The latest web poll for the month of April on Web-DVM dealt with whether it should be mandatory by law to have canines and felines spay and neutered, with the right to breed obtainable by application for a license. The voting was just as I expected with 61% not in favor, versus 39% in favor (total of 122 participants since April 9, 2008).
The reason I was not surprised that the majority was against this type of legislation, is that on the surface, it may seem a bit tyrannical, impinging on our rights as pet owners, and as Americans in general. To many it may seem to spell of a "big brother is watching," and to be sure, I understand why some would feel this way. However, as one who is in favor of mandatory spay/neuter legislation, I would like to present my case for why this should be so. After explaining my reasons for my stance on this controversial topic, it is my hope that I may convince some of those opposed to my point of view, that my position does indeed have merit.
My first point begins with the tragedy of animal shelters overflowing with puppies, kittens, dogs, and cats, many of which are sweet animals that would make excellent pets. Their circumstances that placed them in the shelters are often the result of people callously discarding them simply because the pet of a couple breaks up and neither wants it, owners have to move and cannot be bothered with making accommodations for the pet, or people adopt pets on a whim and abandon them because they realize that there is some work and responsibility that goes with pet ownership. The most tragic circumstance is the animals in the shelters that have been well cared for and accustomed to love from elderly owners who have passed away and there is no family available (or willing) to take them. Whatever circumstances brought them there, if the animals do not get adopted in an allotted amount of time, they get euthanized to make room for the constant influx of more animals with the same predicaments.
We clearly see this situation continuously playing out before our eyes, but in the rural and poorer sections of the county that I live, intact animals are are allowed to roam and breed at will, creating more offspring to contribute to an already unacceptable problem. When their children wish for a pet, rather than go to the shelter and rescue a doomed animal, they instead wait for a neighbor's cat or dog that has multiple litters a year to pop out yet another litter and pick one out (these people in turn are not likely to have their own pet altered, so they are destined to contribute to the problem in due time).
Allot of this action is simply born out of ignorance, but who will inform the public and convince them that they are contributing to the tragedy of overflowing shelters? The veterinarians certainly cannot, as these demographics tend to infrequently seek veterinary care for their pets. Many do not even listen when we have the opportunity to educate them, clinging to religious or philosophical beliefs, or outdated notions of not interfering with nature's way. Then, of course, there is always the occasional dimwitted man who refuses neutering because he equates the pet's castration with the concept of his own (few things in practice irritate me more than this!).
However, if animal control officers had the authority to fine people with unaltered animals (just as they do for unlicensed pets or pets not vaccinated for rabies), they would be inclined to have it done. This would lead to a less excessive pet population overall that would encourage adoption from shelters and rescues, as well as decrease the numbers of homeless animals flowing into the shelters. Also, altered animals live healthier, more well adjusted lives, make better pets, and are less inclined to run away or wander.
My other main point about mandatory spay/neuter is the fact breeders have no real accountability, other than 14 day puppy/kitten lemon law. A veterinarian's license is a matter of public record. If there are any judgments against us for legal, ethical, or competency violations, all one needs to do is go to the Florida professional website and have a look. This enables the consumer to scrutinize veterinarians prior to choosing one to care for their pets, and provides a means for the state board to suspend or revoke the licenses of veterinarians that are in repeated violation of ethical, competency, and legal guidelines. Why should this not be the same for breeders, many of whom time and again we find to be violators ethics and competency?
If breeders have to apply for and maintain a license that stands as a matter of public record, breeders will be significantly more accountable for their actions. When they act in a manner that is not ethical, such as: breeding animals before the age that many genetic diseases clinically manifest (2 years), thereby possibly unknowingly passing inherited genetic disease to offspring, knowingly breeding animals with inheritable genetic disease, keeping the parents or puppies/kittens in cruel or unsanitary conditions, falsifying paperwork, etc. In my experience, 9 out of 10 breeders are guilty of at least one of these violations, and with very little accountability within the law for these infractions, the consumer and pet that was purchased under these circumstances suffer with no legal recourse for justice or compensation.
With a state license necessary to breed legally, people who wish to breed and sell animals still may have the right to do so. The difference would be that making them carry a license to breed, disciplinary action can be taken against their license when they act in an unethical or inhumane manner.
The breeding of animals should not be taken so lightly. Not approached with prudence, restraint, and scrutiny, both animal and human suffering often result. With too many people not taking any interest in educating themselves on the true implications of breeding and the responsibility that comes with it, then it becomes the responsibility of the government to enforce a set of lawful guidelines and ethics that people must adhere to or suffer consequences.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sweet Irma Follow-Up
The ever so heartwarming tale of Irma the gentle 8 year old rescued Rottweiler (for those not familiar with Irma, see my 2/18/2008 post titled Sweet Irma) has gotten even more touching. Now long fully recovered from her life saving procedure, she lives free of pain or discomfort. However, with her surgical procedure having left her lower jaw 25 % shorter, Irma was having a problem with her food falling out of her mouth as she tried to pick of the food out of the bowl.
Two days ago, Irma was dropped off at my clinic's kennel facility for a short stay. Her rescuer and current owner, Barry, asked if it would be okay to leave her special dishes that he made for her to resolve her eating issues. He had taken a very nice set of Formica housed stainless steel bowls and welded a 6 inch high berm onto the entire rear side of the food bowl. Having the ability to push the food over to to the back of the bowl and up the berm, Irma now eats with no difficulty at all. Barry also left us with her joint health supplements and anti-inflammatories that control her arthritis, as well as her high end food and treats, complete with specific feeding guidelines (Barry does not want her experiencing any stress due to straying from her regular feeding and treat schedules).
It moves my staff and I indescribably to be witnesses to this wonderful dog live out her golden years with peace and love under the care of such a good man, knowing that she had previously lacked a consistent home for much of her life. We feel privileged to have played a part in her happy ending.
On another note, I recently came across a very clever, fun, and informative animal website I felt obliged to share with my readers. Below is the site description and link:
Deputy Managing Editor Ann Hellmuth writes the animal crazy blog for the
Orlando Sentinel - a collection of animal stories from the inspiring to
the whacky. Ann likes to say that her British birthright explains her
love of animals. After all, Britain is the only country where you have
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Two days ago, Irma was dropped off at my clinic's kennel facility for a short stay. Her rescuer and current owner, Barry, asked if it would be okay to leave her special dishes that he made for her to resolve her eating issues. He had taken a very nice set of Formica housed stainless steel bowls and welded a 6 inch high berm onto the entire rear side of the food bowl. Having the ability to push the food over to to the back of the bowl and up the berm, Irma now eats with no difficulty at all. Barry also left us with her joint health supplements and anti-inflammatories that control her arthritis, as well as her high end food and treats, complete with specific feeding guidelines (Barry does not want her experiencing any stress due to straying from her regular feeding and treat schedules).
It moves my staff and I indescribably to be witnesses to this wonderful dog live out her golden years with peace and love under the care of such a good man, knowing that she had previously lacked a consistent home for much of her life. We feel privileged to have played a part in her happy ending.
On another note, I recently came across a very clever, fun, and informative animal website I felt obliged to share with my readers. Below is the site description and link:
Deputy Managing Editor Ann Hellmuth writes the animal crazy blog for the
Orlando Sentinel - a collection of animal stories from the inspiring to
the whacky. Ann likes to say that her British birthright explains her
love of animals. After all, Britain is the only country where you have
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
What Species Make Better Family Pets (dogs or cats)?
This was the topic of the latest Web-DVM poll that yielded the following results: of the 202 participants in the poll, 52% voted for dogs, 24% voted for cats, 20% voted for both, and 4% voted for neither.
I was very curious to arrive at these polling results, as I find that the breakdown of my office visits in practice seem to be consistent with this finding. While I have not done official analysis of the percentage of canine versus feline appointments, I can easily observe that the majority are canine. Off the top of my head, I would say that a fair approximate breakdown of my appointments approaches 7o%canine versus 30% feline.
What's more, it seems that canines receive more progressive preventative health care and are overwhelmingly more frequently up to date with regular yearly visits when compared to cats. Also, I observe that generally canines are more likely than felines to be the recipient of owner approval for aggressive, invasive, and/or expensive diagnostics and treatments in times of serious injury or illness. Considering the poll results and these trends I see in practice, I am left with a clear impression that dogs tend to be more accepted as family members than cats are, benefit from better health care than cats overall, and are more likely than cats to benefit from aggressive diagnostic and treatment measures than cats are.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer a concise reason for these generalities for two important reasons. First, as a person who has dedicated his life to the highest quality of health, wellness, and longevity for BOTH the canines and felines I have the privilege to call my patients, I must maintain an objective outlook and approach to both species. Where my subjective preferences lay, I leave it to those who know me personally to draw their own conclusions.
I always appreciate reader comments, but this is one post where I especially look forward to them. I sincerely wish to gain a better insight as to why individuals may identify with one species versus another, and why dogs seem to more often than cats receive better overall health care and consideration as true family members. Let the comments flow!
On a sad note, Bubbles, the subject of my post, "Bubbles My Inspiration," had to be euthanized today. She finally succumbed to all the health problems that she had courageously fought for so long, with her owner compassionately administering her treatments with the utmost dedication and care. Bubbles will forever live in my heart, as she will in the hearts of all my staff that was equally as inspired by that gentle, brave little soul.
I was very curious to arrive at these polling results, as I find that the breakdown of my office visits in practice seem to be consistent with this finding. While I have not done official analysis of the percentage of canine versus feline appointments, I can easily observe that the majority are canine. Off the top of my head, I would say that a fair approximate breakdown of my appointments approaches 7o%canine versus 30% feline.
What's more, it seems that canines receive more progressive preventative health care and are overwhelmingly more frequently up to date with regular yearly visits when compared to cats. Also, I observe that generally canines are more likely than felines to be the recipient of owner approval for aggressive, invasive, and/or expensive diagnostics and treatments in times of serious injury or illness. Considering the poll results and these trends I see in practice, I am left with a clear impression that dogs tend to be more accepted as family members than cats are, benefit from better health care than cats overall, and are more likely than cats to benefit from aggressive diagnostic and treatment measures than cats are.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer a concise reason for these generalities for two important reasons. First, as a person who has dedicated his life to the highest quality of health, wellness, and longevity for BOTH the canines and felines I have the privilege to call my patients, I must maintain an objective outlook and approach to both species. Where my subjective preferences lay, I leave it to those who know me personally to draw their own conclusions.
I always appreciate reader comments, but this is one post where I especially look forward to them. I sincerely wish to gain a better insight as to why individuals may identify with one species versus another, and why dogs seem to more often than cats receive better overall health care and consideration as true family members. Let the comments flow!
On a sad note, Bubbles, the subject of my post, "Bubbles My Inspiration," had to be euthanized today. She finally succumbed to all the health problems that she had courageously fought for so long, with her owner compassionately administering her treatments with the utmost dedication and care. Bubbles will forever live in my heart, as she will in the hearts of all my staff that was equally as inspired by that gentle, brave little soul.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Pet Owners, Control Your Children!!!
Before I begin this brief venting session, please let me be clear that I love [good]children and truly see them as a miracle, a notion that is substantiated in the fact that my wife is expecting our first child in what has been a very planned pregnancy. That aside, one of the biggest aggravations I have to deal with as a veterinarian in recent years is children that are out of control in my waiting room and in my exam room!
On a daily basis, often multiple times a day, I have to contend with much more than than the interpretation of a non-talking patient's history, clinical signs, occasional unwillingness, and the release of unexpected gas or excrement. In addition to this challenging work, I often find myself confronted with a far more sinister problem: the little devil children of the clients!
While their parents sit by idly, these children tamper with my valuable and fragile scopes, go through exam room drawers, harass the already scared or even aggressive patient, jump all over my extremely expensive lift tables, and even crawl over my back as I examine the patient. As I try to explain the potential problems the animal may have, necessary diagnostics, and potential treatments, I find myself frequently having to yell over their screams, or blatant interruptions as they ask me their own pointless questions or babble nonsensical stories. In my waiting room, children often are allowed to damage food and treat bags for sale, throw magazines all over the place, scream at the top of their lungs, and run around like they are in some kind of playground or reckroom.
In order to get the job done, I sometimes find myself in the awkward and uncomfortable position where I have to correct the children myself and order them to leave the equipment alone, step away from the pet that they are upsetting, or allow me the space I need to perform my examination. In some cases, I even have to tell the parent that I cannot continue the examination unless the children are either restrained or made to wait out in the waiting room. Just yesterday, a child even stole an item from the waiting room, and when the receptionist ran outside to inform the parent of the theft, rather than reprimand the child and make the child give the item back, the parent simply paid for it!
Having graduated veterinary school in 2001, I have seen this trend of unruly children get increasingly more prevalent with each year of practice. That tells me that as time goes on, an ever increasing number of parents seem to be losing the ability to raise disciplined, well adjusted, respectful children, a fact that is rather alarming. Not only are these unruly children very unpleasant to be around, but what kind of adults will they one day make? How do they treat the animals at home? Well, regardless of whatever kinds of future criminals they want to raise, here is a message from me to all parents with children like this: I WENT MANY YEARS OF SCHOOL TO PRACTICE VETERINARY MEDICINE, NOT TO BABYSIT YOUR LITTLE MONSTERS!
What in the world happened to the principles that I was raised with: do not interrupt adults when they are talking, respect your elders, do not tamper with or damage other people's property, do not steal, etc., etc., etc.? When I went to the vet with one of my parents, I would not dare act in the manner in which many children of today behave. I would not interrupt the vet when he spoke, in fact, I would not speak at all unless the vet spoke to me directly.
Is this because I was a special child? Well, maybe a little (just kidding!). It because my parents demanded that I respect them, and my respect for them meant that my embarrassing them in public would ultimately be just as embarrassing to me.
Roger L. Welton, DVM
Founder, Web-DVM
On a daily basis, often multiple times a day, I have to contend with much more than than the interpretation of a non-talking patient's history, clinical signs, occasional unwillingness, and the release of unexpected gas or excrement. In addition to this challenging work, I often find myself confronted with a far more sinister problem: the little devil children of the clients!
While their parents sit by idly, these children tamper with my valuable and fragile scopes, go through exam room drawers, harass the already scared or even aggressive patient, jump all over my extremely expensive lift tables, and even crawl over my back as I examine the patient. As I try to explain the potential problems the animal may have, necessary diagnostics, and potential treatments, I find myself frequently having to yell over their screams, or blatant interruptions as they ask me their own pointless questions or babble nonsensical stories. In my waiting room, children often are allowed to damage food and treat bags for sale, throw magazines all over the place, scream at the top of their lungs, and run around like they are in some kind of playground or reckroom.
In order to get the job done, I sometimes find myself in the awkward and uncomfortable position where I have to correct the children myself and order them to leave the equipment alone, step away from the pet that they are upsetting, or allow me the space I need to perform my examination. In some cases, I even have to tell the parent that I cannot continue the examination unless the children are either restrained or made to wait out in the waiting room. Just yesterday, a child even stole an item from the waiting room, and when the receptionist ran outside to inform the parent of the theft, rather than reprimand the child and make the child give the item back, the parent simply paid for it!
Having graduated veterinary school in 2001, I have seen this trend of unruly children get increasingly more prevalent with each year of practice. That tells me that as time goes on, an ever increasing number of parents seem to be losing the ability to raise disciplined, well adjusted, respectful children, a fact that is rather alarming. Not only are these unruly children very unpleasant to be around, but what kind of adults will they one day make? How do they treat the animals at home? Well, regardless of whatever kinds of future criminals they want to raise, here is a message from me to all parents with children like this: I WENT MANY YEARS OF SCHOOL TO PRACTICE VETERINARY MEDICINE, NOT TO BABYSIT YOUR LITTLE MONSTERS!
What in the world happened to the principles that I was raised with: do not interrupt adults when they are talking, respect your elders, do not tamper with or damage other people's property, do not steal, etc., etc., etc.? When I went to the vet with one of my parents, I would not dare act in the manner in which many children of today behave. I would not interrupt the vet when he spoke, in fact, I would not speak at all unless the vet spoke to me directly.
Is this because I was a special child? Well, maybe a little (just kidding!). It because my parents demanded that I respect them, and my respect for them meant that my embarrassing them in public would ultimately be just as embarrassing to me.
Roger L. Welton, DVM
Founder, Web-DVM
Thursday, March 6, 2008
You Never Know
Tuesday afternoon, I was presented with a very sick and rapidly deteriorating 13 year old, male, German Shepherd, that ended up with a grim diagnosis of severe chronic renal failure (kidney failure). This left me in the always uncomfortable but necessary position of having to inform the owners who love this dog dearly of their beloved pet's bleak circumstances.
When presented with a patient's diagnosis, my job is to objectively explain to the owners the nature of the disease and its implications, treatment options, risk of treatment versus benefit of treatment, odds of success, and of course cost of treatment. Based on all of this information, it is left to the client(s) to decide on how they wish to have their pet treated or not treated, or to elect euthanasia. While I provide the medically impartial information, it lies solely with the owners to apply their individual feelings about how much to put an animal through and how much they are willing and able to spend, given the probability of of a successful outcome.
In this German Shepherd's renal failure case, the labwork indicated that the likelihood of success with even aggressive treatment was very low. I explained to the owners that out of 10 cases that may present with this patient's set of clinical signs, combined with labwork that indicated severely advanced disease, at best, 2 would yield a favorable result. I then explained that treatment for this disease is not very invasive or painful, and carried no other risk than a more than fair likelihood that it would not work.
At this point, with little hope of success, many owners would elect euthanasia not wanting to prolong their pet's suffering, not willing or able to spend the money for treatment, or combinations of all of these sentiments. Whether this is right or wrong is a very personal decision, not for me to judge or convince them otherwise, but to respect and offer my services to implement their decision.
The owners of this German Shepherd were determined that as long as there were ANY chance, albeit a long shot, they had to at least let me try. Again, whether this was right or wrong is a very personal decision, not for me to judge or convince them otherwise, but to respect and offer my services to implement their decision.
After 2 days of aggressive treatment, the patient's condition has taken a remarkable turn for the better. His vomiting has abated, his spunk has returned, and his appetite fully restored. His follow up labwork indicates kidney values that were back within the normal range. He will likely go home tomorrow, and needless to say, his owners (two very nice ladies), are overjoyed.
In this case, it is easy to look back and say that the owners made the right decision to have the dog treated. In hindsight, it would have been premature to put this dog to sleep. While he is still is in kidney failure with his longevity uncertain, fed a kidney sparing prescription diet, he may hold on for days, weeks, or months to come.
Let me be clear, however, that the moral of this story is not to convince my readers that, given poor prognosis with treatment, that owners should cling to that small bit of hope and always elect treatment. Let us not forget the 8 out of 10 dogs that may present in exact same state as this German Shepherd that would have spent the last 3 days of their lives in a hospital, only to die or be put to sleep anyway.
I offered this little tale instead to simply remind you that when you and your beloved pet are faced one day with similar circumstances, you never know.
Roger L. Welton, DVM
Founder Web-DVM
When presented with a patient's diagnosis, my job is to objectively explain to the owners the nature of the disease and its implications, treatment options, risk of treatment versus benefit of treatment, odds of success, and of course cost of treatment. Based on all of this information, it is left to the client(s) to decide on how they wish to have their pet treated or not treated, or to elect euthanasia. While I provide the medically impartial information, it lies solely with the owners to apply their individual feelings about how much to put an animal through and how much they are willing and able to spend, given the probability of of a successful outcome.
In this German Shepherd's renal failure case, the labwork indicated that the likelihood of success with even aggressive treatment was very low. I explained to the owners that out of 10 cases that may present with this patient's set of clinical signs, combined with labwork that indicated severely advanced disease, at best, 2 would yield a favorable result. I then explained that treatment for this disease is not very invasive or painful, and carried no other risk than a more than fair likelihood that it would not work.
At this point, with little hope of success, many owners would elect euthanasia not wanting to prolong their pet's suffering, not willing or able to spend the money for treatment, or combinations of all of these sentiments. Whether this is right or wrong is a very personal decision, not for me to judge or convince them otherwise, but to respect and offer my services to implement their decision.
The owners of this German Shepherd were determined that as long as there were ANY chance, albeit a long shot, they had to at least let me try. Again, whether this was right or wrong is a very personal decision, not for me to judge or convince them otherwise, but to respect and offer my services to implement their decision.
After 2 days of aggressive treatment, the patient's condition has taken a remarkable turn for the better. His vomiting has abated, his spunk has returned, and his appetite fully restored. His follow up labwork indicates kidney values that were back within the normal range. He will likely go home tomorrow, and needless to say, his owners (two very nice ladies), are overjoyed.
In this case, it is easy to look back and say that the owners made the right decision to have the dog treated. In hindsight, it would have been premature to put this dog to sleep. While he is still is in kidney failure with his longevity uncertain, fed a kidney sparing prescription diet, he may hold on for days, weeks, or months to come.
Let me be clear, however, that the moral of this story is not to convince my readers that, given poor prognosis with treatment, that owners should cling to that small bit of hope and always elect treatment. Let us not forget the 8 out of 10 dogs that may present in exact same state as this German Shepherd that would have spent the last 3 days of their lives in a hospital, only to die or be put to sleep anyway.
I offered this little tale instead to simply remind you that when you and your beloved pet are faced one day with similar circumstances, you never know.
Roger L. Welton, DVM
Founder Web-DVM
Monday, February 25, 2008
Should Pit Bulls Be Banned?
There is a movement in our country to implement the banning of a dog breed known as the Pitt Bull Terrier, due to claims by proponents of this policy that these dogs are innately dangerous to society. A recent web poll posted on the Web-DVM, polling visitors on whether these canines should be banned, yielded the following results:
Of 172 visitors that participated in the poll,
- 35% voted Yes
- 55% voted No
- 10% voted Not Sure
Having treated literally thousands of Pit Bulls in my career as a small animal practitioner, I find this trend to be unfair and disturbing. The vast majority of Pits that I have and continue to come across in my job are friendly and gentle. Raised with love and humanity, Pits have every potential to be loving family dogs as any other popular breeds we deem socially acceptable. They are not by nature mean and violent animals, but overwhelmingly seem quite the opposite.
Pitt Bulls become a danger to society when they are purposely tormented and brutalized into being violent animals by sociopathic individuals who view the dogs as a means to elevate their status by having vicious dogs protect their property, or to make them money by cruelly fighting these animals with one another. It is the despicable human element that creates monsters where there were once innocent animals with the potential to make loving pets. Even in a pro Pitt Bull banning article written by Brian C. Anderson, on City-Journal.org, in the the third sentence of the article the author wrote this:
"Pit-bull owners had converted the little park in front of our apartment building into a dog-training ground, where they goaded their animals into attacking one another or taught them to hang from tree branches to strengthen their jaws and their tenacity. Not surprisingly, when the dogs were running wild, the neighborhood's young mothers gathered up their children and fled."
While the theme of this article is pro Pit Bull banning, this man clearly underscores my point that it is bad people that create the dangerous dogs.
Why must the dogs and the people that raise and love these dogs into being great family pets pay for the sins of the dregs of society that make a sport of cruelly transforming Pits into dangerous dogs? What happens to a family that absolutely loves their Pit Bull as a member of their family, when suddenly their municipality unjustly deems their dog dangerous and illegal? As heartbreaking and tragic as that may seem to those of us who love our dogs as important members of our families, that could be a reality in many towns in our country if this this trend continues.
Rather than blame the dogs for their irresponsible, often cruel treatment, we need to hold the people who mistreat them accountable for the consequences. Search and prosecution of these people needs to be more aggressive. Penalties need to be more severe, and the media needs to care more. Municipalities need to be more serious about licensing and microchipping of these dogs.
Make no mistake, if our local governments are successful in ridding our country of Pit Bulls altogether without dealing with the people that abuse these animals to do their violent bidding, the cruel people who were not ever held accountable will simply find another breed to terrorize.
Roger L. Welton, DVM
Founder, Web-DVM
Of 172 visitors that participated in the poll,
- 35% voted Yes
- 55% voted No
- 10% voted Not Sure
Having treated literally thousands of Pit Bulls in my career as a small animal practitioner, I find this trend to be unfair and disturbing. The vast majority of Pits that I have and continue to come across in my job are friendly and gentle. Raised with love and humanity, Pits have every potential to be loving family dogs as any other popular breeds we deem socially acceptable. They are not by nature mean and violent animals, but overwhelmingly seem quite the opposite.
Pitt Bulls become a danger to society when they are purposely tormented and brutalized into being violent animals by sociopathic individuals who view the dogs as a means to elevate their status by having vicious dogs protect their property, or to make them money by cruelly fighting these animals with one another. It is the despicable human element that creates monsters where there were once innocent animals with the potential to make loving pets. Even in a pro Pitt Bull banning article written by Brian C. Anderson, on City-Journal.org, in the the third sentence of the article the author wrote this:
"Pit-bull owners had converted the little park in front of our apartment building into a dog-training ground, where they goaded their animals into attacking one another or taught them to hang from tree branches to strengthen their jaws and their tenacity. Not surprisingly, when the dogs were running wild, the neighborhood's young mothers gathered up their children and fled."
While the theme of this article is pro Pit Bull banning, this man clearly underscores my point that it is bad people that create the dangerous dogs.
Why must the dogs and the people that raise and love these dogs into being great family pets pay for the sins of the dregs of society that make a sport of cruelly transforming Pits into dangerous dogs? What happens to a family that absolutely loves their Pit Bull as a member of their family, when suddenly their municipality unjustly deems their dog dangerous and illegal? As heartbreaking and tragic as that may seem to those of us who love our dogs as important members of our families, that could be a reality in many towns in our country if this this trend continues.
Rather than blame the dogs for their irresponsible, often cruel treatment, we need to hold the people who mistreat them accountable for the consequences. Search and prosecution of these people needs to be more aggressive. Penalties need to be more severe, and the media needs to care more. Municipalities need to be more serious about licensing and microchipping of these dogs.
Make no mistake, if our local governments are successful in ridding our country of Pit Bulls altogether without dealing with the people that abuse these animals to do their violent bidding, the cruel people who were not ever held accountable will simply find another breed to terrorize.
Roger L. Welton, DVM
Founder, Web-DVM
Monday, February 18, 2008
Sweet Irma
Irma is an 8 year old Rottweiler who is as gentle, friendly, and calm as any dog can be. Unfortunately, up until the point when I first met Irma, she had lacked a stable/loving home for most of her life, having been given up and then passed around in foster care for a while. I first met Irma when her newest owner of one week, Barry, had brought her in for a swelling under her chin.
I had never met Barry before, but my staff members who had been here well before I took over as owner of my hospital 3 1/2 years ago, knew Barry well as one who regularly adopted and cared for abandoned senior age dogs. Unfortunately, Barry was also known for his bad luck in adopting older dogs that soon after adoption developed terminal illness. Irma was to be no different.
The firmness and unmoving nature of the mass had me thinking that the swelling was a tumor. My suspicion was confirmed after Barry had approved a biopsy on my recommendation. The identity of the tumor was hemangiopericytoma, a type of mass that does not act like cancer on one hand, as the tumor rarely metastasizes (seeds itself in other tissues via the bloodstream). On the other hand, however, hemangiopericytoma does behave in a cancerous fashion, in that it continues to grow and, as it does, destroys all underlying tissue in its path. In this case, this would mean gradual destruction of the muscles and bone of the lower jaw and, eventually, the dog's entire face.
In order to successfully eradicate the tumor, Irma needed a surgical procedure called a rostral mandibulectomy, a procedure that requires the technical expertise of a surgical specialist. While this procedure had a very favorable likelihood of saving Irma's life, specialty medicine of this kind does not come cheap. It was at this point that I was contacted by a member of the rescue group that was involved the Irma's rescue, foster care, and eventual adoption to Barry.
The wonderful person that I spoke with told me that through fund raising, her group could come up with $1000, but more than that, they could not do. Barry, the great soul that he is, agreed that he would match that amount from his own finances, but more than not, he could not do. When I contacted the referral clinic where I was to send Irma to have the procedure performed, they informed me that even with the $2000 to be provided by the rescue group and Barry, the cost of the procedure was $3000, leaving us $1000 short.
At this point, I was not willing to give up on Irma’s last chance to spend the twilight of her life in a loving, stable home. I asked the referral center if there were any services that my clinic could provide at cost that would make the surgery more affordable. To this, the referral center graciously itemized a substantial list of services (bloodwork, x-rays, post-op pathology, etc.) that we could perform to ease the cost burden. In addition, seeing the effort that all parties were making toward a peaceful future for this dog, the referral center agreed to kick in an additional 15% off their services, which brought the cost of the procedure into a manageable sum.
The surgeon who performed the surgery did an excellent job, removing the tumor while still maintaining a remarkably cosmetic result. The pathology report indicated that the margins of the excision clear of tumor cells, offering a good prognosis.
Irma came in last week for removal of sutures. The surgery had healed well, and Barry told us that Irma was back to normal, eating well and bright and alert. He was beaming with gratitude for the team effort that went into saving Irma's life. I told him that he should not forget to look to himself as one of Irma's saviors.
As I watched Irma happily trotting out the door after her owner as she and Barry exited the hospital, I too beamed with gratitude that I was able to play a role in such a wonderful outcome.
I had never met Barry before, but my staff members who had been here well before I took over as owner of my hospital 3 1/2 years ago, knew Barry well as one who regularly adopted and cared for abandoned senior age dogs. Unfortunately, Barry was also known for his bad luck in adopting older dogs that soon after adoption developed terminal illness. Irma was to be no different.
The firmness and unmoving nature of the mass had me thinking that the swelling was a tumor. My suspicion was confirmed after Barry had approved a biopsy on my recommendation. The identity of the tumor was hemangiopericytoma, a type of mass that does not act like cancer on one hand, as the tumor rarely metastasizes (seeds itself in other tissues via the bloodstream). On the other hand, however, hemangiopericytoma does behave in a cancerous fashion, in that it continues to grow and, as it does, destroys all underlying tissue in its path. In this case, this would mean gradual destruction of the muscles and bone of the lower jaw and, eventually, the dog's entire face.
In order to successfully eradicate the tumor, Irma needed a surgical procedure called a rostral mandibulectomy, a procedure that requires the technical expertise of a surgical specialist. While this procedure had a very favorable likelihood of saving Irma's life, specialty medicine of this kind does not come cheap. It was at this point that I was contacted by a member of the rescue group that was involved the Irma's rescue, foster care, and eventual adoption to Barry.
The wonderful person that I spoke with told me that through fund raising, her group could come up with $1000, but more than that, they could not do. Barry, the great soul that he is, agreed that he would match that amount from his own finances, but more than not, he could not do. When I contacted the referral clinic where I was to send Irma to have the procedure performed, they informed me that even with the $2000 to be provided by the rescue group and Barry, the cost of the procedure was $3000, leaving us $1000 short.
At this point, I was not willing to give up on Irma’s last chance to spend the twilight of her life in a loving, stable home. I asked the referral center if there were any services that my clinic could provide at cost that would make the surgery more affordable. To this, the referral center graciously itemized a substantial list of services (bloodwork, x-rays, post-op pathology, etc.) that we could perform to ease the cost burden. In addition, seeing the effort that all parties were making toward a peaceful future for this dog, the referral center agreed to kick in an additional 15% off their services, which brought the cost of the procedure into a manageable sum.
The surgeon who performed the surgery did an excellent job, removing the tumor while still maintaining a remarkably cosmetic result. The pathology report indicated that the margins of the excision clear of tumor cells, offering a good prognosis.
Irma came in last week for removal of sutures. The surgery had healed well, and Barry told us that Irma was back to normal, eating well and bright and alert. He was beaming with gratitude for the team effort that went into saving Irma's life. I told him that he should not forget to look to himself as one of Irma's saviors.
As I watched Irma happily trotting out the door after her owner as she and Barry exited the hospital, I too beamed with gratitude that I was able to play a role in such a wonderful outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
