I would like to thank Amanda of Environmental Working Group for alerting me to a report that her organization recently released. An excerpt from the report is below.

High Levels of Toxic Industrial Chemicals Contaminate Cats And Dogs

. . . In the first study of its kind, Environmental Working Group found that American pets are polluted with even higher levels of many of the same synthetic industrial chemicals that researchers have recently found in people, including newborns.

The results show that America’s pets are serving as involuntary sentinels of the widespread chemical contamination that scientists increasingly link to a growing array of health problems across a wide range of animals—wild, domesticated and human.

I recommend that you read the report. The findings are disturbing. For instance, consider the following.

Dogs and cats were contaminated with 48 of 70 industrial chemicals tested, including 43 chemicals at levels higher than those typically found in people, according to our study of plastics and food packaging chemicals, heavy metals, fire retardants, and stain-proofing chemicals in pooled samples of blood and urine from 20 dogs and 37 cats collected at a Virginia veterinary clinic.

Diseases such as cancer and hyperthyroidism are becoming more prevalent in pets. Part of the increase in prevalence can be explained by the longer life expectancies that pets currently enjoy. Cancer, in particular, is more likely to strike when animals are older.

However, the bodily effects of many chemicals listed in the study are not fully understood. In my mind, it is very likely that chemical body burden is playing a role in these disease processes.

Environmental Working Group has launched a campaign to raise awareness about this issue. You can view the campaign’s website by clicking here. The campaign’s spokesdog, Eddie, has a good blog. He also has a profile on Dogster.

• Vaccines Poised for a Comeback
• Which Breeds Are Most Likely to Develop Cancer?
• How can I Protect my Cat From Ear Mites?
• Why do Pets get Sick While You’re on Vacation?
• Article Discusses the Increasing Use of Psychoactive Drugs in Pets

Most medicines prescribed by vets are safe. This means that they are not likely to cause serious adverse effects or toxicity.

Nonetheless, any time a pet takes a medicine there is a chance that side effects can occur, even if the side effects are not common.

Because of the risk of side effects, I try not to prescribe medications unless I have a solid reason to believe that they will help my patient. When I diagnose a condition that will resolve rapidly on its own without treatment, I prefer not to prescribe any medicine at all.

That sounds straightforward. But believe it or not, sometimes it upsets clients. Some people feel that they have wasted their time and money if they come home from the vet without some sort of medicine.

When a beloved pet is not feeling well, it is natural to want to do something about the problem. When people give medicine to their pet, they feel that they are helping their pet. However, if the medicine is not appropriate for the condition it may cause more harm than good.

Consider the following letter from a reader.

Hi, My baby Ginger just turned 8 this past
week and lately she has been coughing quite a
bit. It almost sounds croupey. She has an over-the-
counter allergy medicine that I give her and I’m
guessing she might have allergies. What do you
think I should do? (I’m planning to take her to
our vet this week, but I’d like your opinion.)

Allergies rarely cause coughing in 8-year-old dogs. Syndromes such as collapsing trachea, bronchitis, and heart disease are more likely culprits. It is unlikely that an over-the-counter allergy medicine will help much. (A trip to the vet, on the other hand, is exactly what I’d recommend.)

Over-the-counter allergy medicines (antihistamines) may cause sedation, agitation, or upset stomach. What’s more, they have been linked to some scary side effects in people. A number of studies have correlated the use of antihistamines (many of which fall into a class of medications known as anticholinergics) with cognitive decline (dementia) in elderly people. For an article that describes these effects in more detail, click here (warning: the article is somewhat technical in nature).

Some experts now recommend that people with familial histories of Alzheimer’s disease avoid over-the-counter antihistamines.

Animals do not suffer from Alzheimer’s disease per se. However, cognitive dysfunction and dementia appear to be common in elderly cats and dogs.

No link has yet been made between antihistamines and cognitive dysfunction in pets. Nonetheless, the brains and bodies of our pets are very similar to our own. In time a correlation may (or may not) be discovered.

Antihistamines have many valid uses in veterinary medicine. However, unless a pet has been diagnosed with a condition for which antihistamines are the appropriate treatment, I see no reason to give them.

• Article Discusses the Increasing Use of Psychoactive Drugs in Pets
• How can I Protect my Cat From Ear Mites?
• Why do Pets get Sick While You’re on Vacation?
• Yet Another Scientific Paper Documents the Human Health Benefits of Pets
• Pets May Help Prevent Cognitive Decline in Elderly People

I was at the park not long ago with my good friend Buster. Some human friends were there as well. Buster is a bit fetch-obsessed, and the humans in the group took turns throwing a ball for him. It did not take long for the ball to become repulsively drenched with dog slobber.

I took the opportunity to lament that I had left the Chuckit! at home. And, I also noted that I was sorry that I hadn’t invented the device myself. My friend Brian laughed at me, and replied that I was about 30,000 years too late.

He pointed out that the Chuckit! is a variant of the atlatl, an ancient device used to throw spears. A quick check on Wikipedia proved him right.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that I was 30,000 years late. For one thing, archaeological records suggest that dogs were first domesticated 15,000 years ago.

Even if the Chuckit! isn’t a completely original idea, my hat still goes off to the person who thought of modifying an atlatl to hold a ball. I wish it had been me.

• Does Poor Air Quality Affect Pets?
• New Test for Canine Heart Disease may be on the Horizon
• How can I Protect my Cat From Ear Mites?
• Are Labradoodles and Cockapoos Simply Mutts?
• Why do Pets get Sick While You’re on Vacation?

This link to an article by Jon Katz on Slate.com is a few years old, but its topic remains utterly timely. The article discusses the heartbreaking story of a nice, affluent family that adopts a lovable Golden Retriever named Ernie.

The family is made up of well-intentioned, decent people. The Golden is a friendly, sociable, normal dog.

But the family members are busy. Nobody takes the time to bond with and train the dog properly. Lacking the proper bonding and training, the dog becomes confused and anxious, and begins to act out. From the article:

As he went through the normal stages of retriever development—teething, mouthing, racing frantically around the house, peeing when excited, offering items the family didn’t want retrieved, eating strange objects and then vomiting them up—the casualties mounted. Rugs got stained, shoes chewed, mail devoured, table legs gnawed. The family rejected the use of a crate or kennel—a valuable calming tool for young and energetic dogs—as cruel. Instead, they let the puppy get into all sorts of trouble, then scolded and resented him for it. He was “hyper,” they complained, “wild,” “rambunctious.” The notion of him as annoying and difficult became fixed in their minds; perhaps in his as well.

A practiced trainer would have seen, instead, a Golden Retriever that was confused, under-exercised, and untrained—an ironic fate for a dog bred for centuries to be calm and responsive to humans.

A vicious cycle developed in which the dog, through no fault of his own, ultimately became marginalized and unloved by the family.

Complaining that he was out of control, the family tried fencing the back yard and putting Ernie outside during meals to keep him from bothering them. The nanny stuck him there most of the day as well, because he messed up the house. Allowed inside at night, he was largely confined to the kitchen, sealed off by child gates.

At no time did the family fail to offer Ernie high quality food, veterinary care, or walks (although the walks he did receive seemed wholly inadequate to me). However, in my opinion they failed to give Ernie one of the most basic necessities of a dog’s life: true love.

Sadly, I see this situation regularly as a veterinarian. Clients ask about behavior problems in dogs that are well-meaning, but have not benefitted from appropriate training and bonding. The dogs are not at fault for these problems. There is no way to avoid it: if you want a good relationship with your dog (or with anybody, for that matter) you must invest your time in it.

• New Test for Canine Heart Disease may be on the Horizon
• How can I Protect my Cat From Ear Mites?
• Are Labradoodles and Cockapoos Simply Mutts?
• Why do Pets get Sick While You’re on Vacation?
• Should I Worry About Overgrowth on Foot Pads?

Most of us here on Dogster and Catster find it hard to understand animal neglect and abuse. After all, the sort of person who creates a web page for his cat probably has a pretty pampered pet!

Sadly, not every animal is so lucky. A reader named Anna recently contacted me and told me about her organization, Sunbear Squad. Sunbear was a chocolate Labrador who died of neglect after six weeks of being trapped in a laundry room. Sunbear’s story is heartbreaking, and it affected large numbers of people. It led to stricter animal abuse and cruelty laws in Sunbear’s home state of West Virginia.

Sunbear’s story also led to the creation of Sunbear Squad. Their website contains a wealth of information on recognizing, preventing and fighting animal abuse and neglect.

A news item in the February 15, 2008 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association points out that more states are enacting legislation to protect animal welfare. According to the Journal, cruelty to animals is a felony in 43 states. Several states provide immunity to veterinarians who report suspected neglect or abuse. Colorado now requires veterinarians to report such suspicions.

We have a long way to go before all cats and dogs are treated as well as the ones on Catster and Dogster. But I am glad that there are people out there working to make it happen.

• No Related Post

I recently read Mindreading, by Sanjida O’Connell. The book discusses people’s ability (or inability) to understand the thoughts, needs, and desires of others.

It also talks about animals’ ability to understand the same thing. What I gathered from the book is that nobody really knows the extent to which animals are aware of others’ consciousness. Sadly, my enjoyment (and comprehension) of the book was hindered by sentences such as this:

Other evidence which indicates that joint attention is crucial to developing Theory of Mind comes from autistic children who, as we have said, are not able to show or understand triadic joint attention or protodeclarative pointing and even sometimes have trouble with protoimperatives. (O’Connell, Sanjida. Mindreading: Investigation into How We Learn to Love and Lie. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Page 61.)

What? Was I supposed to understand that?

Pedantic bombast aside, there has been a lot of argument about whether pets truly understand, in some degree, that the humans in their lives have thoughts and needs. Dogs and cats certainly appear to display empathy towards people. But do they really? What do you think?

• No Related Post

Many people are frustrated when
veterinarians recommend Elizabethan collars for their
pets. Elizabethan collars, also known as space
collars or E-collars, are plastic cones that are
fitted around pets’ necks to keep them from
excessively licking areas of their body. They also
keep pets from scratching their faces or ears with
their feet. The point of E-collars is to prevent
self-trauma. They are often applied after surgeries
or other medical treatments.

And they are a serious nuisance.

Dogs wearing E-collars generally become walking
disasters. When a large dog rams his E-collar into
your shin, it hurts. If he rubs it against the wall,
it can scrape off the paint. E-collars may knock
over furniture or priceless vases. They make walking
and climbing stairs difficult.

Cats wearing E-collars can’t groom themselves, and
they generally become foul-tempered. Some cats go
ballistic, and will struggle ceaselessly to remove the
apparatus.

It is not surprising that many people ask me if their
pet really needs to wear an E-collar after surgery or
some other treatment. The answer is: it depends on
the pet. Some pets will ignore wounds or surgical
incisions and allow them to heal. Others will not.

There is only one way to find out whether your pet
truly needs an E-collar—let him go without it. But
that is a serious gamble.

I was recently walking on a beach in Halong Bay,
Vietnam. There is a type of coral in Vietnam that
causes a serious reaction if it contacts your skin. A
small piece of this coral evidently found its way
between my foot and my flip-flop.

My foot started to itch mildly. So I scratched it.
That made it itch more. So I scratched more. Which
made it itch more. And this cycle would have
repeated indefinitely if I had not known that I would
eventually scratch my way down to the bone.

I had to apply a mental E-collar to myself. I wanted
to scratch that foot, but I forced myself to stop.

An acquaintance present at the time assured me that if
I allowed her to urinate on my foot the situation
would resolve immediately (this apparently is a common
local cure for such situations). I declined her kind
offer, and instead applied a cream containing a
medicine related to prednisone. The itching went away
after a few days, but I had to keep my mental E-collar
on until it did.

My point in telling this story is that dogs and cats
do not understand that repeatedly licking or
scratching an area will damage it. And they can cause
very serious damage to themselves in no time flat. I
have seen cats lick surgical incisions open in less
than an hour. I have seen dogs lick their foot raw
to the level of the bone in a similar amount of time.

Pets cannot use mental E-collars. As annoying as it
may be, they need the real thing.

• No Related Post

My very good friend Buster, who never misses an opportunity to watch me in the kitchen, was observing me make breakfast this morning. He showed special interest in the raisins that I put on my cereal.

Raisins and grapes are believed to be toxic to dogs. I use the word believed because it has not been proven conclusively that grapes and raisins themselves are toxic. Some scholars suspect mold or fungus present on the fruits is what causes kidney damage in some dogs that eat them.

Regardless of the toxin’s identity, you should not let your pet eat grapes or raisins.

What truly strikes me is not that grapes and raisins are toxic to dogs. Plenty of human foods should not be eaten by pets (chocolate is another example). The interesting thing, to me, is that nobody thought that grapes or raisins were dangerous before 1999. Before that, many vets recommended grapes as a healthy, tasty dog treat.

Our understanding of the world and its systems is continually evolving. Accepted truths are upended regularly. The body is very complex. There will be more surprises in the future.

• Protect Your Cat From Five Common Hazards

Being bitten or scratched by patients is an occupational hazard for veterinarians. In the United States, a veterinarian who is injured by a patient can not sue the animal’s owner.

Laws state that veterinarians have special knowledge of animal behavior and should be able independently to assess whether a pet is a threat. We have the right to refuse to treat an animal that we decide is hazardous. However, if we are injured by an animal that we have elected to treat, we cannot hold the owner liable.

A court ruling last fall set a precedent that will expand the group of people who are not able to seek damages from animal owners.

A kennel worker was mauled by a dog. She sued the owner of the dog. The court ruled that kennel workers, like veterinarians, have special knowledge of animal behavior. They therefore cannot hold owners of animals liable for injuries sustained while working. The ruling likely applies to all staff members at boarding, grooming, and veterinary facilities.

At first glance, this sounds like good news for people who have nervous pets that lash out at vets or groomers. However, the ruling may have a dark side for these animals.

First, the ruling allows injured animal workers to sue owners who do not disclose their pet’s previous aggressive or nervous behavior. In other words, if a pet has ever bitten or scratched a person and its owner does not disclose that fact, the owner can be sued.

As well, there is no doubt that America is a sue-happy place. Some day, a kennel worker will be bitten by a dog. He will start looking for someone to sue. He won’t be able to sue the dog’s owner, but he will be able to go after his boss. And he will probably win. After all, employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe workplace.

What could happen next is frightening. A combination of workplace safety laws, insurance company policies, and litigation precedents could make it impossible for veterinarians to treat any pet that anyone in the facility feels may be dangerous. In the worst-case scenario, nervous or nippy animals may not be able to receive any form of veterinary care whatsoever.

I hope that this scenario does not play out. But in the crazy world of the US legal system, I fear that anything is possible.

Due to the controversy that surrounds the terminology, I try to avoid using the words owner and guardian. However, this post deals with legal matters and litigation. Courts unambiguously and consistently use the word owner. I have followed that precedent in this post.

• No Related Post

A debate has been raging for years over the proper terminology to use when describing the relationship of a person to his or her pet.  Historically, animals have been regarded as property in the eyes of the law.  Therefore, people with pets have been called pet owners.

However, a growing number of people feel that the word “owner” does not do justice to the relationship between a person and a pet.  Adherents to this school of thought often prefer the word “guardian.”  They argue, quite reasonably, that people form intense emotional bonds with their pets, and that this relationship deserves a unique title.  They point out that most people love their pets. Nobody I know would say that love their dishwasher or their sofa.

Members of the owner camp retort that calling oneself a pet guardian may have unintended consequences for people and pets.  They point to the example of adults who are guardians of children, and claim that guardianship carries responsibilities that ownership does not. For instance, the owners of a sick pet can refuse veterinary treatment if they cannot afford it.  The guardian of a child would go to prison if he declined medical treatment for the same reason.

Proponents of pet ownership ask what would happen in these circumstances if pet owners became pet guardians?  And how would the change in terminology affect the availability of procedures such as spaying, neutering, and euthanasia?  They point out that a child’s guardian cannot have him sterilized or put to sleep. Would an animal’s guardian be able to do these things?

As a veterinarian, this issue is a minefield for me.  Pet guardians are offended if I call them owners. Owners think I am crazy if I call them guardians.  I try to avoid both terms.

For now, the proponents of pet ownership hold sway in most quarters.  But the guardian camp is gaining momentum.  The guardians make some valid points, and I suspect that in the long run, if they can resolve the issues listed above, they will carry the day. Only time will tell.

• No Related Post