An interesting article appeared in the June, 2008 issue of Veterinary Economics.

Swiss law orders pet buddy system
Guinea pigs need friends, dog owners need classes.

A new law in Switzerland taking effect Sept. 1 widens animal rights laws in revolutionary ways. Consider the law’s fine print:
>Animals classified as “social species”–such as guinea pigs and parrots–will be considered victims of abuse if they don’t live or interact regularly with others of their species.
>Dog owners will need to pay for and take a class. The first section of the class focuses on dogs’ needs and wishes, according to The Times of London. The second section explains how owners should walk their dogs and deal with different behavioral situations.

The article goes on to describe new regulations that will take effect to promote humane fishing and farming. The law also sets standards for responsible care of fish kept in home aquariums.

The article ends with a note about enforcement and a strange exception to the new regulations.

Authorities promise they won’t be going door to door to check up on pet owners. They expect public opinion and mandatory training classes to do most of the work for them.

On a side note, it’s not all roses for cats in Switzerland. The Times reports that it’s still legal in Switzerland to skin cats and sell their pelts for domestic and foreign markets. Some people believe that touching cat fur can lessen the pain associated with rheumatism.

It appears that even ultra-progressive cultures such as Switzerland are not free of superstition! To people who believe that touching cat fur lessens the pain from rheumatism, I suggest the following: try petting a real, live cat.

• Ear Cropping and Tail Docking Create Ethical Dilemmas for Vets
• How can I Know if my Pet has Parasites?
• Prevent a Trip to the Vet: Animal Fights
• Are Pets Being Over-Vaccinated?
• Can Pets Take Human Medicines?

An interesting message appeared in my inbox the other day. The message was sent by an organization that opposes a voter initiative scheduled to appear on the November ballot in California.

The ballot measure in question is the 2008 Farm Animal Initiative. An excerpt from the e-mail I received follows.

Californians for SAFE Food, a coalition of family farmers, veterinarians and consumers, which includes the National Animal Interest Alliance, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Women for Agriculture and many of the leading avian science and poultry experts in the nation, ask you to join us and oppose this dangerous initiative. (emphasis mine)

I did some research on the initiative. Here is a quote from the text of the ballot measure (link is PDF format).

The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

To me, the standards set forth in the initiative sound quite reasonable. And I have a hunch that the overwhelming majority of Californians will see it the same way. I predict the initiative will pass by a landslide in November.

If you look at the website sponsored by the initiative’s opponents, you will see a list of veterinarians who have, indeed, endorsed the opposition. But a check of the sponsor’s site will reveal a much, much longer list of veterinarians who support the measure.

I recognize that the initiative may create a burden for California farmers. It may also lead to increased food prices.

But I, for one, am not happy that veterinarians as a group have been listed in mass e-mails as opponents of an initiative designed to promote humane farming practices–especially when it seems that most vets (myself included) support the measure.

For more information on the initiative, click on the links below.

Supporters’ website: Californians for Humane Farms
Opponents’ website: Californians for SAFE Food

• AVMA Disgraces Itself and its Members With Stance on Humane Farming Initiative

Last Friday was Take Your Dog to Work Day in the United States. The event is designed to showcase the benefits that workers and workplaces can derive from the presence of well-behaved pets in the office.

An article on MSN about last year’s event pointed out some of the advantages of having furry friends at work.

[M]ore companies are looking into dog-friendly policies because they improve staff morale and camaraderie and encourage employees to work longer hours. “People will stay longer if they don’t have to leave to let their dog out,” [the co-founder of dogfriendly.com] said.

As a pet lover, I agree that having a dog (or cat) at work makes the day go better. Fortunately for me, pets are quite common at veterinary hospitals!

Although dog lovers won’t need to be convinced that Take Your Dog to Work Day is a great idea, it is important to remember that some people are allergic to or afraid of dogs. Dogs that go to work should be calm, free of parasites, and well controlled.

You can click on the link in the first paragraph for more information about the event. 2009’s Take Your Dog to Work Day is only a year away!

• Ear Cropping and Tail Docking Create Ethical Dilemmas for Vets
• How can I Know if my Pet has Parasites?
• Prevent a Trip to the Vet: Animal Fights
• Do Damaged Toenails Require Treatment?
• Is it Safe for Dogs to Play Frisbee?

From the March 1, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association:

Lemon laws aren’t just for automobiles in some states. As of late 2007, 18 states had passed lemon laws to provide legal recourse to people who purchase animals from pet dealers only to discover that the animals have a disease or defect.

Defect? I’m not sure I like that wording. “Congenital abnormality” would be more appropriate, in my opinion.

The article goes on:

Under the various laws, the amount of time that a purchaser has to make a claim ranges from seven to 20 days for illness or injury and 10 days to two years for congenital or hereditary conditions. [That’s more like it! — EB] Common remedies include replacement of the animal, a refund of the purchase price, and reimbursement of veterinary expenses–generally up to the purchase price of the animal.

Even without lemon laws, many breeders offer health guarantees on the puppies and kittens that they produce. But the laws and guarantees sometimes fail to take human emotions into account.

For instance, I have identified health problems in several pets that were “under warranty” from breeders. When my clients advised the breeders of the problems, the breeders offered to replace the pets. It sounds good on paper, but by the time the problems were identified, my clients had fallen in love with their pets and wouldn’t consider replacing them. In these cases, the warranties were useless.

Let’s face it. Pets aren’t cars. Lemon laws may help to promote higher breeding standards, but they definitely have their limitations.

For more information about pet lemon laws, click here.

• No Related Post

Here is a disturbing story from the May 16, 2006 issue of The Week.

A Minnesota man who struck and killed a dog while driving is suing the animal’s owners for damaging his car. Jeffery Ely says he has nothing but compassion for the Munthe family, whose 13-pound Miniature Pinscher, Fester, was killed instantly in the collision. But Ely claims that the impact drove pieces of his Honda Civic’s fender into its radiator and that he should be reimbursed the $1,100 cost of repairs. “I love dogs,” said Ely. “But once you get them, they are your responsibility.”

Wow. Talk about adding insult to injury. I am not an attorney, but based on my understanding of animal law, Ely may win the case.

The story does not mention whether poor Fester was on leash at the time of the accident, but I’ll bet that he wasn’t. I’ve never met a dog who was hit by a car while on-leash. Please remember that leashes are not simply required by law in most places. They also are important for the safety of your pet.

• No Related Post

In the aftermath of the catastrophe that occurred on September 11, 2001 a large number of search-and-rescue dogs were deployed at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Sadly, many people who performed rescue work at Ground Zero developed health problems, most likely due to exposure to dust at the site. Animal lovers must naturally wonder whether the canine counterparts to these people are suffering similar problems.

The March 15, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association contained a news item about an ongoing study of 9/11 rescue dogs. Here is an excerpt.

For six years, scientists at the University of Pennsylvania, led by Dr. Cynthia Otto, have been monitoring the health and behavior of 97 search-and-rescue dogs deployed Sept. 11. No clinically obvious differences have been observed between the dogs and a control group of 55 nondeployed dogs.

That is good news. However, the study isn’t over yet. The researchers intend to continue the study for the duration of the dogs’ lives. Let’s hope that the next batch of results offers similar encouragement.

• No Related Post

The April 1, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) reports on a law that will take effect this month in Los Angeles. An excerpt from the article is below.

This April in Los Angeles, one of the nation’s strictest pet sterilization laws takes effect, mandating that most of the city’s pet owners have their cat or dog spayed or neutered by the time the animal is four months old. Certain animals, such as service dogs and those belonging to registered breeders, are exempted from the law.

Supporters of the law hope that it will reduce the number of unwanted cats and dogs that are euthanized each year in the city. The JAVMA article states that in 2007 8,960 cats and 6,049 dogs were euthanized because homes could not be found for them.

However, not everyone supports the law.

Pedigree groups such as the American Kennel Club and the Cat Fanciers’ Association are opposed to mandatory spay and neuter laws, saying dog and cat overpopulation is a complex problem that goes beyond reproductive status to multiple aspects of owner irresponsibility. The Los Angeles ordinance will be difficult to enforce and evaded by owners who don’t licence their pets with the city.

Ah, controversy. Personally, I am ambivalent about this law. From a population standpoint, it makes perfect sense. It breaks my heart to think of 15,000 unwanted pets being euthanized each year in Los Angeles. The law likely will bring that number down.

But I do not treat populations. I treat individuals. The jury is still out on whether four months of age is the best time to sterilize a pet, as I mentioned in a previous post. So, although the law may be the best thing for Los Angeles’ cats and dogs in general, there are some individuals for whom the law may be less than ideal.

• What Questions Should I ask my Vet Before Surgery?
• How Should I Prepare my Pets for Spays and Neuters?
• Discussion on the optimal time to spay or neuter
• Can Dogs and Cats Develop Breast Cancer?
• Why Does my Dog “Adopt” her Toys?

Many cat lovers have wondered where their feline companions are from. Many people have theorized that humans welcomed cats into our proximity because of the felines’ penchant for eating mice and rats. (Others might say that cats condescended to reside among us because our grain storehouses attracted their prey animals.) Once we were in close proximity, our natural affinities for each other meant it was only a matter of time before we became companions. (I should admit that humans may have done more to drive the transition, at least at first, than cats.)

But where and when did this happen? Where did the process start?

An article in the spring, 2008 issue of UC Davis Magazine reports on the results of a study that appears to answer those questions. Genetic testing was used to identify the origins of the house cat. From the article:

For the study, the scientists collected samples of cheek cells from more than 11,000 cats. These cats represented 17 populations of randomly bred cats from Europe, the Mediterranean, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, as well as 22 recognized breeds.

For the record, collection of cheek cells is not painful and does not harm the cat involved.

After analyzing the tests, the researchers concluded that feline domestication started 5,000 – 8,000 years ago. The results suggested that cats and humans began intensively intermingling in the Fertile Crescent region (an area that includes northern Africa, Turkey, and the Tigris and Euprhates river basins).

The article points out that the Fertile Crescent region is thought to be the location in which the human species converted to agriculture from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Farming led to surplus grains in storage areas. The grains attracted mice and rats, and the rodents attracted cats. The rest was history.

• Ear Cropping and Tail Docking Create Ethical Dilemmas for Vets
• Is Paint Toxic to Cats?
• How can I Know if my Pet has Parasites?
• Prevent a Trip to the Vet: Animal Fights
• Are Pets Being Over-Vaccinated?

Thanks to Jeanne for sending me this article from the Idaho Statesman.

From the article:

Many area veterinary practices do not offer 24-hour care and are unable to keep an animal overnight if it is critically ill or injured, having breathing problems, seizures, or requires constant medication.

This situation is not unique to Idaho. Because most veterinary practices are small facilities, having staff on-duty 24 hours each day is not practical. If a critically ill animal is present in the hospital at closing time, it must be transferred to a larger facility, or one that specializes in overnight care.

But if the pet is very ill, and requires continuous monitoring and treatment, the mere act of transferring it to another facility can be life-threatening.

Although Idaho’s pet hospitals are not unique for closing overnight, one of them has come up with a relatively unique solution to the problem of transferring critically ill patients. It has developed a pet ambulance. From the article:

The ambulance was modified with life-saving equipment including gurneys and a crash cart for immediate cardiac treatment, and is stocked with medications and intravenous fluids that may be needed during transport.

As a veterinarian, I would be thrilled to have access to such a service! So would every other vet that I know. Why is it not more common? The answer lies in the article.

More than a dozen pets have been transported since the service began in October.

The article was printed in January. That means that the service is being used less than three times per month. The service either must cost a great deal, or the hospital that is running it may be losing a a large sum of money on the venture.

It is sad that financial realities occasionally interfere with veterinarians’ abilities to provide top-quality care. But pet ambulances are rare for the same reason that overnight hospitals are rare. The costs of such services are prohibitively expensive for many clients.

• No Related Post

Cats are incredible animals. They make wonderful pets because of their remarkable ability to interact and bond with people. Cats that aren’t lucky enough to live with people are still phenomenal survivors. These feral (or homeless) cats are able to live and reproduce in almost every environment on Earth.

The reproductive abilities of feral cats are prodigious indeed. Consider the following excerpt from an article on about.com.

It’s estimated that one unspayed female cat, her mate and all of their offspring producing two litters per year with 2.8 surviving kittens per litter can total 370,000 kittens in just seven years.

Although this sort of capacity for reproduction has made cats one of the most successful species on the planet, it has a dark side. Large numbers of feral cats are present almost everywhere, and most of these cats lead unpleasant lives. (Ironically, the above quote was taken from an article detailing the success of of a feral cat spay and neuter program in California. However, this quote illustrates that even if large numbers of feral cats are sterilized, those that remain intact will quickly replenish the population.)

Communities have employed many different methods to deal with the perceived overpopulation of feral cats. Sadly, mass euthanasia is a common tactic.

However, the following blurb, which appeared in the February 1, 2008 issue of The Week, paints a somewhat happier picture.

Feral cats’ lives on the street are usually nasty, brutish, and short. And when municipal animal shelters catch them, they are almost always destroyed. But the Working Cats program of Voice for Animals, an advocacy and rescue group, has found a way to save some of them. The program has given a half-dozen of the cats to the Los Angeles Police Department to help it deal with rat and mouse infestations at some of its facilities. The cats don’t usually kill the rodents; rather, once they get a whiff of the pungent predators, they generally run. “Once we got the cats, problem solved,” said Cmdr. Kirk Albanese. “I think it’s a very humane way to deal with a very stubborn problem.”

Although I don’t think that this program alone will solve the feral cat dilemma, it certainly is a step in the right direction.

• No Related Post