DEAR READERS: Thanks to the efforts of Project Coyote and other nonprofit wildlife-protection organizations, coyote-killing contests are being banned in many communities.

The good news: In January, the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, approved a resolution that condemns wildlife-killing contests. Hopefully the state of Minnesota will soon join California, Vermont, New Mexico, Arizona, Massachusetts, Maryland and Colorado, which either prohibit or restrict these hunts.

The bad news: Wildlife-killing contests continue, including the recent Buffalo Ridge Coyote Hunting Tournament in Marshall, Minnesota. At this event, contestants compete for cash for the most, largest and smallest coyotes killed.

The Howling for Wolves organization posted this comment:

“Hunts like this are unregulated, with no rules and no limits. They are wrong for many reasons. First, there is no place in a civil society for wildlife-killing contests. These types of tournaments are disastrous to wildlife and the balance of ecosystems, and simply glorify violent behavior by encouraging killing simply for the sake of killing. Second, the organizers of these events often claim that they are helping to control predator populations, but the fact is this is not about controlling wildlife populations. This is about thrill-killing: a nonsensical, savage contest to see who can kill the most.”

Those who disagree with this statement need to learn about the true nature of the animals they kill. Then they might feel some remorse, evolve into more compassionate members of society and lay down their guns.

Coyotes are expanding their ranges southward. More than 400,000 coyotes are killed in the U.S. every year, but they have a remarkable ability to adjust and adapt, and they are expanding their range into Central America and moving toward South America.

Project Coyote (projectcoyote.org), founded and directed by my daughter, Camilla Fox, has valuable information on facilitating such harmonious coexistence in communities where coyotes are establishing themselves.

DEAR DR. FOX: I rescued a stray cat this December. I took it to the vet hospital with the understanding that it would stay overnight and be neutered, after first checking for a microchip and for FVL and FIV.

They said he was a 2- or 3-year-old cat, and gave him antiparasite medication, but then said I must take him home because the hospital would be closed the next two days. They said I could bring him back for neutering later. I said it would be stressful on him to have to bring him back in again, and that my other two animals would be stressed having an un-neutered tomcat in a large cage in our living area. Plus, if he started spraying, it would stink up my home.

So the veterinarian said, “Why not let him out and trap him again later and then bring him in for surgery?” She had no idea about animal behavior. Any intelligent animal, once caught in a humane box trap, is not likely to go near it again. And it is freezing cold and snowy outdoors!

I argued more, and after she spoke to one of the clinic owners, she decided to “make an exception” because he seemed to be healthy. They held the cat over the New Year’s holiday and scheduled surgery the next day. I just wanted to share this with you. -- J.Z., St. Paul, Minnesota

DEAR J.Z.: Many veterinary hospitals are cautious about taking in stray cats and keeping them on the premises if they do not have any quarantine area, because of the risk of spreading infection to other cats being treated for illness or recovering from surgery.

They were very accommodating of you, but I agree: The veterinarian who saw your cat needs to broaden her animal behavior knowledge, and common sense, when it comes to trying to retrap an animal who has recently been trapped. The suggestion was also insensitive with regard to the stress on the poor animal.

I wish you all the best in resocializing this cat. In my experience with all the stray cats we have trapped, they soon adjust to life indoors and make wonderful companions -- some more energetic than others -- and the more, the merrier!

(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: Manufactured since the 1940s by DuPont, 3M and other companies, PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are used to make thousands of products resistant to stains, heat and water. They are also used in firefighting foams. Unfortunately, they have been linked to high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, various cancers, thyroid disease and other health problems in the human population since they contaminate our environment, food and water.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group calls these “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in nature and they accumulate in our bodies. According to a study by the EWG and Northeastern University’s Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, more than 100 million Americans in 1,400 communities have been exposed to drinking water tainted with PFAS.

Along with flame-retardant PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers), especially in furniture upholstery and carpets, PFAS have been found at high levels in cats suffering from hyperthyroid disease, an all-too-common affliction of older cats. Indeed, our animal companions serve as bio-sentinels of human exposure to such chemicals. The impacts on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife are probably very considerable.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill Jan. 10 to address this national pollution health crisis, because the government’s Environmental Protection Agency failed to meet a February 2019 deadline to come up with an action plan to address this issue. But even if the bill were to pass the Senate, the White House indicates Trump would veto the bill over ”litigation risk” and “unwarranted” cost concerns (Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 11)

It is notable that scientists have recently linked high levels of PBDEs with lower IQs in American children and it is likely that PFAS are also a factor. The investigators analyzed PBDE, organophosphate, lead and methylmercury exposures in blood samples from women of childbearing age and from 5-year-olds. Everyday contact with these substances during the 16-year study resulted in roughly 1.2 million children affected with some form of intellectual disability.

They estimate such childhood exposure cost the nation $7.5 trillion in lost economic productivity and other societal costs.

”Although people argue against costly regulations, unrestricted use of these chemicals is far more expensive in the long run, with American children bearing the largest burden,” says senior study author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Professor of Pediatrics at NYU Langone Health.

Published Jan. 14 in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, the new study is the only long-term neurological and economic investigation of its kind, the authors say.

DEAR DR. FOX: Thank you for your article about the horrific decision of the Westminster dog show to award an inbred English bulldog with Best in Show.

I am an avid dog rescuer, and delete friends when they buy French bulldogs, Labradoodles etc. My adopted dogs are my life. I’m a semi-pro paddleboarder, and I paddleboard with my rescues and use it to bond with them. They learn to trust me early on, and they always love it. I also pick the neediest, most decrepit ones that no one else wants. I currently have a 150-pound mix rescued from a horrific breeding situation and an 18-year-old pit bull I bought from a homeless man in New York.

My question to you is: Do you think it would ever be possible, in any country, to completely ban the breeding of dogs until the shelter population is culled down? Maybe just for certain breeds that are so horribly overbred?

Anyway, being on the water frequently, I know this administration has wreaked havoc on the water. Locally, jellyfish and nitrates are up exponentially -- I see big jellyfish now, alien-looking red ones with tentacles.

It ain’t right! So, I appreciate your work in trying to enlighten us all. -- J.L., Pine Beach, New Jersey

DEAR J.L.: It is a challenge on many fronts to change public taste, especially when it comes to the issue of various breeds of dogs and cats who suffer from genetic deformities, endure a lower quality of life and mean considerable expense for veterinary treatment for a variety of health issues.

In the U.K., the British Veterinary Association is confronting drug, pet food and other companies about their use of certain breeds with brachycephaly, and related health issues, to advertise products on TV and other media. The group is also discouraging use of these breeds in movies and television shows.

Breed popularity can also be reduced through public education. Indeed, in many communities and circles here in the U.S., it is now considered “cool” to take in a rescued dog from the local shelter rather than purchase a particular breed or “designer” variety. Also, in some communities, pet stores are prohibited from selling pups from commercial puppy mill breeders, and can only sell dogs and puppies who come from local animal shelters.

As for your experience paddleboarding and seeing jellyfish everywhere, this is a sign of ecological dysbiosis (imbalance) in the marine ecosystem, which is spreading globally. For more details, see my articles about the hazards of plastics and other chemical contaminants in the marine environment posted on my website, drfoxonehealth.com.

The collapse of ocean fisheries harming many communities worldwide, in large part due to pollution and overfishing, is a tragedy that could have been avoided by better stewardship. Also harmed are whales, dolphins and other marine mammals, and birds, whose numbers are plummeting from the consequences of malnutrition, starvation and pollution.

(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: According to an October report, about 23% of Americans polled by the Consumer Technology Association said they planned to purchase pet-related technology as a holiday gift. And the number of pet-tech products shipped during the fourth quarter of last year was expected to be 60% higher than in the fourth quarter of 2018. Products include automatic food or water dispensers, automatic pet doors, and pet monitoring systems. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, Dec. 31)

A cat litter box on display at a recent electronics show is equipped with a video camera, connects to voice-enabled assistants and uses artificial intelligence to analyze the cat’s waste for signs of illness. (The Verge, Jan. 7)

The more such electronic devices are put into the home environment -- and monitors put on companion animals’ necks, along with remote sensors, training devices and invisible fence shock-collars -- the more health and behavioral problems I predict. And worse, equipment failures could put animals at risk.

There is no substitute for attentive human care. Electropollution in the home environment is a growing concern, with both dogs and humans developing adverse reactions -- for instance, to “smart” water meters. As for “smart” diapers put on infants, we need only look at the rising incidence of brain tumors in young people, and other neurological disorders in the population, to be more cautious about buying into new electronic products. The health and environmental safety of such products must be questioned by all involved.

Microchipping animals for identification is as far as I would go with long-term application of such technology. Short-term applications of radio-collars for animal health and wildlife research purposes is carefully monitored by experienced veterinary and other practitioners.

DEAR DR. FOX: I have a 4-year-old pit bull, weighing 60 pounds. She is on Trifexis to control fleas, and has been acting lethargic through the day.

She also has grain allergies, and is fed grain-free salmon or bison and Hill’s Science Diet for sensitive skin.

Can I feed her raw meat? Will the dog be inclined to go after cows and chickens after tasting that food? -- P.G., Trenton, New Jersey

DEAR P.G.: I would take your dog off the Trifexis at once. Her lethargy may well be associated with this insecticidal cocktail of poisons.

Here are some of the side effects posted by the manufacturer:

“As with all medicines, sometimes side effects may occur. In some cases, dogs vomited after receiving Trifexis (spinosad plus milbemycin oxime). If vomiting occurs within an hour of administration, re-dose with another full dose. During field studies, no severe or prolonged vomiting occurred. Additional adverse reactions observed in the clinical studies were itching, decreased activity, diarrhea, inflammation of the skin, redness of the skin, decreased appetite and redness of the ear.” All reactions were regarded as mild, according to the statement from trifexis.com.

Transition your dog onto my home-prepared diet and I think you will see a significant improvement. This is posted on my website, drfoxonehelath.com.

Well-formulated raw meat diets are good for dogs, and no, they do not make the dogs want to go out and kill the live animals whose flesh they have eaten raw.

(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.)