DEAR DR. FOX: Your article on fish cruelty really hit home. I have always been an animal lover and advocate, but I was also a fisherman. Spring through summer I fished every chance I got. I always put them back unless the fish was hurt in some way that I knew it would not survive. About 10 years ago, I suddenly realized what I was doing -- the terror I was putting these poor animals through. I haven't fished since.

I believe that all living creatures have a soul, feel pain, and have a purpose. This includes fish, bugs, snakes, other animals that people just kill without a thought. When I try to explain this to people, I use the example of a chain necklace. If you are wearing a necklace and a link breaks, you lose the whole necklace. Nature is like this. Every living thing, whether plant or animal, has its place; it is a link in the chain of life. -- L.D.R., Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania

DEAR L.D.R.: I am sure many readers will appreciate your communication and empathetic transformation upon realizing how fish suffer in this traditional and cruel "sport." Fish indeed have feelings; for details, visit fishfeel.org.

It is worth noting that in some cultures, the catching of fish is done as gently as possible because those consuming them can taste the difference between those scooped up in a net and killed swiftly and those that struggled to escape -- or worse, those that were strung alive through the gills and tied to the boat.

This reminds me of the advice given to a young hunter to kill the deer swiftly with one arrow; otherwise you will feed its fear to your family. I wonder, in this regard, how the meat from the millions of pigs, poultry and cattle being transported to slaughter here in the U.S. and around the world may affect consumers. Meat processors can indeed recognize how stress affects meat quality.

DEAR DR. FOX: I just read your column advising a person about their dog's anal gland problems. Besides adding shredded coconut to the dog's food, as well as getting more exercise, why did you not mention adding more fiber, like vegetables, to their diet?

My vizsla had leaking anal glands, so, after a doc visit to make sure there was not an underlying problem, I added chopped cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and other dog-friendly vegetables to his diet. Since then, he has had absolutely no problems at all. -- T.S.G., Owasso, Oklahoma

DEAR T.S.G.: I appreciate your sharing the benefits of fiber in the diet of dogs with anal gland issues. Shredded, unsweetened coconut (or flakes or powder) is the best and most convenient source. I also often give my dog shredded raw organic carrots.

Go easy on the broccoli, cabbage and related vegetables -- they can depress thyroid function. I would steam them lightly. Even if you feed only a small amount of these vegetables, I call for caution, since there are many other environmental contaminants that act as endocrine disruptors and can affect thyroid function in dogs, cats and humans.

From a Mayo Clinic column on this topic: "Concern surrounding the impact of spinach, kale and other similar vegetables -- including broccoli, broccoli rabe, turnips, Brussels sprouts, Chinese cabbage and cauliflower -- on thyroid health is due to the effect they can have on the thyroid's ability to absorb iodine. Having enough iodine in your diet is crucial for thyroid health." (Source: newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org)

PROGRESS IN ADOPTING THE ONE HEALTH PRINCIPLE

For readers interested in learning more about the One Health movement, the article "One Health approach: a symphony of effort, a health exigency worldwide" is a great introduction. To read it, visit innovationnewsnetwork.com/one-health-approach-health-exigency-worldwide/13217.

I emphasized this principle -- which is becoming a global movement, especially in steps toward disease prevention and climate change -- in my book "Healing Animals and the Vision of One Health." Human health, as we are learning (too late, some fear), is dependent upon a healthy environment filled with healthy animals and plants. In a practical sense, this is a call to science- and ethics-based planetary healing and stewardship.

(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: Moments ago, I read your recent article wherein you included an exchange with "P.H., Ph.D.," from Seattle. As a theoretical particle and nuclear physicist with a heavy background in experimental techniques and many years of experience in environmental monitoring, I support your assessment of climate science. -- Dr. Robert I. Price, class of 1979, Arizona State University

DEAR DR. FOX: I have no expertise in climate, since I am a retired journalist/editor whose work (over some 50 years) has been read by many hundreds of millions of North Americans, and my job was to disbelieve anything that was not supported by empirical facts. There is no question we are experiencing global warming, but I am not convinced one way or the other that the principal cause is man-made.

Now, that does not mean the man-made theory is wrong. Frankly, I don't know. However, I did find that around 1972 (only about 50 years ago), the great climate scientists all over the world agreed that we were headed for an ice age soon, that it would be caused by man, and that by the year 2000 we would likely be in a worldwide hunger catastrophe. It was headlined all over the Western world by TV networks, and by papers like The New York Times and the Times of London. Newsweek ran a scary cover story about it. They all quoted the top climatologists and university scientists in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, etc. Basically the same lofty titles now saying our global warming is man-made. So how could these people be so WRONG then and so RIGHT now?

The answer is lazy reporters and media. They should have been asking: "You are the experts in this science, but when did you become psychics?"

Show me something you had published 25 years ago that predicted what is happening now. You seem to KNOW what 2050 will bring, so why didn't you know 25 years ago? -- I.C., Boca Raton, Florida

DEAR DR. FOX: I enjoy your column very much and am writing, as a geologist of 40 years' experience, in response to your recent thread about climate change.

The evidence that human activity is driving current climate trends is incontrovertible. Being dispassionate toward dogmatic ideas is the hallmark of good research, and pushes the boundaries of the unknown. However, to entertain diametrically opposed viewpoints on unambiguous issues in the name of "balance" or "tolerance" is a mistake that scientists are prone to make -- one that gives the fringe a platform from which to continue their dangerous misinformation and disinformation efforts.

Airtime equals legitimacy. It is probably why past IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports have not had the urgency of the most recent one. Climate scientists are past the point of being polite. -- D.H., Ph.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma

DEAR R.I.P., I.C., and D.H.: I appreciate your communications. Some scientists, for various reasons -- especially for vested career "tenure" concerns, aligned with corporate interests -- refuse to accept peer-reviewed scientific reports and the consensus of the scientific community when it comes to the current climate and extinction/biodiversity loss crises.

This was the case earlier with the documented risks of DDT and other pesticides, and with the addictive and cancer-causing consequences of tobacco. I was writing and testifying that the "greenhouse effect" of carbon dioxide and other gas emissions would lead to global warming no less than 30 years ago! The naysayers came mainly from the fossil fuel industry, and had essentially bastardized the scientific method.

Here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of the scientific method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." The biological and physical sciences, often linked with ethics, economics and mathematics, are grounded in objectivity. And like justice, they are impartial. Otherwise, self-interest, ideologies and other biases would distort the interpretation and application of scientific discovery.

Regrettably, vested material, industrial, military and other interests and aligned investors, politicians and regulatory agencies have too often failed to consider the ethics and consequences of their decisions. Otherwise, many of the problems we face today -- especially in industrial agriculture, the medical industry and veterinary services -- would not exist.

When science speaks truth to power and exposes the lies, deception and delusions of the status quo and "progress," we witness the anti-science backlash of political and corporate opposition, as with the Trump administration's inaction concerning the climate crisis and bungled response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The sciences can help us build a "circular" economy that is sustainable and healthful rather than extractive and polluting. Generating safer alternative sources of energy rather than burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and not relying on hydroelectricity from ecologically hazardous dams (and now-unpredictable rainfall) are survival initiatives all nations must pursue. The fossil fuel industry's production of plastics -- predicted to soon exceed in mass the weight of fish in the oceans -- and of toxic petrochemicals -- linked to cancer, immune and endocrine system dysfunctions, sterility, birth defects and neurological problems -- must be terminated for the common good and the good of the commons.

(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: I just read your article on the possibility of chronic wasting disease (CWD) from deer being transmitted to humans. While it has not crossed that barrier yet, it goes far deeper than that.

CWD has been found in plants, such as farm crops, and is transmittable to animals that eat these plants. These crops get harvested and made into various breads, cereals, soybean products -- all sorts of things that get sent to market and then to us. So technically, CWD is in our food chain already, not just in venison.

There is no cure for CWD at this time. If it jumps that barrier, then what? -- M.S., Erie, Pennsylvania

DEAR M.S.: As I state in my post about CWD on my website, many experts contend that chronic wasting disease was initially spread from captive deer in Colorado, some of which were transported to other states. State wildlife management practices that foster large deer populations for hunters have exacerbated the spread of CWD, as has the elimination of wolves, which help control deer populations and disease. The white-tailed deer population, now estimated at some 30 million across the U.S., is also impacting forest regeneration.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we face another issue involving deer. A recent study of the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in white-tailed deer by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service discovered that 33% of 481 blood samples collected from January 2020 through March 2021 from deer populations in Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York tested positive for this coronavirus. In another study, samples taken early this year from eight white-tailed deer in Ohio contained SARS-CoV-2. How the deer became infected is not known, but it could have been from close contact with COVID-19-infected people on deer farms and in parks. Or possibly from leftover picnic items and human feces in public parks and campgrounds.

White-tailed deer can be infected by and transmit SARS-CoV-2 to other deer through nasal secretions and fecal matter, researchers reported in the Journal of Virology. Fawns in the small study did not develop clinical signs of illness, but the virus replicated and was shed, suggesting cervids are potential viral reservoirs. Since captive mink are highly susceptible to this virus and have been infected by caretakers -- and, in turn, have infected other workers -- there is also concern that infected deer could pass this virus to wild mink and other wildlife.

Deer farmers must therefore take precautions to stop infected staff from passing COVID-19 on to deer. Many zoos are now taking such precautions. Unlike the influenza virus and other primarily airborne infections, this rapidly mutating coronavirus is capable of infecting many different species that could become reservoirs for future pandemics in the human population.

As for CWD control, the white-tailed deer population needs to be significantly reduced in most states. Encouraging wolf numbers, by prohibiting trapping, snaring and shooting them, would be prudent. Livestock keepers practicing nonlethal methods of wolf deterrence, such as the use of guard dogs, should be compensated for any confirmed losses of livestock to wolves (and not to disease, exposure or neglect).

These are the kinds of One Health issues that state and federal animal and public health agencies are beginning to acknowledge, questioning commercial farming practices in the bargain.

DROUGHT AND DISEASE IN DEER

Bluetongue and epizootic hemorrhagic disease are spreading among deer in the Northwest as dry conditions encourage animals to congregate near small, muddy water sources where the insects that spread these diseases proliferate. The viruses do not affect people, but the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife advises deer hunters to avoid killing animals that appear ill. (Full story: Northwest News Network, Sept. 8)

These diseases are transmissible from deer to cattle and sheep. Ranchers would be better advised, in my opinion, to address the high deer population and various diseases putting their livestock at risk than continuing to advocate for the extermination of wolves and other predators.

(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.)