DEAR DR. FOX: I read your recent article concerning the Dutch government’s ban on future breeding of brachycephalic dogs, and wondered about your opinion of breeding dachshunds. Their original purpose as badger hunters necessitated their long, low shape, but I doubt they are utilized for this purpose anymore. Their conformation is subject to many painful physical ailments and injuries. Should we stop breeding dachshunds? I happen to love them, but I do worry about their spinal issues. -- N.W., Hyde Park, New York

DEAR N.W.: You and I will be shunned at dog shows where these over-long and leg-deformed dogs of human creation are paraded. With their sprightly spirits, courageous natures and playful, devoted ways, many overlook these dogs’ vulnerability to spinal injuries.

Within every dog that has been genetically deformed through selective breeding, there is a captive dog-soul. They need to be liberated: There should be no more breeding of any kind of dog with extreme physical traits that can compromise health and well-being.

In the old days, hardworking dachshunds who injured themselves and whose backs gave out were simply shot, as were other breeds of hunting and working dogs. But when these breeds are bred for show purposes rather than competitions in-field -- especially for tracking and rescue work -- many attributes of canine intelligence and trainability may be lost, along with overall physical strength and resilience.

You happen to love dachshunds, and so do I! But love calls for responsibility, and in the name of loving such dogs, we should not perpetuate their suffering by continuing to condone their propagation. Breeders can select stockier, more compact animals and keep records as to the long-term health of any and all offspring from the dogs they breed -- if they must.

AVERTING ANOTHER CAT AND DOG HEALTH INSURANCE SCAM

The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that U.S.-based drugmaker Zoetis entered the pet insurance market this spring in about half of the U.S with Pumpkin Insurance Services. Zoetis is the world’s largest producer of medicine and vaccinations for pets and livestock.

To date, only about 2% of cat and dog owners over the past few years have bought pet health insurance, and Zoetis is hoping to enter this market to expand its own drug and vaccine sales. But veterinarians protested, noting Pumpkin Insurance Services did not cover preexisting conditions and prevented veterinarians from choosing the right products for each patient.

Thanks to the AVMA and others, Zoetis “established an advisory board of veterinarians to ensure Pumpkin’s insurance schemes best serve patients, clients and veterinary teams.” The AVMA lists standards that each policy should meet at avma.org/policies/pet-health-insurance.

I have been highly critical in the past about such pet health insurance schemes, and urge clients to consult with their animals’ veterinarians. I have also questioned Zoetis’ marketing ethics and the undermining of public health by selling antibiotics banned for use on farmed animals in the U.S. to producers in other countries such as India. This adds to the now-global problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which make treatment of infections in humans and animals alike more challenging.

(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: I have received a couple of letters from readers demanding that I keep to the subject of pet care in my Animal Doctor column. The evident reason is that they do not like my “politics.”

As an advocate of One Health (meaning the collective, connected health of humans, nonhumans and the environment), I raise issues concerning financially and ideologically driven political decisions that could harm the environment, animal health and public health. I regard this as my responsibility as a holistic veterinarian, just as it is the responsibility of all citizens to be involved in politics that serve the common good. I consider it ethically imperative to speak truth to power and examine the truths we live by, since a life unexamined is a life unlived. For further details and discussion, see my book “Animals and Nature First.”

Scientific evidence -- essential for our decision-making when it comes to diagnosing, preventing and treating disease -- should inform politics, rather than be discounted, as by some U.S. politicians in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For more, see my article “What SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Disease Are Telling Us: A Holistic Veterinary and One Health View,” posted on my website (drfoxonehealth.com).

DEAR DR. FOX: I recently took Harley, my 3 1/2-year-old Labradoodle, for his wellness exam, rabies vaccination and heartworm test. I was told his teeth needed to be checked out and cleaned. They gave me an estimate of $800, which includes a pre-surgery blood workup, general anesthetic and X-rays. We just cannot afford this.

I had a neighbor who is a retired veterinarian look at Harley’s teeth, which Harley did not mind at all. He only saw a bit of scale or tartar on his big upper teeth toward the back, and a little bit on the upper canine teeth. He advised daily brushing and a rawhide dog chew -- a roll or tube, not one with a knot on each end, which some dogs will swallow and choke on. My husband also used a sharpened spoon to easily scrape off the tartar and get under the gumline, which did bleed a bit.

After a few days, Harley’s teeth looked much better. I think it is terrible we have to do our own veterinary care, since vets are charging so much we can’t afford it, or buy into some pet health insurance scheme. -- J.L., Minneapolis, Minnesota

DEAR J.L.: You have raised an important issue. The neglect of oral health results in many serious health problems in dogs -- especially small breeds and dogs with tooth misalignment -- and in cats, who can suffer terribly from a variety of dental problems. In many cases of long-term neglect -- especially in animals fed dry kibble with high cereal-gluten content that literally glues itself between the teeth and triggers gingivitis and other problems -- proper dental care involving general anesthesia is warranted. General anesthesia can put orally compromised animal patients at risk without prior blood work and antibiotic prophylaxis.

I fully endorse veterinarians’ endeavors to educate owners about companion animal oral health maintenance, and to provide the best dental care as needed, but in your case, I see something rotten in the heart of the profession that is money-driven and ethically questionable. The costs of running a veterinary hospital, including the rent, insurance and expensive diagnostic equipment, not to mention the student-loan debt that recent graduates must pay off, can mean that any way to reduce the income deficit is a priority to stay in business.

This economic crisis, aggravated now by the financial and socioeconomic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, is affecting caring veterinarians both here and abroad. One solution is for veterinary clinics to provide basic care while practicing a kind of economic triage for their human clients and animal patients: sending those who can afford the anticipated costs of diagnosis and treatment, or who have a viable pet health insurance policy, to specialists who have invested in various costly diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In the U.K., there is the longstanding PDSA -- People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals -- which is charity-supported. Clients must show their tax returns to qualify for discounted or free treatments.

(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: The Amazon rainforest is one of the “lungs” of our planet, releasing oxygen and helping sequester atmospheric carbon, which combats global warming and climate change. The destruction of this vast forest and the demise of indigenous animal and plant species and peoples is criminal ecocide and genocide. But no government is standing up to stop Brazil, and other surrounding countries bent on short-term profits, from destroying the forest through logging, mining and burning. This is being done to clear land for growing soybeans, which are exported to feed livestock and poultry (undercutting U.S. producers) and to raise cattle for the beef-export market.

The U.S. government refuses to label any beef products sold in America with their country of origin. American multinational corporations, notably Cargill, have turned a blind eye on the soybean issue until recently, thanks to increased public pressure for environmentally responsible business practices and the efforts of nonprofit organizations like Mighty Earth.

According to environmental group One Green Planet, while the U.S. is technically the world’s largest beef producer, meatpacking companies from the second-largest country of origin -- Brazil -- are consolidating the industry. The U.S. National Beef Packing Company is now nearly 80% owned by the Brazilian company Marfrig Global Foods S.A. Of the four top meatpacking companies in the U.S., which collectively process roughly 74% of all beef in the country, Brazilian-owned companies control half of them.

Some critics say that reforms are too little, too late, but we can all make a difference in terms of our dietary choices. We can boycott beef products in general, and food products from Brazil in particular, at least when labels are in evidence.

The international priority of protecting biodiversity and of restoring natural ecosystems must take precedence over nationalistic, profit-driven industries that are ultimately detrimental to our health and to the common good -- as exemplified by President Trump’s weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act on July 15 and reported rollback of rules protecting clean air and water.

DEAR DR. FOX: How can I protect my dog from ticks without resorting to Bravecto and similar products? I worry about how toxic they might be to my dog. -- S.B., Tulsa, Oklahoma

DEAR S.B.: We should also be concerned about the environmental toxicity, and about the exposure of family members, especially children, petting animals treated with some of these insecticides. Several holistic veterinary practitioners are now advocating various essential oils to repel ticks, as I have been doing for decades, in order to avoid the risks of conventional petrochemical-derived insecticides.

Both the CDC and EPA recommend oil of lemon eucalyptus as a natural insect repellent for humans. (Note: “Lemon eucalyptus” is not approved for use in disease-endemic areas due to its lack of efficacy. In contrast, “oil of lemon eucalyptus” contains a much higher quantity of a substance called PMD, which provides highly effective mosquito protection and is approved for use in all disease-endemic areas.)

Mix six to eight drops of this essential oil in a quarter-cup of warm water and sponge this over your dog. It will remain effective as a repellant for a couple of hours. This is one of the essential oils detailed in the Animal Wellness magazine article “Natural Tick Repellants” (volume 22, issue 4, 2020) by Kyle Holgate. He reports the benefits of oil of lemon eucalyptus, and similar benefits from oil of turmeric, which, according to studies in the U.K., was comparable to insecticides such as DEET in its ability to repel ticks. He also notes that essential oil of geranium has been shown to repel ticks, especially Lone Star tick nymphs.

In addition, I would advise keeping dogs out of vegetation that can harbor ticks, and using a flea comb after going outdoors in grassy or wooded areas. Rake the comb through the dog’s fur, and especially look between the dog’s toes and around the ears where ticks can lodge.

VETS SEEK RECLASSIFICATION OF ‘BUNNY EBOLA’

Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus type 2 (RHDV2) has been spreading in wild and domestic rabbits, hares and pikas throughout the Southwest, and veterinary epidemiologists say it’s only a matter of time before the virus is endemic throughout the U.S. A vaccine exists, but RHDV2 is still considered a foreign disease, making it both difficult and expensive to obtain the vaccine in the U.S., so the Association of Exotic Mammal Veterinarians is coordinating efforts to have the disease reclassified. (Tufts University, 7/13)

Dubbed “bunny Ebola” -- because the toll it takes on rabbits is as devastating as the toll the Ebola virus takes on humans -- the virus is not actually related to Ebola and does not affect humans, but it is carried easily on shoes and clothing. In rabbits, it destroys liver cells and causes lesions on the heart and lungs, as well as internal bleeding and death.

(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.)