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.)

DEAR READERS: The COVID-19 pandemic pales before the enormity of the issue of plastic pollution. Plastics are burned in many countries, releasing dioxins and other chemicals into the air, many of which can cause cancer and birth defects and/or damage the lungs and brain. These chemicals eventually settle on the crops we eat and the surface waters we ultimately drink.

Plastics in our oceans break down into microparticles that are then found in the fish we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe, along with toxic chemicals that adhere to these microparticles.

Scientists have linked ocean microplastics with declines in ocean phytoplankton. Phytoplankton, along with zooplankton, which are also harmed by microplastics, are the foundation of the marine food chain (the other end of which is threatened by over-fishing). Plankton are a major source of atmospheric oxygen and also absorb large quantities of carbon dioxide -- ecological services similar to what our declining forests provide.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the socioeconomic recovery that must follow, should not distract us from the urgency of addressing the global crisis of plastic pollution: a petrochemical product whose harmful consequences were never considered, but which we must all face. For documentation, see my report “From Mineral Oil and Multiple Sclerosis to Plastics and Nanoparticles,” posted on drfoxonehealth.com.

DEAR DR. FOX: I read your answer to the person whose son, who visits occasionally, is allergic to the cat sometimes allowed into their home. About a month ago, I purchased Purina Pro Plan LiveClear, a food that somehow cuts cat allergens, and it works! My granddaughter no longer sneezes when she’s in areas where my cats play, and she can even pet them before she goes to bed at night.

Thought you should know of this great product. I’m NOT an employee of Purina, just a cat lover. -- N.J., Winston-Salem, North Carolina

DEAR N.J.: I am glad to hear that the LiveClear food helped reduce your granddaughter’s sneezing when she is around your cats. My concern is for the cats, who should not be fed exclusively on such dry kibble. For details, see the book “Big Kibble” by Shawn Buckley and Dr. Oscar Chavez.

I would give your cats some wet cat food (canned or freeze-dried, ideally organic) or my home-prepared diet for at least one meal a day.

N.J. REPLIES: Absolutely agree on the wet food! I believe that neither dogs nor cats would eat only dry “stuff” in the wild, so I feed all of them some wet food. I just put the Purina kibble out as a snack, and the cats seem to like it a lot.

BOOK REVIEW: GOLDSTEIN’S ‘SPIRIT OF ANIMAL HEALING’

After reading this book -- full title, “The Spirit of Animal Healing: An Integrative Medicine Guide for a Higher State of Wellbeing” by Dr. Marty Goldstein, published 2021 -- I feel less alone as a veterinarian. Indeed, I have been called “the pariah of the profession,” but this book advocates much of what I have been doing to improve the health and well-being of our animal companions over the past 50 years.

Written in an engaging, personal style that explains complex issues in simple language, this book puts in place the cornerstones of keeping animals healthy: preventing and treating many illnesses with complementary and alternative therapeutic modalities. This book will inspire pet owners, veterinary students and practitioners to join the holistic One Health revolution. This movement challenges the conventional approach of relying on ever-more vaccinations, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical products while ignoring the role of nutrition and nutraceuticals.

(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.)