The Monday jump-start: Good reading elsewhere
By Gina Spadafori
May 11, 2009
Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly just keeps getting better and better (and she was great to start with!). Hers is without question one of the most honest and powerful voices in veterinary medicine. She has been on a roll lately with a series of must-read posts about veterinary ethics, arthritis treatment, bloodwork and what happens when a person can’t pay for necessary vet care.
Just go read ‘em all. And if you only read one other pet-related blog — other than this one, of course! – it has to be Dolittler.
The independent VIN News Service, the pet project of another of those voices, VIN co-founder Dr. Paul Pion, continues to develop its own niche. Some of the stories are not of huge interest outside the veterinary community, but others are must-reads for all. VNS also covers the ethics issue at the core of Dr. K’s post, and its top-notch staff of medical, science and trade reporters will continue to break open the industry for the public — and veterinarians themselves — to look at more closely.
Of special note to pet-lovers, Timothy Kirn’s piece on interpersonal skills in veterinary medicine:
Many medical professionals once believed that bedside manner and empathy traits were hardwired — clinicians either displayed compassion or they didn’t — and few schools bothered to teach the skills required to comfort and reassure patients.
Now that notion has been turned on its head. During the past few years, the veterinary profession has embraced the idea that clinicians can be taught to become better listeners and more sympathetic, and some say that in veterinary medicine, this type of training is sorely needed.
More here. And when you’re there, add the RSS feed to your reader.
Forced spay-neuter is still in play in many locales, especially California, where a rehashed version of last year’s defeated bill is now in committee. As usual, this isn’t about reducing shelter populations — forced spay-neuter doesn’t do that — but sticking it to poor people and reputable breeders, while inserting the government into a medical decision that should be made on an individual basis by a pet’s owner with advice of a veterinarian. Contrary to wide-spread belief, spaying and neutering are not all pro and no con for the animal involved, although the cost-benefit analysis still leans towards altering for most pets when all factors — including convenience for the owner and behavior — are taken into account.
Over on Lassie Get Help, Luisa lays it all out. The AVMA, the ASPCA and the no-kill nation get it that forced spay-neuter kills more pets and drives pet-owners away from care for their animals. Why don’t the spittle-spewing haters of the animal rights movement, who just keep selling this reheated slop to well-meaning pet-lovers, get it? Oh, sorry …: I already answered my own question. It’s about hate, not saving pets.
From Lassie Get Help:
How is it that being a “responsible” pet owner here in California might soon involve mandatory surgery on your pet rather than, you know, actual responsibility? What kind of state mandates removal of your dog’s reproductive parts – then turns around and punishes people for cutting tails off cows?
More here. And by the way, you know how I feel about factory farming (cruel, environmentally devastating and a health risk for us all). Cows crammed in these big dairies are unhappy enough. Let them keep their fly-swatters, fergoshsakes. I support SB 135 as I supported Prop. 2. Farming reform is food reform: It tips the scale back to humane, sustainable and regional family farms and lays a strong anti-cruelty foundation that industrial animal agriculture has long needed.
As for forced spay-neuter, if you’re in California call the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and tell them why SB 250 is more about animal-rights vendettas than pet-owner responsibility … and won’t solve the problem of helping people and helping pets.
ConsumerAffairs.com is reporting that Greenies chews will soon be available through veterinarians and pet specialty stores only — no general retailers (hat tip to Shirley at Yes, Biscuit!):
“We believe that pet medical professionals at veterinary hospitals and well-trained, knowledgeable staff at pet specialty stores are best equipped to answer pet owners’ questions about our products and to make the right recommendation,” said Carolyn Hanigan, vice president of marketing for Nashville, Tenn.-based NUTRO.
Now, I have long argued that the problem with Greenies was that it was an entity that actually could be identified and sued, as opposed to, say, the distributor of generic imported rawhide. Anything your dog chews has risks and benefits, and we have to be sure we choose an appropriate chew for our dog’s size and chewing style, and monitor our pet’s chewing. (Irony of ironies: When I read the story on ConsumerAffairs.com, the Google-generated ad pitched Greenies from a catalog company.)
Got something good? Throw it in the comments.
Nice heavy duty list of blogs.
On the chew side: Blue Chews is another alternative to Greenies and I also like the Brite Bites.
Comment by Ark Lady — May 11, 2009 @ 8:35 am
I think you’re right about Greenies being a target because their manufacturer is so easily identifiable. Having formerly worked as a consultant to members of the legal industry I also wonder if the new sales ploy (ie Greenies should only be bought under the recommendation of a “pet professional” was designed in part to share the liability.
As one of those “pet professionals” I don’t think there is one right chew for all dogs in all situations. After pulling a rawhide out of a choking dog’s throat with a pair of BBQ tongs, I took rawhides, pig ears and greenies off the approved list for my dogs. Chicken wings, raw meaty bones and nylabones seem to keep them well enough occupied that we don’t need them.
Comment by Janeen — May 11, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
I LOVE Dr. Khuly’s blog - and I agree with your assessment that if you’re only going to read one blog related to pet health it should be Dolittler. I often link to it from my own blog. Her information is so timely and so excellent, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel!
Comment by Ingrid King — May 11, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Im wondering will pet food specialty stores and front staff at some vet offices do any better at doling out the “proper” greenies?
It seems to me that there are plenty of PFC’s that are easily identifiable but appear to have an invisible shield when it comes to liability and responsibility. They did say in 2007, they reformulated the chews to make them more highly soluble so maybe its as simple as they should be liable for a product that could have been safer. I agree we, as pet owners, have responsibility to monitor what they eat and other dangers they can get into, but just the same, pet food companies should also be held responsible or pull it from the market especially if they have to go to such measures to “police” the sale of the product.
Comment by Sandi K — May 11, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
SB 250 was put into the California Senate Appropriations Committee’s Suspense File today. That means they aren’t going to railroad it through with a 28.8 designation - a finding that it will have no cost to the state — which is what happened last year with AB 1634.
So we’ve made progress, since by putting SB 250 into Suspense the committee acknowledges that forced spay/neuter laws actually cost government money.
Now the trick is to make sure SB 250 stays in Suspense until it dies there after passing the May 29 deadline to get bills out of Approps. Dying in Suspense is the most politically convenient way for the majority party to kill a bill sponsored by one of their own. So keep up the pressure on the committee.
http://saveourdogs.net/2009/05.....ee-update/
Comment by LauraS — May 11, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
Friends,
In the spirit of full disclosure I am a marketing consultant to The Greenies Company. I appreciate the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding about the company’s move to market Greenies at veterinary clinics and pet specialty stores.
It is in no way related to safety issues. The product was reformulated in 2006 to be highly soluble and digestible, confirmed by independent studies conducted by Dr. George Fahey at the Univ of Illinois.
There have been no reports of blockages or obstructions since that time.
Greenies are a functional treat with a clinically proven health benefit to the pet. The company made this move in recognition that
— Its products are not pacifiers like most other treats sold at grocery stores and mass merchandisers
— Each size of canine Greenies is specifically designed with a texture to accomodate the chewing ability in that weight range, and to deliver the maximum dental benefit. It’s truly a situation of “one size does NOT fit all,” as is the case with many treats.
Thanks!
Comment by David — May 12, 2009 @ 6:53 am
Farmer reform is farmer starvation. All of you think money grows on trees. The farmers dont have to grow grain or veggies for you to eat. You better learn how to grow them yourselfs.
Comment by custer — May 12, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
“Modern” farming is a post-WWI phenomenon, supported by cheap fossil fuels and cheap fuel-based artificial fertilizers. We cannot afford such cheapness anymore, even if it could remain “cheap,” which in terms of overall cost it never was, even less so if you consider governmental supports paid for by MY tax dollars.
In 60 years, the environmental devastation of intensive farming has been horrific, and the quality of food has gone down along with the quality of the American diet while obesity rates have gone up with health care costs.
This has got to change. It’s not all about
the farmerwhat corporate agribiz wants.Farmfood policy affects us all, and we all need to have a say.Besides … if what you’re referring to is docking dairy cattle tails, there’s NO scientific support for it. Ask UC Davis.
But I do agree we’d all be better off growing as much of our own food as possible, better to wean ourselves of the teat of corporate agribiz.
Now go troll your anonymous self somewhere else.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 12, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
I like to hear both sides so I looked up the position of the California Farm Bureau Federation on SB 135. Couldn’t find it on their website, but I found this:
The Senate Public Safety Committee passed SB 135 (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) out of committee on a party line vote. This bill would ban the practice of docking the tails of cattle. The Humane Society of the United States is the sponsor of the bill. Farm Bureau has not taken a position on SB 135, but is working to obtain amendments that would allow cattle owners to dock tails in emergency situations. Despite Chairman Leno’s agreement with the proposed amendments, Senator Florez was unwilling to accept them.
http://www.klamathbasincrisis......050109.htm
So the Farm Bureau does NOT oppose a ban on routine cattle tail docking, but would like to see SB 135 amended to cover emergency situations. As written, SB 135 requires that the emergency docking be done by a licensed veterinarian. That is often not realistic in farm country. Farmers who are in remote areas often have to provide care to their animals themselves.
Apparently NO organization outright opposes SB 135, according to the Bill Analysis (scroll to the bottom)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/....._comm.html
Since there doesn’t appear to be any organized opposition, the basic concept in SB 135 is not worth arguing over.
Comment by LauraS — May 12, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
The company made this move in recognition that
— Its products are not pacifiers like most other treats sold at grocery stores and mass merchandisers
— Each size of canine Greenies is specifically designed with a texture to accomodate the chewing ability in that weight range, and to deliver the maximum dental benefit. It’s truly a situation of “one size does NOT fit all,” as is the case with many treats.
Thanks!
Comment by David — May 12, 2009 @ 6:53 am
Thanks for that info David, however I guess my question still stands. Are clerks in pet food specialty stores and vet clinics going to be better able to safely and correctly dole these treats out? To be honest, in alot of cases I have found Im more educated on pet food than many of the people I come in contact in both vet clinics and pet food specialty stores, Im just being honest not bragging. Im know even I have alot still left to learn even to this day. I guess I have to say, if the treats require such close monitoring and scrutinizing, perhaps they should be under prescription order thru vets only? There are many dental products that vets give RX’s for including chlorohexidine, so perhaps these treats should be treated the same? Just saying…..
Comment by Sandi K — May 16, 2009 @ 5:52 pm