DEAR READERS: I am sure many readers who love cats and wildlife will appreciate the article "The Outdoor Cat: Neighborhood Mascot or Menace?" by New York Times reporter Maria Cramer. She makes it very clear that one of the best solutions is an outdoor cat enclosure, or a "catio," to help protect wildlife and cats from injuries and cat-to-cat diseases.

But I was surprised at one serious omission in her article: No mention was made of the number of diseases cats can pick up outdoors and bring back into the home if they are allowed to roam free. These are called zoonotic diseases, and cats are more of a public health risk in this way than rats! According to the Merck Veterinary Manual (2010), there are at least 27 known cat-to-human zoonotic diseases. In addition, cats have infected people with influenza virus and COVID-19, and vice-versa. In contrast, a report from Washington State University lists only 12 rodent-to-human zoonotic diseases (see iacuc.wsu.edu/zoonoses-associated-with-rodents-wild).

As for cats controlling rats, adult rats are a challenge for most cats. Even if they do catch or kill one, cats (and their families) could be at additional risk from diseases the cat could catch from the rodent.

People are potentially at risk, children in particular, from petting any stray cat or from living with an indoor-outdoor cat. It is especially worrisome for children to play in sandboxes and other playground and garden areas where cats may have evacuated.

There is no need to get rid of your outdoor-indoor cats! Just visit the excellent American Bird Conservancy guide (abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors) on how to make indoor life a safe and stimulating place. Ideally, you should have two cats, plus an outdoor enclosure or catio.

CATS OUTDOORS AT RISK FROM FUNGAL DISEASES

Often underdiagnosed when cats go blind, develop a fever, become lethargic or anorexic, or develop skin nodules and respiratory distress, histoplasmosis is a fungal disease in the soil. It is the second most commonly reported fungal infection in cats, following cryptococcosis.

Cryptococcosis is a type of fungal infection that occurs when a cat inhales spores from a type of fungus that grows in organic material such as soil, decaying wood or bird guano (especially droppings from pigeons). Spores also can enter the skin through an open wound.

Since these fungi are everywhere in the soil, cats are likely to get the soil on their paws and ingest it when grooming, along with fungal spores. The spores could be inhaled or get into the fur in dry and dusty weather and when cats dig into the soil chasing small rodents or making a pit in which to defecate. These fungal diseases are a major reason to keep cats indoors and never use soil in the cat's litter box.

TEARFUL DOGS

The results of an experiment in Japan, published in Current Biology, reported that some dogs got watery eyes when reunited with their owners after more than five hours apart. The "tears of joy" response appeared to be driven by production of oxytocin, or the "feel-good hormone." People looking at photographs of dogs were more likely to want to nurture ones with watery eyes, suggesting that dogs might have evolved to tear up to get affection. (Full story: The New York Times and The Guardian, both Aug. 22)

Readers have informed me that their dogs shed tears when distressed. Such weeping from the eyes is also seen in other species when distressed, notably elephants and water buffalo.

Dogs who seem to cry a lot, especially small, fluffy breeds, should see a veterinarian because they could have chronic and potentially serious eye disease.

(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 really enjoyed what you wrote about the love of dogs in a recent column. Have you read author Stephen Budiansky's book "The Truth About Dogs"? He says dogs are clever, manipulative opportunists. What is your response? -- B.K., Washington, D.C.

DEAR B.K.: I read that book, but decided not to read his other one about cats ("The Truth About Cats"). Your reference to this author opens a window to the concerted efforts, some years ago, to discredit the science and philosophy behind the animal and environmental protection movements -- much like the climate change deniers of today.

In "The Truth about Dogs: An Inquiry Into the Ancestry, Social Conventions, Mental Habits and Moral Fiber of Canis Familiaris," published in 2000, Budiansky asserts, "If biologists weren't victim to the same blindness that afflicts us all, they probably wouldn't hesitate to classify dogs as social parasites."

Some of his other books were lauded by the "establishment," which felt under threat from environmentalists and animal rights advocates.

An earlier Budiansky book, "If a Lion Could Talk: Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of Consciousness," received this write-up from Publisher's Weekly: "Although Budiansky concedes that animals most likely experience emotions, he denies them consciousness, which, in his view, is inseparably linked to language, an exclusively human invention. Furthermore, Budiansky contends, animals don't really suffer, at least not the way we do, because their sensation of pain lacks a social context. Budiansky, a science writer ('The Nature of Horses') and U.S. News & World Report deputy editor, uses this debatable thesis to bash the animal rights and deep-ecology movements. Whatever one thinks of the correctness of his argument, it has value as a levelheaded critique of our tendency to anthropomorphize animal behavior."

Yet another book in this distancing-from-animals vein is "The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication," in which Budiansky argues that some species actually chose to be domesticated. The book came with the publisher's description: "Animal rights extremists argue that eating meat is murder and that pets are slaves. This compelling reappraisal of the human-animal bond, however, shows that domestication of animals is not an act of exploitation but a brilliantly successful evolutionary strategy that has benefitted humans and animals alike." Manuela Hoelterhoff's review in The Wall Street Journal put it this way: "Budiansky's slim, elegant discourse is a persuasive counterweight to the pastoral delusions of sentimentalists intent on seeing humans as malevolently at odds with the noble animal kingdom."

Budiansky was not alone in politicizing and twisting science to discredit animal welfare and rights advocacy and environmental protection. But for me, the icing on the cake was his article "Academic roots of paranoia: The Unabomber may not be such an intellectual loner" from the U.S. News & World Report of May 13, 1996. In it, he wrote: "A surprising number of leading academic writers on animal rights and the environment share the Unabomber's paranoid hostility to science -- the first is the Unabomber [the FBI's most-wanted fugitive, Theodore Kaczynski] and the second is Michael W. Fox, a widely published writer on animal rights and the environment."

This was all part of a concerted effort to dismiss animals as sentient, conscious beings. Instead, it was argued, animals are unfeeling automatons governed by instinctual reflexes. This "mechanomorphizing" of other animals helped create the "great void," as I call it. The exploiters of animals needed this to continue their activities in good conscience, and for protection from public accountability and censure. Distancing us from the environment and from other animals and severing empathy and compassion served the ultimate aim: maintaining the status quo of animal and environmental exploitation.

This great divide was eventually bridged by ethologists and other biological and animal welfare scientists, marked by the 2012 "Cambridge Declaration on Animal Consciousness" (drfoxonehealth.com/post/the-cambridge-declaration-on-animal-consciousness). Well before this declaration, and in spite of the paranoid pontifications of Budiansky et al, veterinarians had been diagnosing and treating emotional conditions in animals also seen in humans, and with similar medications as for depression and separation anxiety, a field of veterinary care I helped establish in the early 1970s.

For evidence of homologous and analogous human emotional responses in other animals, including insects, crabs and lobsters, read the article "The question of animal emotions" by Frans B.M.de Wall and Kristin Andrews, published in Science on March 24.

When we liberate animals from all forms of cruel exploitation and incarceration, we may yet recover our humanity.

(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 am an ethical vegan. I do not eat meat, poultry, eggs, seafood or dairy products. We don't need to kill or exploit animals for food, at least in areas where we can get good plant-based diets.

You are a veterinarian, and I wonder about a possible conflict of interest in your profession: What about veterinarians who heal animals, then go home and eat other animals? Do you? If vets really care for animals, should they not be vegans? -- D.K., Fort Myers, Florida

DEAR D.K.: You raise a pertinent -- and perhaps to some, an impertinent -- question. I do not know how many veterinarians are vegan (substituting plant proteins and fats for those from animals) or vegetarian (perhaps eating eggs and dairy, but no meat). I cannot disagree with you about a seeming conflict of interest, and this is currently being debated in the British Veterinary Association. An association of vegan veterinarians has been established in the U.K., and their colleagues in the farm animal sector have taken issue with this question even being raised.

The ultimate resolution must be not to impose one's values on others, but to openly confront and consider one's own. It is true that a life unexamined is a life unlived, and we must all examine our dietary choices and related personal and family health, professional and planetary responsibilities.

Many of us are very fortunate in being able to choose, and afford, to eat what we want. But millions of people have virtually no choice, and an ever-increasing number have no food at all, under the juggernaut of climate change-induced disasters.

Indigenous peoples, like the Ojibwe in Minnesota, revere the land and seek food self-sufficiency through horticulture, rice harvesting, fishing and raising (and, on occasion, humanely killing) bison. They have a sound ethical basis for consuming animals because they are assuming their sacred duty of land stewardship and careful regeneration. But the global populace is simply too large for everyone to live this way and, in my opinion, we have an ethical imperative to become vegetarian -- ideally, vegan.

DEAR DR. FOX: When I lived in Florida, people routinely used glue traps to catch palm rats by putting then outside in bushes and trees. This resulted in birds, lizards and other small animals being trapped and dying horrible deaths. Since the traps were outside, many people just put them up and never bothered checking them.

If we hadn't unbalanced our natural world so badly, we wouldn't need all these traps and massive amounts of pesticides. I fear we are past the point of no return. -- L.D.R., Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania

DEAR L.D.R.: I appreciate you adding to the discussion on glue traps for catching rodents. It is a tragic fact that, out of ignorance and indifference, humans continue to harm other sentient beings and fail to find ways of peaceful coexistence.

PET FOOD MANUFACTURER SUPPORTING FARM ANIMAL WELFARE

Readers may find this press release from Earth Animal, whose products I have periodically recommended in this column, of interest. From EarthAnimal.com:

"Earth Animal is taking yet another step in its commitment to animal welfare by signing The Better Chicken Commitment (BCC), in cooperation with international farm animal welfare organization Compassion in World Farming ... Earth Animal joins 220 companies in the human food space and is just the fifth signatory in the pet food industry to commit.

"'We believe that all animals deserve to live a good life, and therefore we have a fundamental responsibility to protect and advocate for the animals in our families and those that are born, raised and slaughtered for our pet foods and other pet products,' says Earth Animal co-founder Susan Goldstein. 'We adopted the pet industry's first comprehensive Animal Welfare Framework in 2022, where we committed to setting objectives and targets to improve the welfare of animals in our supply chain. Because chicken is our most used protein, the BCC is the logical first step in actively promoting animal welfare throughout our source ingredients.'

"The Better Chicken Commitment is a science-based chicken welfare policy developed by a group of animal welfare organizations ... The standards address animal welfare issues related to breeding for fast growth and high yield, housing conditions, stocking density and slaughter. ...

"'Chickens raised for meat, also known as broiler chickens, make up approximately 95% of the farm animals in our food system. Over 9 billion are raised and slaughtered each year in the United States,' said Julia Johnson, Senior Food Business Manager, Compassion in World Farming USA. 'By announcing their pledge to the Better Chicken Commitment, Earth Animal is demonstrating that they care about the quality of life these chickens have, as well as transparency to their customers about their own elevated sourcing standards.'"

(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.)