DEAR DR. FOX: Your recent column discussing the empathy deficit is so timely and appropriate to the present situation in the U.S. Of course the tip of that iceberg would be the former president, as well as his family.

I’m reminded of one of his sons that went someplace abroad to shoot a rare animal for its head. I read about it in an article that was really about the money it cost for Secret Service agents to accompany him on the hunt. And then you mentioned how the disorder is evident in the corporate world. Well, since when does capitalism have a conscience? -- J.P.T., Ashland, Oregon

DEAR J.P.T.: The empathy deficit disorder, as I see it, is of a pandemic scale that makes the COVID-19 pandemic pale in comparison. COVID-19, of course, is associated with our inhumane treatment and consumption of animals -- but to speak for animal rights and environmental protection is to be marginalized as a “liberal socialist elite” under the newspeak of Trumpian “America First” triumphalism.

Every student, as a prerequisite for graduation from high school, should read George Orwell’s book “1984” and realize that what Orwell envisioned in a future society is happening now with what he called “doublethink” and “newspeak.” Newspeak includes demonization and suppression of the free press (“fake news”), book censorship and burning (“cancel culture”) and the silencing of truth speaking to power.

The Orwellian content of Donald J. Trump’s widely televised speech on Feb. 28 should go down in history as he demonized the free press and spread the fear of socialism and communism taking away individual liberties and the right to bear arms. The ultimate doublethink was Trump’s declaration that “liberal elitists” are not only stopping America from being “great again,” they are also anti-science.

The truth is that his own administration was blatantly anti-science: rife with environmental transgressions, denial of climate change and the rolling back of clean water and air regulations. It embodied an anti-science, pro-pillage, pro-pollute and pro-profit form of industrial capitalism.

America can be great again, but not until the individual liberties Donald Trump repeatedly alluded to in his speech are coupled with individual and corporate responsibility for environmental protection, conservation, restoration, animal rights and related public health: in sum, the common good.

This means unification of two visions: capitalism and socialism. Communitarianism or socialism, rather than totalitarian communism, might be better terms to describe such sustainable natural law and order politically. This is the antithesis of the Darwinian view of hierarchy and competition, which some historians contend supported colonialism, empire and capitalism.

In my opinion, both views are half-right and together make one whole. This is a challenge to every democracy to maintain integration, equalitarianism and balance.

DEAR DR. FOX: Thank you for adding to my lexicon the term “empathy deficit disorder” (EDD)! This line in your recent column was spot-on: “Where is the feeling and responsibility for harmful consequences beyond profit margins and investor satisfaction?”

Unfortunately, that train left the station before trains were invented! Profit is always the motive for commerce. However, personal responsibility to fellow man is the dream of philosophy.

A friend once told me he had an obligation, due to his wealth, to helping the less fortunate. He put his efforts and resources where he could. He was one of those unseen and unheard-of corporate captains who did not behave with EDD. Therefore, my question is: Is EDD learned or is it genetic? -- P.D.C., Asbury Park, Pennsylvania

DEAR P.D.C.: I appreciate your thoughtful question and comments. In my opinion, the EDD is epigenetic, determined by the interactions of genes and environment, the latter being cultural-parental-educational, the former still part of our gene pool. Natural selection for competitiveness and exceptionalism through eons of wars and insurrections may have assured continuance of such genetic propensities which most of us possess.

The collective human desire to live in peace and harmony will never be realized so long as some cannot even abide in peace and harmony with a few wolves, coyotes and other wildlife where they live. They evidently enjoy killing them, even turning the slaughter, which state wildlife managers refer to as sustainable “harvesting,” into a recreational and competitive sport.

To kill to live, as per the wolf and native hunter, is the ethical antithesis of living to kill, as per the sporting trophy hunter. There is no moral equivalence in Nature to justifying killing for sport, recreation or pleasure. The only justification can come from an anthropocentric and increasingly harmful, depraved existence, culturally inherited and even religiously sanctioned.

So we can and must train ourselves to control those impulses that may harm others and ourselves. See the book “Programming the Human Biocomputer” by fellow ethologist and dolphin researcher Dr. John C. Lilly. We can change our minds, but first we must see to our hearts.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR DR. FOX: Please read this article about coyote-killing contests in Wisconsin: tinyurl.com/s2rtkcus

Is there any hope to make these kinds of people change? -- K.L., Madison, Wisconsin

DEAR K.L.: The only solution that I see is to pass laws making such activities illegal, and to effectively enforce them. Exposing and shaming those with evident empathy-deficit disorder, who take pleasure in killing, simply creates resistance -- and even death threats, occasionally, against those who question their activities.

So-called “canned hunts” on private property, where people pay to shoot captive wild animals -- sometimes even zoo- and menagerie-bred African “big game” -- are another problem.

My daughter, Camilla Fox, founder and director of the nonprofit Project Coyote, has just released a new documentary film in partnership with National Geographic film producers. It is entitled “Wildlife Killing Contests” and is available at ProjectCoyote.org. It shows a side of human nature that is, frankly, shocking. Also available on that website is a petition in support of banning of wildlife-killing contests on federal public lands.

Until this practice is banned nationally, states must take up the effort, and several have done so. In September, Washington became the seventh state to prohibit wildlife-killing contests when the state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to ban the killing of unprotected species as part of a contest, just a few months after Colorado became the sixth. In 2019, Arizona and Massachusetts outlawed contests for predatory and furbearing species; New Mexico and Vermont prohibited coyote-killing contests in 2019 and 2018, respectively; and California outlawed the awarding of prizes and inducements for killing non-game mammals and furbearers in 2014. Maryland passed a moratorium on cownose ray-killing contests in 2017.

That all of this protection for wildlife must be legislated state by state, and take so much time, money and effort, is a tragic fact. There are so many people who still see animals as objects -- targets, varmints or trophies -- and treat them accordingly.

DEAR DR. FOX: I have been reading your column for some years and appreciate your voice for the animals. After reading your book “Animals and Nature First,” I can see why some readers think you prefer animals over people. What do you say to them?

People say that about me, because I rescue and foster strays, but it’s not true. Then again, I do not like all people like I do animals! -- K.Y., Trenton, New Jersey

DEAR K.Y.: I like your candor, and I think we are on the same page. Ever since I was a child, I was more comfortable around animals rather than my own kind -- my peers, in particular, whom I could rarely trust. In contrast, I found animals to be open and true to their natures: I knew if they were friendly, afraid, hurt or dangerous. I would not invoke the term “innocence” in relation to children, or other animals, but rather accept the fact that people can hide or fake emotions to a degree not seen in other species.

This does not make me a misanthrope; my empathy is, perhaps regrettably, all-embracing! As for the so-called philanthropist -- defined as a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money -- history informs us of many who made their money exploiting people and animals and even destroying the environment. So-called philanthropic organizations can also serve as window-dressing to cover up moneymaking and laundering activities, and continued profit-making through the mirage of their charitable contributions. Donors and recipients beware!

In short, handle Homo sapiens with care. Putting animals and nature first, as I seek to demonstrate in that book, is like altruism: It is ultimately enlightened self-interest, and is the core of the One Health movement.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: Please read the following article by Lauren Quinn of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. It was originally published on the website for the university’s College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (aces.illinois.edu) and also appeared at science site phys.org.

ACES News: Feed Fido Fresh, Human-Grade Dog Food To Scoop Less Poop

For decades, kibble has been our go-to diet for dogs. But the dog food marketplace has exploded in recent years, with grain-free, fresh, and now human-grade offerings crowding the shelves. All commercial dog foods must meet standards for complete and balanced nutrition, so how do consumers know what to choose?

A new University of Illinois comparison study shows diets made with human-grade ingredients are not only highly palatable, they’re extremely digestible. And that means less poop to scoop. Up to 66% less.

“Based on past research we’ve conducted, I’m not surprised with the results when feeding human-grade compared to an extruded dry diet,” says Kelly Swanson, the Kraft Heinz Company Endowed Professor in Human Nutrition in the Department of Animal Sciences and the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Illinois, and co-author on the Journal of Animal Science study. “However, I did not expect to see how well the human-grade fresh food performed, even compared to a fresh commercial processed brand.”

Swanson and his team fed beagles four commercially available diets: a standard extruded diet (kibble); a fresh, refrigerated diet; and two fresh diets made using only USDA-certified, human-grade ingredients. These fresh diets include minimally processed ingredients such as beef, chicken, rice, carrots, broccoli and others in small chunks or a sort of casserole. The dogs consumed each diet for four weeks.

The researchers found that dogs fed the extruded diet had to eat more to maintain their body weight, and produced 1.5 to 2.9 times as much poop as any of the fresh diets.

“This is consistent with a 2019 National Institute of Health study in humans that found people eating a fresh, whole-food diet consumed on average 500 less calories per day, and reported being more satisfied, than people eating a more processed diet,” Swanson says.

The researchers also found that the fresh diets uniquely influenced the gut microbial community.

“Because a healthy gut means a healthy mutt, fecal microbial and metabolite profiles are important readouts of diet assessment,” Swanson says. “As we have shown in previous studies, the fecal microbial communities of healthy dogs fed fresh diets were different than those fed kibble. These unique microbial profiles were likely due to differences in diet processing, ingredient source, and the concentration and type of dietary fibers, proteins and fats that are known to influence what is digested by the dog and what reaches the colon for fermentation.”

The article, ”Nutrient digestibility and fecal characteristics, microbiota and metabolites in dogs fed human-grade foods,” is published in the Journal of Animal Science. Authors include Sungho Do, Thunyaporn Phungviwatnikul, Maria de Godoy, and Kelly Swanson. Funding was provided by JustFoodForDogs LLC.

HEALTH PROBLEMS IN U.K. DOGS MIRROR THOSE IN U.S.

Dental disease is the most common health problem in dogs in the U.K., followed by ear infections and obesity, according to a study published in BMC Veterinary Research. Male dogs are at higher risk than female dogs for these and seven other common health problems. “Owners should work closely with their vet to plan appropriate dental and weight-care programs at each visit,” said veterinarian Dan O’Neill, the study’s lead author. (Full story: VetSurgeon U.K., Feb. 17)

What a pity this study did not determine what these dogs were being fed! There is mounting evidence that popular dog kibble, often recommended and sold by veterinarians, is a major contributing factor to many health issues. Such issues are often quickly resolved -- and can often be prevented in the first place -- by feeding dogs moist, whole-food diets.

DEAR DR. FOX: As the president of a dog park in my rural town, I find there has been much debate on whether or not it is safe to allow intact male dogs to play with neutered male dogs and spayed female dogs. I have spent a great deal of time asking various professionals for guidance, and none can agree.

I hate to turn away intact males from an opportunity to socialize with other pups if they are well-behaved. I would greatly appreciate your professional opinion. -- M.M., Kinderhook, New York

DEAR M.M.: This question often comes up in my column, in which I have recently urged people to consider not neutering their dogs for various health reasons, as many holistic veterinarians are now also advocating.

In my experience, un-neutered male dogs may be more challenging when meeting other dogs for the first time. Such meetings may trigger mounting behavior by the un-neutered males, possibly because they find the other dogs’ pheromones attractive. This behavior must be appropriately controlled because the mounted dog will protest and a fight might ensue. But mounting can also be a playful action preceding play-fighting, wrestling and chasing, so some understanding of canine behavior is important.

Un-neutered large breeds like the Irish wolfhound and Saint Bernard are generally very easygoing, while terrier breeds are more feisty.

My main concern with dog parks and enclosed communal dog areas -- besides the potential buildup of fecal parasites like hookworms -- are people whose dogs, neutered or not, are bullies. These dogs enjoy body-slamming and playing too rough with smaller dogs, who may get injured. Large dogs play-chasing can also slam into people. In our local dog park enclosure, such dogs caused two people to have leg and arm fractures, and one woman fall onto a small dog and fractured the dog’s foreleg. So all must be alert and not just engage in chatting circles, oblivious to what all the dogs are doing!

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)