Do you like this story?
Monday: Who’s looking out for horses?
By David S. Greene
February 22, 2010
Two stories on large animals dovetail this week, raising concerns most people with pets don’t always consider.
Equine welfare board needed in Kentucky: The Herald-Ledger sets the stage in the story’s lede:
There are stories of as many as 1,000 abandoned horses living on old strip mines in Eastern Kentucky, foraging for food amid sparse grassland. But no one really knows whether the tales are true.
That’s one reason a group of equine veterinarians is pushing to establish the Kentucky Equine Health and Welfare Board, which would gather more reliable statistics on Kentucky’s signature animal and recommend improvements. Among other things, the board would create a voluntary certification system that sets care standards for equine rescue operations.
“We need to face the grim side of our moral and ethical obligations to horses,” said Doug Byars, an equine veterinarian and a founding member of the Kentucky-based Equine Health and Welfare Alliance, which is dedicated to the proper care, maintenance and treatment of horses.
The problem here as I see it, is that even though the mission is important and laudable, the 13-member board will be appointed by the Governor, and the effort will be completely voluntary. That is, they will have ZERO public money available to accomplish any of their goals. What does this mean? Most likely little progress to assist at-risk horses who are an iconic part of the state’s identity.
Shortages of large animal veterinarians are still problematic: For dogs, cats, birds and other small animals, you can find veterinarians nearly anywhere. However, for large animals (horses, cows, etc), the alarm’s been sounded in Tennessee, and and other rural areas from Vermont to California. Google “shortage of large animal veterinarians” and you’ll find quotes like this, from a story last week by KFBB in Montana:
Dr. Kelly Manzer practices medicine at K-Heart Veterinary Service in Great Falls. While she also sees companion animals, she is one of the few veterinarians in the area to treat horses. She says those who specialize in large animals are few and far between.
“It’s physically demanding,” Manzer said. “One kick and you are done. A 1,200- pound animal can put you out of business in short order. The pay is better with small animals and graduates are tending to go into small animal practices.”
The USDA appears to understand the impact of the shortage. According to KOMU in Missouri, the federal government will take steps to address the problem, including repaying a percentage of college loans for graduating veterinarians who commit to serve needed fields.
Wait, what does that mean? Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly has a terrific reminder in USA Today for pet owners and veterinarians alike: Remember to speak in plain language, and if the message isn’t clear, ask for clarification.
Some words have a way of indelibly etching themselves into our gray matter, making translation seem unnecessary from our warped perspective. (What do you mean I have to explain what “gray matter” is?) What’s worse, it seems some docs just like to hear themselves talk in tall terms. They wrap themselves up in a white coat of words, saying things like: “It seems we’re dealing with a confounding episode of acute feline ptyalism.” (Translation: “I don’t know why your cat is drooling like that.”)
This isn’t just a veterinarian thing. It’s a people doctor issue, too. That is why I love my veterinarian, and why it’s so important to have folks like our own Dr. Marty Becker, Dr. Narda Robinson, Dr. Tony Johnson and other caring professionals on your side. A well-trained, experienced veterinary expert who translates the medical gobbledygook into understandable plain language is worth his or her weight in gold.
Guinea pig owners, listen up! I once owned a chinchilla named Whiskey. I loved the little guy, but I learned to Whiskey-proof the room where he lived when I found him chomping on my expensive stereo headphone cables. Good advice here from The Guinea Pig Connection: look around at the things they can reach, because they love to nibble, and if you’re not careful, the consequences could be bad.
Why we work to save one dog: The fate of one abandoned dog on a ship in the South Pacific galvanized attention (and another more recently in the Baltic Sea), whereas mass suffering of people the world over creates paralyzing inaction. I’ve just said what people scream at us all the time. Why does this happen? Loyal reader Mary Mary forwarded an article arguing, in effect, we’re wired that way.
[Philosphy professor] Peter Singer once devised a dilemma that highlights a central contradiction in our moral reasoning. If you see a child drowning in a pond—and you would ruin a fine pair of shoes worth $200 if you jumped into the water—would you save the child or save your shoes? Most people react incredulously to the question; obviously, a child’s life is worth more than a pair of shoes. But if this is the case, Singer asked, why do large numbers of people hesitate to write checks for $200 to a reputable charity that could save the life of a child halfway around the world—when there are millions of children who need our help?
The answer is that our moral responsibilities feel different in these situations; one situation feels visceral, the other abstract. We feel personally responsible for one child, whereas the other is one of millions who need help. Our responsibility feels diffused when it comes to children in distant places—there are many people who could write that check.
Singer, of course, is the father of the modern animal rights movement, and the inspiration for groups like PETA.
Fun with Westminster: Thanks so much to Frogdog Blog for the best pie chart of the week. … Not so fun, and surely one of the strangest stories to come out of the show: The NY Post reported that the woman who owned the dog who won the Non-Sporting Group served time for her role in the killing of horses for insurance money.
I always like to hear from readers, especially if you have tips, and links for interesting stories. Give me a shout in the comments, or better yet, send me an email.
Photo credit: Horses in snow: Steffe, flickr creative commons.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
I live in a rural section of Connecticut, and there are two quite elderly vets still doing affordable farm calls in the area. The younger vets are geared towards the wealthy weekenders and their hobby farms, and charge big city prices. I can see the day coming when there are no working farms left.
Comment by PamJJ — February 22, 2010 @ 7:54 am
The problems of family farms are far more complicated than the lack of veterinarians who work for a song.
And as for those younger veterinarians and their “big city prices,” that’s also more complicated than the “greed factor” you seem to be suggesting. One place to start: Consider the debt loads in the hundreds of thousands most are carrying at graduation.
If we want to keep true family farms — and that’s one of my passions — we need ag reform to level the playing field for small operators, we need for consumers to support regional farmers/ranchers who practice good stewardship of the animals and the land, and we need debt relief for those who go into large-animal practice.
These would be a start to keeping the farms we have and encouraging young people to consider farming as a lifestyle. (Current median age of a farmer is about the same as those “affordable” vets you mention.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 22, 2010 @ 8:38 am
When I was studying Veterinary Medicine, I was encouraged to go into small animal practice by the faculty, who said that large animal owners do not easily trust Vets who are not local kids grown up, or who are from the city, or who are newly graduated, or who are female.
Comment by Mikey — February 22, 2010 @ 9:17 am
That horse-killing dog fancier — same insurance fraud ring that involved the mother of John Edwards’ bastard.
Just more juicy weirdness.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 22, 2010 @ 9:22 am
Boy, you’re not kidding. I do remember reading a snippet somewhere that characterized The Edward’s Mistress as a rich spoiled brat from the horse-show circuit, but I didn’t know the rest of it (or didn’t care enough to read on, more likely).
There was human murder mixed up in it, too — some heiress was killed, if I recall — and the whole thing became the basis of a “Law and Order” episode.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 22, 2010 @ 9:26 am
I don’t usually go to wikipedia first for info, but in this case, they’ve got a decent round up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_murders
Comment by schnauzer — February 22, 2010 @ 10:09 am
While he is the father of the modern AR movement, Singer is a strict utilitarian. He takes into consideration not just animal suffering but animal happiness. PETA, etc., never acknowledge anything but suffering.
I’m sure you’ve read this, but Michael Pollan’s piece from the NYTimes in 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11.....NIMAL.html, has an interesting take by Singer on “Good Farm.”
Comment by Carolyn H — February 22, 2010 @ 10:14 am
You’re not kidding about the horse- and heiress-killing. It’s pretty much all there. And how much ya wanna bet it’s still going on?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 22, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Thank you, Carolyn, I was trying to find that very piece. It’s one of the foundations on which I pin my own belief that sustainable, humane animal agriculture can indeed be possible. And why I have no problem with ethical hunting, but a LOT of problems with factory farming.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 22, 2010 @ 10:20 am
Wow, that NYT essay is wonderful.
Comment by Mary Mary — February 22, 2010 @ 10:48 am
I recently read a book called ‘Pleasurable Kingdom’ about scientific evidence that animals have the capacity for pleasure and happiness. The foreward was by Singer, and he touted the book as ‘changing everything’ because it’s not just about suffering anymore. The author, Jonathan Balcombe, works for PCRM, which shares a building (the building which houses the infamous walk-in freezer) and ideology with PETA, and is pretty much a part of PETA. The book’s been out a few years now, and I find this juxtaposition rather ironic, an irony which is compounded with each passing day through which it continues to exist.
Comment by Valerie — February 22, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
I was glad to see Gina’s comment here about debt relief not being the entire answer to the lack of food animal veterinarians, but as a veterinary student, I want to unpack that a little more.
When I graduate, I’ll owe about a quarter of a million dollars. So I won’t be able to afford to be a large animal veterinarian. But even with government assistance, I wouldn’t do it, because I don’t like the way a lot of farmers treat their animals. And I’m in a part of the country where farm animals are actually treated relatively well. Who wants to work as a veterinarian on huge factory farms where animals are treated as commodities, not living beings?
It makes me sad that the government and the AVMA seem to think that all it will take to convince more vets to go into food animal medicine is to give them more money. The current generation of vets cares deeply about animal welfare. Changing how we treat our farm animals is going to have a lot more effect on getting vets to practice food animal medicine than loan repayment. Loan repayment is just easier.
The opinion of a current student, so take it with a grain of salt!
Comment by Jessica Hekman — February 23, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Jessica, I sure appreciate you making this point. I suggested to a couple of my friends who are veterinarians — long-time ones, small animal practice — that people who went to veterinary school because they wanted to relieve animal suffering would have a hard time with animals being treated as unfeeling “meat machines” in concentrated animal feeding operations. They said they doubted it was much of a factor at all in the decline of large-animal practitioners, and that money, gender and a lack of rural upbringing pretty much covered all the problems.
I let it drop with them. But I just had to think concentrated animal feeding operations had to bother many veterinarians, and not necessarily just those who are vegans or support PETA-style animals rights.
As I’ve written here many, many times, I am not a vegetarian or vegan, and my dogs and cats surely are not. But I WILL NOT support factory farms for many reasons — including OUR health and the issues surrounding their lack of sustainability — and I put my money where my mouth is, by supporting farmers and ranchers (and hunters) who have respect and compassion for the animals and the land.
I’m glad to read that you feel the same way. Now, when you graduate, move where I end up. My livestock will need a good veterinarian!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 23, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
Good conversation, but I have to jump in with a few corrections to a false and libelous comment on this thread about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. PCRM does not share an office with PETA. PCRM doesn’t have an “infamous freezer”—just the normal kind that preserves frozen food. And PCRM is not run by PETA—it is an independent nonprofit organization with more than 9,000 physician members who promote preventive medicine, conduct clinical research, and encourage higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research. Jonathan Balcombe’s “Pleasurable Kingdom” is a great book—please don’t sully his reputation by making false statements.
Comment by Patrick — February 24, 2010 @ 9:19 am
Patrick, you would earn more credibility here by expressly stating your affiliation with the group you’re jumping in help.
“False and libelous” seems a pretty big stretch, but you can take it up with the commentor, I suppose, since those are her remarks, not ours.
For those interested, here’s the SourceWatch overview of PCRM.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 24, 2010 @ 11:32 am