the HSUS has alot of and my gut feeling is that the AKC has a fair share too. Let's put their monies together for a good common cause and start stamping out this horrendous nightmare breeders!
HOWEVER, this story may have stimulated me to think of a potential workable plan to do away with puppy mills. If you follow any legislative alerts, you will see that regulating breeders is a common item on many states' law-making agendas this year. Right here in Indiana, a new law caps the number of dogs you can own (or breed) before you are considered to be a "commercial breeder" Many other states are looking at similar laws as well as the ideas to control pet over-population, such as mandatory spay-neuter laws. I don't know for certain, but my gut tells me that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is behind many of these legislative efforts. Although I do applaud their surface efforts to help, I can't help but continue to be concerned about their less than apparant motives. Both HSUS and PETA leaders have publically declared their goal of "no-more pets".
But let's be realistic, people want to own pets and the "don't shop..adopt" program is not working. American consumers will continue to buy puppies because 1) puppies in stores are cute and 2) its really convenient.
Instead of working through legislatures, why not put some money up front to help develop an enforcement agency/operation/organization that can help police breeders and help educate future pet owners? As it stands now, each new law that passes in every state adds to a financial burden at a time when it is difficult to get funding for any project.
The website, Charity Navigator shows that HSUS has in excess of $225 Million in assets. Why not free up some of those assets to develop an organization that will work with the American Kennel Club, veterinary organizations, and other dog-related groups to come up with a workable and fair outline of "good" breeding practices that is not solely determined by number of dogs or number of puppies sold?
Think on it...I don't know how much money the AKC has, but if HSUS could give about $20 Million (10% of their assets), the AKC could chip in and partner that money with funds already allocated for the USDA for enforcement of existing laws, we might make a bigger dent in the puppy mill industry. Its all about working together and stopping the "in-fighting" that accompanies any attempt at creating new laws.
Other benefits: Breeders who met "good" breeding practices could sell puppies through any outlet they choose...to individuals or to stores. People looking for puppies could buy them through "HSUS Approved Stores" to save the difficulties of finding a "good" breeder. Portions of all sales, through breeders or stores, would be funneled back into the organization for further enforcement and inspection of facilities. And best of all, we could avoid a lot of government interference. Breeders and stores who don't meet the requirements would eventually perish from lost business and consumers, good breeders and good stores would be able to work together to get puppies into homes.
This is just a basic outline and I know that many people will have a lot of issues with it, but...it's a much better start than simply throwing up some numbers and saying you can't breed dogs if you own x number of dogs. Work with DVMs to find good breeding practices, make potential breeders outline their breeding facilities/plans and submit them to this new organization annually along with their license fees, and finally, utilize technology to help eliminate the fraud that is often associated with AKC/CKC and other kennel club registrations. Maybe even mandate microchips for all new puppies that make it to 6 weeks of age.....
This obviously needs a lot of work and, of course, a lot of money. BUT...money is something the HSUS has alot of and my gut feeling is that the AKC has a fair share too. Let's put their monies together for a good common cause and start stamping out this horrendous nightmare breeders!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Animal Health - Busy Week!
Wow...these last 10 days have been almost unprecendented in the time I have been involved with the Veterinary News Network. I haven't seen this much animal/animal health related news since those scary two months of the pet food recall back in 2007.
Of course, the biggest news right now is the so-called "swine flu" that continues to rack up numbers of infected people as well as the numbers of countries it has reached. I imagine we will have a rough ride over the next 2 or 3 weeks until we get a handle on just how easily this flu is spread and where the true origin is. I normally reserve my thoughts for pet and animal topics, but this one is close enough and I am continuing to see some incorrect facts associated with it.
A couple of key points that need to be discussed: First, pork is ok to eat if you want to eat pork. I keep hearing and reading news stories about countries that are banning pork products from states and countries where this new flu has hit. I have not seen any evidence that this flu can be transmitted in that way and there aren't any pigs in the US who have exhibited signs of this flu!!! Plus, properly cooking pork products will destroy any virus. I don't know about you but I only eat my steaks medium rare, not my pork chops!
Second, take normal precautions, don't freak out. Wash your hands often, cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze and dispose of tissues in the trash. Hmmm...sounds like advice my mother gave me while growing up...I wonder why we need to be reminded of it again and again.
If you are sick, stay home, don't go to work/school/church and infect your friends, co-workers and neighbors. Above all, don't go hang out with any pigs!
And finally, there are no known instances of a dog or cat becoming infected with this flu bug. So, your pets should be perfectly safe!
We have a little ways to go yet with this latest medical emergency to hit...let's keep our heads on straight and not jump to any conclusions. As the story continues to grow, the Veterinary News Network will keep focused on the animal health aspect (if there is one) and you can always check in at PetDocsOnCall.com to get the opinion of one of our staff veterinarians.
Of course, the biggest news right now is the so-called "swine flu" that continues to rack up numbers of infected people as well as the numbers of countries it has reached. I imagine we will have a rough ride over the next 2 or 3 weeks until we get a handle on just how easily this flu is spread and where the true origin is. I normally reserve my thoughts for pet and animal topics, but this one is close enough and I am continuing to see some incorrect facts associated with it.
A couple of key points that need to be discussed: First, pork is ok to eat if you want to eat pork. I keep hearing and reading news stories about countries that are banning pork products from states and countries where this new flu has hit. I have not seen any evidence that this flu can be transmitted in that way and there aren't any pigs in the US who have exhibited signs of this flu!!! Plus, properly cooking pork products will destroy any virus. I don't know about you but I only eat my steaks medium rare, not my pork chops!
Second, take normal precautions, don't freak out. Wash your hands often, cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze and dispose of tissues in the trash. Hmmm...sounds like advice my mother gave me while growing up...I wonder why we need to be reminded of it again and again.
If you are sick, stay home, don't go to work/school/church and infect your friends, co-workers and neighbors. Above all, don't go hang out with any pigs!
And finally, there are no known instances of a dog or cat becoming infected with this flu bug. So, your pets should be perfectly safe!
We have a little ways to go yet with this latest medical emergency to hit...let's keep our heads on straight and not jump to any conclusions. As the story continues to grow, the Veterinary News Network will keep focused on the animal health aspect (if there is one) and you can always check in at PetDocsOnCall.com to get the opinion of one of our staff veterinarians.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Pet Health - Compounding Pharmacies
So the bloodbath is already starting! Here we are barely 72 hours out from getting a good clue on what killed the polo ponies in Florida last weekend and the media scavengers are already circling and trying to bring down an industry that provides needed medications and alternative means of delivering the medicines - the compounding pharmacy industry.
Compounding pharmacies are pharmacies where certain drugs can be altered in dosage, mixed together, or even flavored to help aid in the delivery of the medicine. In veterinary medicine, one very common use of compounding pharmacies is to develop a transdermal mixture of methimazole that can be applied to the inner surface of a cat's ear. This medication helps control hyperthyroidism in cats. Without these pharmacies, many cats would not be regulated well and many more owners would have a difficult time giving the needed medication to their feline friends. These wonderful pharmacies have helped many veterinarians and pet owners by such simple things as adding tuna flavor to a liquid medication.
Notice how some of the media jackals are already trying to inflame the situation by discussing "gray areas" and lack of regulation. The Palm Beach Post posted an article Thursday trying to paint all the players in this industry with the same brush...scofflaws and they "operate in a gray world with little oversight". Gosh...sounds like they are working in the same environments as the drug cartels...dingy workshops, automatic weapons, and piles of unrefined drug material lying around on top of scales and in flasks and beakers.
Luckily, another Florida paper in Ocala tells a more balanced story about compounding pharmacies. There is regulation...is it perfect? Probably not, but what industry in this world is perfectly regulated? I mean, we are in the midst of a terrible recession likely caused by the lack of oversight on Wall Street. And those financial geniuses have multiple layers of regulation...
Franck's should be probably be fined and potentially placed on some sort of probationary status, but let's not find new ways to kick them when they are already down.
This was a TERRIBLE mistake and one that I certainly hope never happens again. I imagine that the entire staff at Francks Pharmacy is in a state of despair and already looking to how they can improve their protocols so this kind of accident doesn't recur. But, I do take offense at "journalists" who sense a potential weakness and then go in for the kill without any consideration to how their actions might effect an entire industry. And, I would love to see these writers come up with some sort of action plan that doesn't involve extreme government involvement rather than just fanning the flames of persecution.
What are your thoughts? Let me know or you can join the conversation at www.PetDocsOnCall.com.
Compounding pharmacies are pharmacies where certain drugs can be altered in dosage, mixed together, or even flavored to help aid in the delivery of the medicine. In veterinary medicine, one very common use of compounding pharmacies is to develop a transdermal mixture of methimazole that can be applied to the inner surface of a cat's ear. This medication helps control hyperthyroidism in cats. Without these pharmacies, many cats would not be regulated well and many more owners would have a difficult time giving the needed medication to their feline friends. These wonderful pharmacies have helped many veterinarians and pet owners by such simple things as adding tuna flavor to a liquid medication.
Notice how some of the media jackals are already trying to inflame the situation by discussing "gray areas" and lack of regulation. The Palm Beach Post posted an article Thursday trying to paint all the players in this industry with the same brush...scofflaws and they "operate in a gray world with little oversight". Gosh...sounds like they are working in the same environments as the drug cartels...dingy workshops, automatic weapons, and piles of unrefined drug material lying around on top of scales and in flasks and beakers.
Luckily, another Florida paper in Ocala tells a more balanced story about compounding pharmacies. There is regulation...is it perfect? Probably not, but what industry in this world is perfectly regulated? I mean, we are in the midst of a terrible recession likely caused by the lack of oversight on Wall Street. And those financial geniuses have multiple layers of regulation...
Franck's should be probably be fined and potentially placed on some sort of probationary status, but let's not find new ways to kick them when they are already down.
This was a TERRIBLE mistake and one that I certainly hope never happens again. I imagine that the entire staff at Francks Pharmacy is in a state of despair and already looking to how they can improve their protocols so this kind of accident doesn't recur. But, I do take offense at "journalists" who sense a potential weakness and then go in for the kill without any consideration to how their actions might effect an entire industry. And, I would love to see these writers come up with some sort of action plan that doesn't involve extreme government involvement rather than just fanning the flames of persecution.
What are your thoughts? Let me know or you can join the conversation at www.PetDocsOnCall.com.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Pet Health - Toxins in the Food part 2
Well, a little more research today found out some interesting news. I received an email from Nutro Products who basically stated that they are unaware of any FDA investigation and that the FDA and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (the division responsible for regulating pet food) have also confirmed that there is no current or ongong investigation of Nutro Products.
Hmmm...why would the ConsumerAffairs.com article say that there was? I did a little Internet sleuthing and found out the the ConsumerAffairs people may not be the upstanding consumer protection heroes we would expect. It seems that the owner of ConsumerAffairs.com is being sued for defamation and this won't be the first time he has experienced this activity. He even proudly states that "we get sued with regularity" although he won't divulge the number.
It seems, according to Law.com that this website and its owner act as a sort of pipeline to funnel potential class action lawsuits to attorneys. The website then also acts as a recruiter to find more people to participate in the lawsuits. Just for kicks, I clicked on the "Complaint" button at ConsumerAffairs.com...the form you fill out is interesting in that it asks for your name and contact information and then asks for the name of the "perpetrator". Not for the business name or the product name...the PERPETRATOR!! In my opinion, that is some pretty strong language for someone who should be objective.
Here's my thought...did the owner of this consumer site feed Nutro food and have an issue and decide that he wanted to "get" the evil pet food company? Or, did a close friend or relative have a pet get sick and they all decided that Nutro had some nice deep pockets?
Again, I don't know all the particulars of the "500" complaints (see yesterday's post) ConsumerAffairs has received, but I am very suspicious that we have seen very few examples of blood work or necropsies done on the poor pets who died. The only consistent data is the ethylene glycol (antifreeze) present in the blood of the Italian Greyhounds who died.
So...I would say that ConsumerAffairs should probably focus on gathering more concrete data before continuing to try and place blame.
Some good news today...they may have a lead in what caused the deaths of the 21 polo ponies. I will be following that story as well and will hopefully have additional information for you soon.
Hmmm...why would the ConsumerAffairs.com article say that there was? I did a little Internet sleuthing and found out the the ConsumerAffairs people may not be the upstanding consumer protection heroes we would expect. It seems that the owner of ConsumerAffairs.com is being sued for defamation and this won't be the first time he has experienced this activity. He even proudly states that "we get sued with regularity" although he won't divulge the number.
It seems, according to Law.com that this website and its owner act as a sort of pipeline to funnel potential class action lawsuits to attorneys. The website then also acts as a recruiter to find more people to participate in the lawsuits. Just for kicks, I clicked on the "Complaint" button at ConsumerAffairs.com...the form you fill out is interesting in that it asks for your name and contact information and then asks for the name of the "perpetrator". Not for the business name or the product name...the PERPETRATOR!! In my opinion, that is some pretty strong language for someone who should be objective.
Here's my thought...did the owner of this consumer site feed Nutro food and have an issue and decide that he wanted to "get" the evil pet food company? Or, did a close friend or relative have a pet get sick and they all decided that Nutro had some nice deep pockets?
Again, I don't know all the particulars of the "500" complaints (see yesterday's post) ConsumerAffairs has received, but I am very suspicious that we have seen very few examples of blood work or necropsies done on the poor pets who died. The only consistent data is the ethylene glycol (antifreeze) present in the blood of the Italian Greyhounds who died.
So...I would say that ConsumerAffairs should probably focus on gathering more concrete data before continuing to try and place blame.
Some good news today...they may have a lead in what caused the deaths of the 21 polo ponies. I will be following that story as well and will hopefully have additional information for you soon.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Pet Health - Toxins in the Food?
This week is already starting out to be a hectic week for people who love animals and those of us who also try to keep the facts straight in the face of chaotic news. So far this week (its only Tuesday):
21 Polo Ponies Die at US Open Match
FDA Admits Probe of Nutro Foods
EPA Reviewing "Spot-On" Insecticides
21 Polo Ponies Die at US Open Match
FDA Admits Probe of Nutro Foods
EPA Reviewing "Spot-On" Insecticides
I will cover the polo ponies and the insecticides later in the week as we know more, but I think the FDA probe of Nutro deserves some mention now.
For those of you who are unaware of the situation, ConsumerAffairs.com has reported several times over the last two years about pets becoming ill and even dying after eating Nutro foods. The company has repeatedly denied any problems and even has set up a special FAQ section on it's website. However, when a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act was denied by the FDA, ConsumerAffairs asked for more information and found out that any release of information could jeopardize an on-going investigation. This information was published on Sunday, April 19th, 2009 on the ConsumerAffairs.com website.
I do feel sad for any pets who have become sick or even died, but I think it is a little early to be casting blame on the company. First, in two years, ConsumerAffairs has 500 consumer complaints about Nutro. That's about 1 complaint for every 130,000 dogs in the US. ConsumerAffairs says that the only thing the cases have in common is the fact that the owners fed Nutro food. I have a little difficulty believing that, especially since in at least one case that ConsumerAffairs cites, the dogs were shown to have anti-freeze in their system. The owner claimed that no antifreeze was kept on premise, but we have no idea whether these dogs ran loose (probably not, they were Italian Greyhounds) or any other aspects of the dogs' environment.
ConsumerAffairs also states that "all dogs had sudden and recurring bouts of diarrhea, vomiting and other digestive problems." Those symptoms are a little vague and could be caused by a variety of issues. After all, who among us doesn't know (or own) a dog that will eat almost anything if given a chance. I would be interested in finding out over a 2 year period of time, how many dogs show up at their veterinarian for vomiting/diarrhea...I bet it's in the millions! So, 500 dogs that just happened to eat the same type of food is really a small number.
The final point of ConsumerAffairs is that many of the dogs got better after stopping the food. Well, guess what...that is a common protocol for any vomiting dog. Stop feeding, allow the GI tract to calm down and things often get better.
Before blaming Nutro, shouldn't we know how healthy all of these pets were prior to their illnesses or deaths? Shouldn't some labwork/medical records/necropsy results be reviewed to find common denominators there? I can tell you from experience, pet owners are famous for saying "but he was perfectly fine last night" all while bringing the pet in with a maggot infested wound. Without some sound scientific data, I don't think it's fair to be slinging mud at a company until proof of wrongdoing is certain.
Don't forget the "me too" mentality. I don't know if these food complaints were found in clusters across the US or even if there were many connections among the complaintants, but I do know that people love to talk bad about products and many more people will just follow along without finding out the right information.
Now, I may be removing my foot from my mouth later this week if the FDA finds any problems at Nutro, but from my experience in the trenches and from my contacts in the veterinary world, I am not sure we should be jumping to a conclusion of wrong-doing by Nutro right now. Even the chief toxicologist at the ASPCA is unsure that these cases had a food connection.
Check back later this week...I hope we know more!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Excitement Over Pet Health Questions
Spending most of my day in front of the computer screen has shown me some amazing, stupid, and unbelievable things! But, I think what bugs me the most is when I see so called "pet experts" offering up advice to pet owners that is questionable and sometimes dangerous!
Now, I know that I don't have a degree in Veterinary Medicine (or "vetrinary medicine" as some people decide to spell it), but when I offer up information in any online media, whether it is our Veterinary News Network site or on my PetLifeRadio show, I am sure that it is information that has been verified as accurate by veterinarians. I have spent my entire life working with animals in one capacity or another, but I do not hold myself out to be a leading pet expert. I really think that DVMs deserve that recognition and everyone else who wants to provide pet advice should remember that fact.
I get annoyed at breeders who want to dispense medical advice and pet columnists who often promote one specific product to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Don't get me wrong, I think that their information can be useful at times, but when you see sites recommending foregoing all vaccines for puppies, or using harsh chemicals as insecticides, it just causes my blood to boil. Especially when the advice is not scientifically accurate or scientifically proven.
SO...I am very excited to announce that VNN has started a new project to help bring accurate, up-t0-date pet health information to everyone. PetDocsOnCall is an exciting new pet community forum where pet lovers of all types (dog, cat, horse, exotic, fish, etc) can go an share their love of pets. In addition, our interactive "Ask a Vet" forum provides you a place where you can get trusted information about your pet's specific health needs.
Tired of dealing with sick dogs....Ask A Vet! Have cat health questions...Ask A Vet! This site allows for anyone to ask pet health questions and receive helpful information from the true pet experts...the Veterinarians! Other sites might provide an article or two, but we all know that your pet is special, unique, and needs individualized information. That's why I think the interactivity of the forum is so exciting. Already, in less than a month, there have been some great answers about vaccine titers, complex behavior issues, and many many more.
With 400 veterinarians across the US and Canada, I am thinking that VNN has the right stuff for making PetDocsOnCall soar!!
Now, I know that I don't have a degree in Veterinary Medicine (or "vetrinary medicine" as some people decide to spell it), but when I offer up information in any online media, whether it is our Veterinary News Network site or on my PetLifeRadio show, I am sure that it is information that has been verified as accurate by veterinarians. I have spent my entire life working with animals in one capacity or another, but I do not hold myself out to be a leading pet expert. I really think that DVMs deserve that recognition and everyone else who wants to provide pet advice should remember that fact.
I get annoyed at breeders who want to dispense medical advice and pet columnists who often promote one specific product to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Don't get me wrong, I think that their information can be useful at times, but when you see sites recommending foregoing all vaccines for puppies, or using harsh chemicals as insecticides, it just causes my blood to boil. Especially when the advice is not scientifically accurate or scientifically proven.
SO...I am very excited to announce that VNN has started a new project to help bring accurate, up-t0-date pet health information to everyone. PetDocsOnCall is an exciting new pet community forum where pet lovers of all types (dog, cat, horse, exotic, fish, etc) can go an share their love of pets. In addition, our interactive "Ask a Vet" forum provides you a place where you can get trusted information about your pet's specific health needs.
Tired of dealing with sick dogs....Ask A Vet! Have cat health questions...Ask A Vet! This site allows for anyone to ask pet health questions and receive helpful information from the true pet experts...the Veterinarians! Other sites might provide an article or two, but we all know that your pet is special, unique, and needs individualized information. That's why I think the interactivity of the forum is so exciting. Already, in less than a month, there have been some great answers about vaccine titers, complex behavior issues, and many many more.
With 400 veterinarians across the US and Canada, I am thinking that VNN has the right stuff for making PetDocsOnCall soar!!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Cosmetic Surgeries Face Extinction in Illinois
This week, SB 139 was introduced in the Illinois legislature. This bill is attempting to amend Illinois's current Humane Care for Animals Act by defining ear cropping and tail docking as animal tortue unless performed by a licensed veterinarian for medical purposes.
To many people, that sounds like they are doing the right thing...
Sadly, the wording of this amendment is all wrong. Whether you agree or disagree with the practice of cropping the ears of Dobermans, Schnauzers, Boxers, etc, if the procedure is going to be done it should be done by a licensed veterinarian. But, by stating that the procedures can only be done for medical purposes is the sticky point...ear crops and tail docks serve no medical purpose.
See how powerful just a couple of words can be....
If I had one of the breeds that allows for cropped ears, I don't know whether or not I would put a puppy through that surgery. BUT, if I did, I sure as hell would want a veterinarian doing the surgery and not the ham-fisted breeder or some young kid with a pair of pinking shears! Are you shocked? Are you saying to yourself, "that never happens"?
You, my friend, need to spend a summer in a big city animal emergency room and I will guarantee you that you will see several puppies that come into the hospital with ears that have been mangled by idiot who thinks he can wield a scalpel blade. More likely, the idiot probably just tried to use a meat cleaver! Stopping the professionals from doing these surgeries only increases the chances that emergency rooms will see more dogs with messed up ears.
Or, how about the rubber band around the tail trick?? Ever seen that? Believe me, it is not a pretty sight!
If ear cropping and tail docking are truly evil, then let's work from within the purebred dog establishment to change standards and help judges pick "best of breed" winners who have floppy ears rather than trimmed ears. No legislation prohibiting veterinarians from doing a job will stop people from wanting Boxers that look "mean". We need to make the change at the level of breeders, breed clubs, and show people. Then, when the majority of pet owners are content with floppy ears and long tails, then we can make it illegal to perform these surgeries.
To many people, that sounds like they are doing the right thing...
Sadly, the wording of this amendment is all wrong. Whether you agree or disagree with the practice of cropping the ears of Dobermans, Schnauzers, Boxers, etc, if the procedure is going to be done it should be done by a licensed veterinarian. But, by stating that the procedures can only be done for medical purposes is the sticky point...ear crops and tail docks serve no medical purpose.
See how powerful just a couple of words can be....
If I had one of the breeds that allows for cropped ears, I don't know whether or not I would put a puppy through that surgery. BUT, if I did, I sure as hell would want a veterinarian doing the surgery and not the ham-fisted breeder or some young kid with a pair of pinking shears! Are you shocked? Are you saying to yourself, "that never happens"?
You, my friend, need to spend a summer in a big city animal emergency room and I will guarantee you that you will see several puppies that come into the hospital with ears that have been mangled by idiot who thinks he can wield a scalpel blade. More likely, the idiot probably just tried to use a meat cleaver! Stopping the professionals from doing these surgeries only increases the chances that emergency rooms will see more dogs with messed up ears.
Or, how about the rubber band around the tail trick?? Ever seen that? Believe me, it is not a pretty sight!
If ear cropping and tail docking are truly evil, then let's work from within the purebred dog establishment to change standards and help judges pick "best of breed" winners who have floppy ears rather than trimmed ears. No legislation prohibiting veterinarians from doing a job will stop people from wanting Boxers that look "mean". We need to make the change at the level of breeders, breed clubs, and show people. Then, when the majority of pet owners are content with floppy ears and long tails, then we can make it illegal to perform these surgeries.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Will Eating Your Veggies Make You Sexier? PETA Thinks So!!
Wow! In my rush of assimilating all of the economic woes and weather related news of the day, I almost missed this little tidbit of information...
PETA approached NBC about doing a Super Bowl ad!!
Odds are that they weren't really all that serious, as you can see from the video of their commercial. But I liked how the articles' author asked a very pointed question...is it okay to exploit women in order to save animals??
(Seriously...I did visit the webpage strictly for the article!)
This is not the first time that PETA has resorted to the use of scantily-clad or even nude women in order to generate publicity for it's "work". Nude models refusing to wear fur and nude women in cages are just a few of the stunts they have used in the past. The animal rights group Win Animal Rights (WAR) also stages protests of fur, but as you can see, they focus less on the clothing optional route and more on the hurl insults routine.
Don't get me wrong...I won't turn away from looking at a scantily clad woman, but I don't think the sight is going to make me dispose of the T-bones I bought for dinner tonight...
PETA approached NBC about doing a Super Bowl ad!!
Odds are that they weren't really all that serious, as you can see from the video of their commercial. But I liked how the articles' author asked a very pointed question...is it okay to exploit women in order to save animals??
(Seriously...I did visit the webpage strictly for the article!)
This is not the first time that PETA has resorted to the use of scantily-clad or even nude women in order to generate publicity for it's "work". Nude models refusing to wear fur and nude women in cages are just a few of the stunts they have used in the past. The animal rights group Win Animal Rights (WAR) also stages protests of fur, but as you can see, they focus less on the clothing optional route and more on the hurl insults routine.
Don't get me wrong...I won't turn away from looking at a scantily clad woman, but I don't think the sight is going to make me dispose of the T-bones I bought for dinner tonight...
Friday, January 23, 2009
Can They Make You Spay and Neuter Your Pets?
So, 2009 is barely a month old and already numerous states and cities across the country are looking at mandatory spay and neuter legislation ("MSN laws") for dogs and cats. Florida is considering legislation mandating sterilization of all dogs and cats within 30 days of turning 4 months old.
Obviously, the goal here is to limit the number breeding animals so that fewer puppies and kittens will be born, thereby relieving pressures on burdened city animal shelters and animal control facilities. But, how well does it work?
In Feb 2008, Los Angeles mandated spaying and neutering of all animals over 4 months of age and began enforcement in June of that year (letting people have time to schedule the surgery). According to KC Dog Blog, numbers of relinquished animals are increasing as are euthanasias in the LA area. His blog has several links for following the data trail, but I found that this link to an internal LA government document most revealing.
Within this document from the City Controller's office are numerous concerns. One of the most glaring examples of why mandatory spay neuter programs don't work well comes from page 20 of the document. On this page, the controller's office notes that:
Department management indicated that they have attempted to aggressively
increase the number of sterilizations performed. Employees at Care Centers
know this is a priority, which has resulted in lax controls for the distribution of the
Free Certificates. Rather than prevent or deny a subsidy because an individual
does not meet or cannot prove their eligibility, it appears that staff provides a
subsidy to anyone that requests one.
Furthermore:
While the surveyed municipalities had strong controls in place to ensure limited
resources benefit a well-defined target population, the Department lacks clear
and consistent guidelines. Since the Department can only distribute a finite
number of Free Certificates, the ambiguous eligibility criteria and lax control
procedures to verify the individuals’ eligibility may result in the denial of
assistance to an implicitly prioritized group of residents that genuinely need it.
So, what I read into this is that in an effort to boost spay and neuter numbers, employees of the city's Animal Control division were handing out certificates for free or discounted spays and neuters to ANYONE who asked! As you can probably imagine, this leaves fewer resources for pet owners who are the ones in most need of the help!
And this is just one of the eleven major problems found by the audit. Solutions to all of these problems are marked as "urgent" or "needed".
Now...don't get me wrong. Controlling pet population through appropriate spaying and neutering is a good thing, but mandating sterilization of your pet is not the way to save lives and get pets into homes. Even the American College of Theriogenologists (veterinarians who study reproduction in pets) agrees that MSN is not a good idea.
The biggest concern comes from veterinarians who believe that mandating sterilization will give people another reason to avoid going to the veterinarian. Believe me, this is true!! Many pet owners equate veterinarians with authority and erroneously believe that the owner will be "reported" for not neutering their pet. Recently, Chicago's pending MSN law was amended to exempt veterinarians from the need to report intact animals.
Bottom line, these type of laws put way too much government interference into the daily lives of pets and their owners. There are many factors to "pet overpopulation" and it will take a multi-faceted approach to resolve this issue.
Obviously, the goal here is to limit the number breeding animals so that fewer puppies and kittens will be born, thereby relieving pressures on burdened city animal shelters and animal control facilities. But, how well does it work?
In Feb 2008, Los Angeles mandated spaying and neutering of all animals over 4 months of age and began enforcement in June of that year (letting people have time to schedule the surgery). According to KC Dog Blog, numbers of relinquished animals are increasing as are euthanasias in the LA area. His blog has several links for following the data trail, but I found that this link to an internal LA government document most revealing.
Within this document from the City Controller's office are numerous concerns. One of the most glaring examples of why mandatory spay neuter programs don't work well comes from page 20 of the document. On this page, the controller's office notes that:
Department management indicated that they have attempted to aggressively
increase the number of sterilizations performed. Employees at Care Centers
know this is a priority, which has resulted in lax controls for the distribution of the
Free Certificates. Rather than prevent or deny a subsidy because an individual
does not meet or cannot prove their eligibility, it appears that staff provides a
subsidy to anyone that requests one.
Furthermore:
While the surveyed municipalities had strong controls in place to ensure limited
resources benefit a well-defined target population, the Department lacks clear
and consistent guidelines. Since the Department can only distribute a finite
number of Free Certificates, the ambiguous eligibility criteria and lax control
procedures to verify the individuals’ eligibility may result in the denial of
assistance to an implicitly prioritized group of residents that genuinely need it.
So, what I read into this is that in an effort to boost spay and neuter numbers, employees of the city's Animal Control division were handing out certificates for free or discounted spays and neuters to ANYONE who asked! As you can probably imagine, this leaves fewer resources for pet owners who are the ones in most need of the help!
And this is just one of the eleven major problems found by the audit. Solutions to all of these problems are marked as "urgent" or "needed".
Now...don't get me wrong. Controlling pet population through appropriate spaying and neutering is a good thing, but mandating sterilization of your pet is not the way to save lives and get pets into homes. Even the American College of Theriogenologists (veterinarians who study reproduction in pets) agrees that MSN is not a good idea.
The biggest concern comes from veterinarians who believe that mandating sterilization will give people another reason to avoid going to the veterinarian. Believe me, this is true!! Many pet owners equate veterinarians with authority and erroneously believe that the owner will be "reported" for not neutering their pet. Recently, Chicago's pending MSN law was amended to exempt veterinarians from the need to report intact animals.
Bottom line, these type of laws put way too much government interference into the daily lives of pets and their owners. There are many factors to "pet overpopulation" and it will take a multi-faceted approach to resolve this issue.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Sea Kittens?? Abandoned Rats??
Did you hear about this?? PETA, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that fewer people would enjoy the sport of fishing if we simply renamed fish as "sea kittens"
Seriously!! You can read the LA Times story here.
Their strange theory is that people will be disgusted by the thought of "hooking a kitten through the mouth and dragging it behind their car". Puh-leaze!!
What about the billions of people who rely on fish for sustenance? What will they eat if eating "kittens" is not appropriate or allowed? I guess they could try and cook some seaweed...or would that constitute destruction of the "sea kittens" house and home???
I think PETA has quite literally gone off the deep end...again!
In other strange news this week, a Rhode Island man has been ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay $1000. His crime...he abandoned his rats. All 280 of them!
Evidently this former rat lover left his pets on the side of the road in aquariums and cages. When the rats were discovered, more than 70 had died and, as you can imagine, the rest were deciding that cannabilism offered a lot of benefits at the moment. The SPCA euthanized the survivors.
Why did he leave them? He had a new baby at home and didn't want the baby and rats in the same apartment!
Seriously!! You can read the LA Times story here.
Their strange theory is that people will be disgusted by the thought of "hooking a kitten through the mouth and dragging it behind their car". Puh-leaze!!
What about the billions of people who rely on fish for sustenance? What will they eat if eating "kittens" is not appropriate or allowed? I guess they could try and cook some seaweed...or would that constitute destruction of the "sea kittens" house and home???
I think PETA has quite literally gone off the deep end...again!
In other strange news this week, a Rhode Island man has been ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay $1000. His crime...he abandoned his rats. All 280 of them!
Evidently this former rat lover left his pets on the side of the road in aquariums and cages. When the rats were discovered, more than 70 had died and, as you can imagine, the rest were deciding that cannabilism offered a lot of benefits at the moment. The SPCA euthanized the survivors.
Why did he leave them? He had a new baby at home and didn't want the baby and rats in the same apartment!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Pets Now Involved in Salmonella Scare
Sadly, as I anticipated, the current Salmonella scare involving a multitude of peanut butter products has spilled over into the pet world as well.
PetSmart issued a voluntary recall of Grreat Choice Dog Biscuits due to potential contamination with Salmonella. You can see the specific types of biscuits on the recall notice in the link I gave you.
So far, no illnesses have been reported from these biscuits and we likely won't see any as most pets are fairly adept at handling the Salmonella bacteria. Dogs and cats rarely develop any symptoms from exposure to Salmonella and when they do it is usually limited to diarrhea and vomiting with subsequent dehydration. The bigger problem is how the pet's owners handle Salmonella.
Salmonella can be devastating to anyone with compromised immune systems. This includes the elderly, young children, and anyone whose immune system is not functioning at 100% whether due to illness (like HIV) or drugs (chemo patients or organ transplant recipients).
For now, if you have any peanut butter type of treats for your pets in the household, you might be well advised to wait and see how many more foods are affected before giving any to your pets.
Other important things to remember about Salmonella:
1) Always wash your hands after handling any reptile or bird as these are the species most likely to harbor the bacteria.
2) If you prepare raw food diets for your pets, be especially careful and wash all utensils and kitchen surfaces after preparation. Similarly, when cleaning up after your pet, consider that his or her feces may contain Salmonella organisms.
3) Ordinary disinfectants and bleach are usually successful at killing Salmonella.
4) If you have concerns about your pet, or if you purchased the Grreat Choice Dog Biscuits, it wouldn't hurt to call your veterinarian for advice.
1-21-09: Here is an update to the story from CNN
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
AKC Grants Full Recognition to Three More Breeds
Here's something you don't see extremely often...the American Kennel Club has increased the number of recognized purebred dog breeds to 161 with the addition of the Irish Red and White Setter, the Pyrenean Shepherd, and the Norweigian Buhund.
The AKC's press release does a nice job of detailing each breed and there are some attractive pictures of each breed as well.
Personally, I am interested in hearing more about the Pyrenean Shepherd... :-)
Monday, January 19, 2009
Take Some Steps to Lower Your Pet's Costs
Earlier, I pointed out a few "misunderstandings" people might have about saving costs in relation to their pets. Trying to save money by purchasing vaccines online or using a less expensive flea medication often leads to bigger bills and potential danger to your pet.''
Luckily, there are a lot of easy steps you can take to help minimize your pet's healthcare costs.
First, (and this sounds very simple) play with your pet! Veterinary behaviorists all agree that a tired dog is a happy dog and happy dogs don’t tear up furniture or get into trouble. Since behavior issues are the number one reason for abandoning pets, this fun task might literally save your pet’s life.
Playing with your pet has health benefits as well. A well-exercised pet is less likely to be overweight and suffer from obesity related problems such as arthritis, certain cancers, or diabetes. Just think how a couple extra walks each day will help your pet and help trim your waistline!!
Next, when exercising your pet, use appropriate restraints and confinements. Pets who roam freely are often hit by traffic, get into fights or eat something dangerous. Emergencies like these can end up hitting your wallet very hard.
Even loving your pet has money saving benefits. Petting and caressing your pet can help find those little lumps and bumps sooner. Cancer is very common in our pets and can be very expensive to treat. Earlier detection generally means a better outcome and usually less expensive treatments.
Despite all of these precautions, some pets will just get into trouble or develop a serious disease. Although veterinary medicine is still a bargain compared to other health services, most of us would be hard pressed to pay a big veterinary bill out of pocket. Companies like Pets Best Insurance offer a variety of insurance plans to assist owners with unexpected costs. But even today only a small percentage of pet owners insure their pets’ health.
If paying a premium every month isn’t appealing to you, consider investing in a Pet Health Savings Plan. PetVetPro helps people save money for potential pet emergencies. Unlike insurance, the money you pay into the program is yours. This allows you the flexibility to use the savings for car repairs, dental work, or whatever – including emergency surgery for your pet!
These are challenging times and likely will be for some months, maybe even a year or longer. It is a challenge to think about your furry friends safety when just feeding the family stretches your budget. If you have concerns, talk with your veterinarian. Sometimes less expensive drugs are available or you might be able to get a written prescription for a generic form. The big lesson here is to simply communicate. Don't take matters into your own hands or you just might end up hurting your wallet in addition to your pet!
Dr. Patty Khuly, a friend of mine from the Veterinary News Network, had a recent blog post detailing a case in which well-meaning clients avoided her recommendation in order to save some money. Long story short, their dog needed extra surgery at an additional costs. So, although we all have a need and a desire to save money, cutting corners with our pets is probably not the best option.
Economy Continues to Pummel Pets
Each week I prepare a News Alert for the more than 350 veterinary reporters of the Veterinary News Network and each week I sort through way too many stories of pets being given up due to the bad economy, pets missing routine care because of the economy, and how shelters are being dealt a double whammy with decreased adoptions and donations while intakes of pets are increasing rapidly.
I can empathize with the millions of pet owners who are trying to make tough decisions every day...money is tight and expenses need to be cut. But many people don't understand that there is a lot you CAN do to avoid high pet expenses. Better yet, maybe people need to understand what you SHOULDN'T do...
First, don’t skimp on preventive care. Vaccinations and parasite prevention are important parts of maintaining your pet’s health and yours as well. Some diseases and many parasites are zoonotic. Did you know that you or your kids can contract roundworms or hookworms from the new puppy you got over Christmas??
Owners might choose to buy vaccines online or from a pet store. While this idea sounds great, there are many risks. Can you trust that the supplier properly stored the vaccines? Is the product expired? Vaccines are delicate biological suspensions needing refrigerations and proper storage. Improper preparation could make the whole process worthless.
Choosing a lower cost flea product from the store is another option a pet owner might investigate. Before you buy, consider this. The EPA has received more than 25,000 reports of over-the-counter pesticide reactions in pets since 2003. So, although you might save a few dollars on the product, the emergency trip to the veterinarian could cost a lot more! You can read about these pesticides and get the whole story here.
As I lurk in many pet health forums or even just surf the Web daily, I see a multitude of well-meaning people recommending Neosporin or other topical antibiotics for wounds and lacerations their pet might have received. On the surface, this sounds ok, but most veterinarians are frustrated when a pet shows up several days after the injury and now the minor wound has become a raging infection. Similarly, pet owners who try to bandage their pets often place the bandages too tight, restricting circulation and causing limbs to swell.
I think the worst thing I see routinely is the use of human medications for pets. A recent article from the ASPCA listed the top ten human medications that poison pets. Again, most people don't mean to cause a problem, but so many of our medications, especially pain relievers, can cause serious issues for our pets. Did you know that a single acetominophen tablet can kill a cat? It's true...a typical extra strength Tylenol tablet (about 500 mg of acetominophen) damages a cat's red blood cells to the extent that they can't carry enough oxygen and the cat dies.
In the next edition, I will take a look at what you CAN do to prevent those expensive veterinary bills! If you just can't wait, go to the Veterinary News Network and find the Pet Care During Tough Times story.
I can empathize with the millions of pet owners who are trying to make tough decisions every day...money is tight and expenses need to be cut. But many people don't understand that there is a lot you CAN do to avoid high pet expenses. Better yet, maybe people need to understand what you SHOULDN'T do...
First, don’t skimp on preventive care. Vaccinations and parasite prevention are important parts of maintaining your pet’s health and yours as well. Some diseases and many parasites are zoonotic. Did you know that you or your kids can contract roundworms or hookworms from the new puppy you got over Christmas??
Owners might choose to buy vaccines online or from a pet store. While this idea sounds great, there are many risks. Can you trust that the supplier properly stored the vaccines? Is the product expired? Vaccines are delicate biological suspensions needing refrigerations and proper storage. Improper preparation could make the whole process worthless.
Choosing a lower cost flea product from the store is another option a pet owner might investigate. Before you buy, consider this. The EPA has received more than 25,000 reports of over-the-counter pesticide reactions in pets since 2003. So, although you might save a few dollars on the product, the emergency trip to the veterinarian could cost a lot more! You can read about these pesticides and get the whole story here.
As I lurk in many pet health forums or even just surf the Web daily, I see a multitude of well-meaning people recommending Neosporin or other topical antibiotics for wounds and lacerations their pet might have received. On the surface, this sounds ok, but most veterinarians are frustrated when a pet shows up several days after the injury and now the minor wound has become a raging infection. Similarly, pet owners who try to bandage their pets often place the bandages too tight, restricting circulation and causing limbs to swell.
I think the worst thing I see routinely is the use of human medications for pets. A recent article from the ASPCA listed the top ten human medications that poison pets. Again, most people don't mean to cause a problem, but so many of our medications, especially pain relievers, can cause serious issues for our pets. Did you know that a single acetominophen tablet can kill a cat? It's true...a typical extra strength Tylenol tablet (about 500 mg of acetominophen) damages a cat's red blood cells to the extent that they can't carry enough oxygen and the cat dies.
In the next edition, I will take a look at what you CAN do to prevent those expensive veterinary bills! If you just can't wait, go to the Veterinary News Network and find the Pet Care During Tough Times story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)