DEAR READERS: Animal-cloning company ViaGen Pets reports that demand is strong for its pet cloning and cell preservation services. The company says it has cloned more than 1,000 dogs and cats since it was established in 2015, although most customers start by preserving cells in case they want their pets cloned later. Such genetic preservation costs $1,6000, plus $150 per year in storage fees. If the customer does decide to have a pet cloned, it costs $50,000. This company also clones horses, cattle and other animals.

There could be some value in preserving certain desirable genetic traits, and in saving species on the verge of extinction. However, I have frequently expressed my reservations about this cloning business, reminding those who contemplate having this done that an exact replica of their deceased pet will never be produced because of epigenetic influences.

A major ethical concern is that dog cloning has only about a 20% success rate. That means the process of collecting egg cells to create an embryo and implanting the cloned embryo into a surrogate dog must usually be done many times before a healthy puppy is born. (See more about this ethical discussion here: scienceworld.scholastic.com/issues/2018-19/090318/should-you-clone-your-dog.html.)

Also, captive, surrogate cat and dog mothers will be exploited, and some offspring are likely to be deformed and destroyed. Abnormalities reported in cloned puppies include large offspring syndrome, cleft palate, microphthalmia (small eyes), and over-development of muscles and tongues. (For details, see the study "Insights From One Thousand Cloned Dogs" by P. Olaf Olsson, et al., published in Scientific Reports, July 2022.)

I see cloning a beloved pet as misguided sentimentalism. All who are considering paying for this biotechnology would be better off adopting an animal from a shelter and/or donating money to an animal rescue organization in memory of their deceased pet.

DEAR DR. FOX: I adopted a shelter cat in March who was 1 year old. She had been a stray, maybe a hurricane survivor. Her initial vet checkup, provided by the Humane Society, showed she had Spirometra. She had no symptoms, and was given praziquantel injections for two consecutive days, then a follow-up treatment of oral praziquantel. She then tested negative.

However, she now has a larger abdomen. I mentioned it to the vet a month or so ago. He felt her belly, but was not concerned.

I am planning on taking her back to the vet for a follow-up exam. Do you have any idea what could cause a young cat to get an enlarged belly? -- S.J., Boca Raton, Florida

DEAR S.J.: Spirometra mansonoides is an uncommon parasite of cats, and occasionally of dogs. It is mostly found along the East Coast and Gulf Coast of North America, along with parts of South America. Other species occur in Asia, Australia and Europe.

Infections are acquired by ingestion of the parasites’ second intermediate host (amphibians, reptiles, birds). Praziquantel, given orally or by injection, is the standard treatment.

Cats can develop large bellies and what even feels like a hernia when they have put on weight, especially when fed only dry kibble. But there can be other reasons, so a veterinary checkup is advisable. Be sure to keep your cat indoors to avoid such parasitic and other infections.

(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 see this recent release from Project Coyote (projectcoyote.org).

"Wildlife Services, often known as the killing arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, just published its 2023 program data detailing the number of animals the department killed and the methods used. The numbers are as staggering as always, with 1.4 million animals killed nationwide last year. ...

"In 2023, wild carnivores, as usual, were among the most heavily targeted species, with the program intentionally killing 68,649 coyotes, 305 wolves, 2 Mexican gray wolves, 237 mountain lions, 437 black bears, 2,246 foxes (including red, gray, and kit species), 482 bobcats, and 6 federally protected grizzly bears. Wildlife Services also gassed over 400 coyote and fox dens, killing an unknown number of pups in dens.

"The Wildlife Services uses M-44 cyanide bombs, neck snares, foothold traps, and aerial gunning in their 'lethal arsenal' -- methods as cruel as they are indiscriminate. These reckless practices resulted in the unintentional killing of federally protected species including the golden eagle and Mexican gray wolf, as well as many other species including 658 river otters, 443 raccoons, 379 snapping turtles, and 91 gray foxes. Even our companion animals are at risk, with numerous cats and dogs meeting their untimely end from Wildlife Services."

Tragically, these numbers are likely underestimated, as program insiders have long reported that Wildlife Services consistently underreports animals killed. To find out how you can help to stop this wanton slaughter of the innocent and save the vital biodiversity of natural habitats, go to projectcoyote.org.

DEAR DR. FOX: In a recent column, you stated that “predators never kill more than they need.” Where did you get that information? Have you had any experience with livestock and predators?

I was raised on a sheep ranch, ran my own sheep ranch and worked on a UC Davis agriculture experiment station. I have seen adult ewes that were killed by coyotes and not eaten at all, and also baby lambs killed and only the stomach contents eaten. On my own ranch, three ewes and our largest ram were killed in one night by a mountain lion -- with no flesh eaten from any of them.

I am sure you can find research that shows that some predators do kill more than they need. One thing I have learned is that you can’t make blanket statements about predators; they will prove you wrong. -- J.L., Geyserville, California

DEAR J.L.: I agree with you that predators will often prove us wrong: Unpredictability, to a degree, is the nature of predators. However, to repeat what I wrote earlier, predators do not normally kill more than they need. This is because of the energy needed to track and kill prey, the risk of incurring injuries from larger prey, and the ecological constraints around the availability of prey animals.

Domesticated animals, such as sheep -- especially those in a fenced field or corral, with no escape -- are very vulnerable to predators, which may well kill several and not consume them. Also, some varieties of domestic livestock have limited anti-predator responses, often bunching up together and making mass killing more likely. In India, I witnessed native cattle, especially cows protecting their calves, standing up to some predators and driving them off, while European dairy breeds lack this defensive behavior.

The bottom line where predators are concerned is to be prepared. Use nonlethal methods of predator deterrence, the best being the deployment of guard dogs, plus monitored night corrals. I recall one Indian cattle owner whose animals were allowed to graze freely in the jungle during the day, where there were tigers, leopards and dholes (wild dogs). I asked him how he felt about losing some cattle to these predators and he replied, “The jungle is their kingdom, and this is my rental payment.”

Regrettably, many cattle owners there resorted to putting out poisoned bait, which killed many non-target species, including village dogs. My late wife worked there and raised funds for a veterinarian to certify livestock losses from predators so that the owners could receive government compensation. Similar government insurance and compensation in the U.S. and other countries will help prevent retaliatory responses by livestock owners shooting, trapping, snaring and poisoning predators.

The region of Montesinho in northern Portugal provides an example of how to let wolves and livestock coexist as peacefully as possible. Ranchers in the area use guard dogs, fencing (as needed) and shepherds to oversee flocks and dogs.

"According to data gathered by the European Union, wolves kill about 65,500 livestock each year, the majority being sheep," reported the BBC. "Considering there are an estimated 60 million sheep in the EU, the level of wolf predation represents an annual killing of 0.065%."

For details, go to: bbc.com/future/article/20240808-in-portugal-shepherds-coexist-with-wolves.

UN: WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING HARMS NATURE, PUBLIC HEALTH

Wildlife trafficking occurs in more than 80% of countries, inflicts “untold harm upon nature” and jeopardizes public health, according to a report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. And 40% of the mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians seized by authorities between 2015 and 2021 were on lists of threatened or near-threatened species. Better law enforcement is needed to reduce both supply and demand, the report says. (Full story: The Guardian, May 13)

(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: Our oceans, and the lives therein, are in trouble. Climate change is warming the oceans, which energizes hurricanes and typhoons, while the rising levels of carbon dioxide acidify the waters and kill many species.

The Gulf of Mexico now has a "dead zone" expanding over 6,700 square miles where there is little to no life. This is because of the over-application of nitrate and phosphate fertilizers by farmers in the Midwest, which the rains wash into the Mississippi River to empty into the ocean. The fertilizer triggers an overgrowth of algae that decompose, sink to the bottom and deplete oxygen from the water so nothing can live in the dead zone.

Some of these algae are toxic to wildlife. Domoic acid poisoning from algal blooms appears to be the cause of recent multiple sea lion strandings along a 155-mile stretch of California’s coast. Adult female sea lions have been the primary victims. The neurotoxin affects the brain and heart, and the substance can sicken other marine mammals, as well as humans.

There are also freshwater concerns. Runoff from people fertilizing their lawns, along with sewage spills after heavy rains, create algal blooms in lakes and streams across the U.S. Keep dogs out of fresh water with algal growth, because some algae are highly toxic. And no dog should be allowed in any aquatic habitat if they are wearing an anti-tick and flea collar or have a spot-on product on their skin since these pesticides are lethal to aquatic life.

Communities restoring kelp forests and the sustainable farming of this carbon-sequestering, oxygen-releasing seaweed offer a glimmer of hope.

DEAR DR. FOX: I was a student of yours when you were associate professor of psychology at Washington University. I really enjoyed your course in animal behavior. I am now retired from teaching high school, and I was wondering what you think kids should be taught today -- when they are not stuck on social media and gaming. -- K.K., Sarasota, Florida

DEAR K.K.: You bring back fond memories of my time at that excellent university in St. Louis, and you raise an interesting question about today's students. I feel the generations to come will be challenged on many fronts, from the ravages of extreme climatic events to internecine strife and rising costs of food and other basic resources.

After checking out various school curricula in social studies and civics, I would add humane and environmental ethics and conservation, coupled with sustainable living: adopting ways to reduce the carbon footprint of conspicuous consumption. I would also add home economics, focusing on healthful food selection and preparation. Learning basic survival skills, self-reliance and collective action and support would also be prudent, considering the uncertainties that the future holds.

RISKS AND TIPS FOR HANDLING PET FOODS AND TREATS

Analyses of 14 raw meat diets and 41 processed diets for pets found multidrug-resistant E. coli in 10 of the raw diets, multidrug-resistant salmonella in one raw diet, and neither in the processed foods. The findings “strongly suggest that conventionally processed pet food is a safer option ... (and) indicate a need for proactive actions involving the pet industry, food safety agencies, and pet owners to mitigate risks for public health,” researchers wrote in the journal Eurosurveillance. Relatedly, a survey of pet owners in Slovenia revealed that many pet owners are unaware of the health risks posed by raw diets. (Full story: Food Safety News, May 7)

Just like "people" food, pet foods can sometimes be contaminated with bacteria like salmonella or listeria, which can cause serious illness in both the pets that eat them and the people who handle the food and treats. Commercially prepared pet foods and treats can provide nutritious diets and delicious rewards for pets, but it is important to handle them with health and safety in mind.

The AVMA has developed resources on safe handling practices for pet food and treats, including when to dispose of them, hand-washing guidelines and other tips. View the guidelines here: avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/petcare/safe-handling-pet-food-and-pet-treats.

(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.)