Would you take your pet to one of those in-front-of-the-supermarket vaccine clinics charging less than your vet does for basic vaccines? You might not. You’re not likely to fall into the target market for these. Not if you’re taking the time to read through blog posts on the subject of veterinary care.
Nonetheless, you should know that plenty of people find these vaccine shops to be convenient, not-so-budget-busting alternatives to the kind of full-service vaccine care vets like me provide. But veterinarians aren’t as gratified to see fly-by-night vaccine outlets spreading like a bad case of fungal pododermatitis at the foot of this economy.
Background: I subscribe to an email listserve for the FVMA (Florida Veterinary Medical Association). It’s function is to offer a forum for veterinarians in Florida to address political, legal, regulatory and ethical issues in a collegial context. Got a problem, a thought, an issue to raise? Just send out an email to your professional partners. We’ll listen.
I’ve raised the issue of Florida black bear cruelty, mandatory spay-neuters (how and why to oppose the legislation) and Cesar Millan endorsements for our products. This time, someone else picked up the ball and ran with the issues raised by these vaccine clinics. Here they are:
Vaccine clinics like these (locally, in front of Walgreens stores and Winn-Dixie supermarkets) are sidewalk “clinics” that offer vaccines and sometimes heartworm testing––just the bare bones. No physical exam, ledger records only and no other niceties. It’s a wham-bam-thank-you-maam operation.
Physical exams are fundamental. Pets receiving vaccines should be healthy. These clinics often don’t discriminate.
Ledger records and proof of vaccination on a postcard may be good enough for some of us, but they’re not good enough for me. Should you lose your proof, where can you turn? You’re not likely to find that outlet again to access your medical records.
These clinics can be not-for-profit, low-cost alternatives that truly serve the poor (with proof of MedicAid status or by virtue of working at a homeless shelter as I do every couple of months) or they can be for-profit entities offering just 25% off the regular veterinary price.
Consequently, the latter “clinics” are not offering you a bargain if they’re skipping the physical exam and diligent record-keeping. It’s a scam some veterinary detractors say. More so if they’re recommending you get your vaccines every year (as most do) instead of every three. in these cases, you’re doubtless paying more for the convenience a sidewalk affords. Nice, right?
And how are these vaccines stored, anyway? Some do it right (again, as we do when we travel to a homeless shelter on behalf of the SFVMA), keeping a temp-regulated, thermostat-monitored cooler on hand. What’s the likelihood that every “clinic” does, given that the risk of inspection (which they ARE subject to) is so infinitesimally tiny? Your guess is as good as mine.
Where do the vaccines come from? Who manufactured them? Are they in date? Are you getting proof of that on a sticker? Are they injecting pink-dyed water? How would you know? Sure, that’s a risk anywhere. Trust is everything. But when you subject yourself to the lowest-common denominator of vaccine care, your odds of being seriously ripped off rises.
In light of these facts and possibilities, it makes sense that most veterinarians would balk at the prospect of a profession-cheapening supermarket-scavenging, bottom-feeding outlet. No vet wants them setting up shop in the next shopping center over, hawking vaccines without the benefit of exams and discussions and undoing all the hard work we’ve committed to in the form of education and explanations over the years.
And no one wants their incomes undercut, either. Hence the understandable public skepticism engendered whenever veterinarians scream bloody murder at the mere sight of these setups.
We deserve cheap vaccines, some citizens and politicians cry. We need to protect the animals of the poor and disenfranchised, not to mention the public health of all with respect to the risk of rabies. Veterinarians should accept that Walgreens administers flu vaccines and similar options must be made available for those who can’t afford full-service veterinary care in the absence of a lotto windfall from all those tickets they buy.
With all due respect, however, Walgreens keeps your records, runs a tight ship and offers avenues for redress in the event of corporate liability. There's no comparison.
Offering free or very low cost vaccines to the poor? It's a MUST. Betraying public trust by offering convenient, pseudo-low cost options? It's a recipe for a scam...and a betrayal of my profession as well.
Now you know where I stand. But where do YOU?
No, we can’t save them all. But we’ve all been guilty of letting the occasional long-shot kitten case worm its way into our psyches, sucking up all our energy reserves like a feline singularity as we battle to save it against all odds––not to mention our better judgment.
The kitten in question is a stray twelve-weeker currently living in the company of a new-client couple. They’d come in yesterday for a second opinion on a heavy-breathing problem and left with a diagnosis no one wants to hear: diaphragmatic hernia.
So you know, a diaphragmatic hernia happens when the muscle that separates the chest from the abdomen (the diaphragm) is either incompletely formed (congenitally) or traumatized (as with the kind of blunt force a car might apply). In either case the solution is the same: surgery to repair the defect any way we can.
In this case, the kitten breathes with significant abdominal effort. Her intestines and half her liver have spilled into the space her lungs live in, thereby displacing them. Her lung capacity is consequently about a fifth of normal. No wonder she breathes like that.
Though she can’t jump or perform normal kitten activities, somehow she can still manage to eat up a storm––and eke out a purr. Clearly she’s one of those who knows she’s got to work it to recruit our help. And she does it soooo well.
The problem is the stray-slash-money factor, as it so often is. Foundlings being so unexpected and the economy so crappy, you can see how this scenario might be playing out all over the US.
That’s why we struck a deal: We’ll charge you our cost and we’ll cut corners wherever we can. $400 start to finish, no matter what the outcome. As long as they understand the risks of having a generalist perform a bare-bones surgery that might well require a specialist. And we won’t know that until we get in there.
After it was all agreed and the multitude of questions answered, I wrote up this post to the point that precedes this paragraph with a lump in my throat. I really didn’t want to get into such a surgical stressfest. Nothing I like less than a “peek and shriek” surgery.
Yet, unsavory as it sounds, I couldn't help thinking I'd have no better option to redeem myself after euthanizing so many a couple of weeks ago. What can I say? Sometimes we all make these deals with ourselves. Sleeping well at night is well worth the temporary stress and zero pay.
Thankfully, it seems that overnight the couple begged, borrowed or stole some cash and took their case to vet number three: the surgeon across the street (who happens to be my favorite specialist ever). We can afford $1,000, they explained. Can you help?
I’m not yet privy to the deal they struck but let it suffice to say that we all know we could be saving twelve kittens for the amount of time, energy and money that’s headed this one’s way. But what can you do? Sometimes you don’t pick them...they pick you. That's when you have no choice but to surrender to the sweet mystery of their masterfully solicitous purr.
I'll keep you posted on her progress.
Given this title, you might assume I’d oppose the slaughter of horses. And yes it’s true, I don’t believe that equines raised as family pets, racehorses and once-beloved recreational companions deserve the dinner plate as their final resting place.
Yet ever since the last three equine slaughterhouses in the US ceased operations in 2007, it’s become clear to me and others in my profession that sometimes the devil in sunlight trumps the devil that lurks in shadows.
Horrible, I know, but there you have it: I support equine slaughter in the US.
That, in direct contravention to a bill in congress that seeks an outright ban on it (already voted on in committee and still set for a general vote). This HSUS and PETA-supported bill currently targets horse meat that's used for any reason, though it may still be softened to specify that it only applies to "horse meat intended for human consumption."
My reasons? Here you go:
#1 Since our slaughterhouses shut their doors to horses two years ago, the economy has tanked. Feed costs have skyrcketed. Even well-meaning, well-educated but otherwise cash-strapped horse owners have had trouble keeping their pastured golden oldies in good shape.
Forget the vet bills. These people can’t afford to feed them or keep them when their properties are forclosed on. Euthanasia and cremation or burial is an expensive proposition––far more so than a cat or dog’s “disposal.” There are few equine shelters willing to take on death detail. Consequently, many animals quite literally die of malnutrition and/or starvation.
#2 One unintended consequence of the ban on equine slaughter has manifested in the shipping of horses across the Canadian and Mexican borders to meet the same fate, sans USDA oversight. The practice has increased by 300% according to some available stats, though some report that far more fly under the radar on their one-way trips.
In Canada’s case I’m not so alarmed, but the footage I’ve seen from Mexican slaughterhouses (profiled in the veterinary media) have left me cold. God forbid any animal should have to suffer the ignominy of that cruel and unsanitary end of life experience.
#3 Another, more frightening alternative is currently playing out under the cover of darkness in suburban and semi-rural Miami. Maybe you’ve heard about it. It’s the slaughter of horses without express consent from their owners. That’s putting it mildly for the owners of some twenty horses that, since March, have been slaughtered out in their pastures.
Throats slit, there’s evidence they were butchered alive for their meat as they slowly bled to death from unprofessionally applied wounds. Thus poached, their carcasses were then left to rot or burned, presumably to disguise evidence. Disgusting.
The others have been those sold for a pittance who turned up at an illegal, makeshift slaughterhouse in the Miami environs. Presumably, there areothers still in operation.
Were the owners of these latter horses informed? Was it a hear-see-speak-no-evil scenario? Who knows? Either way, it’s another way to supply the local ethnic market with the back market horse meat it prizes as a delicacy.
#4 Then comes the weakest argument, but one offered by many in support of equine slaughter: Almost every other country on the planet consumes horse meat. We’re the largest lone holdout. Given that, environmentally speaking, horses offer protein, no equine slaughter in the US means large hunks of potential protein source go to waste. In a world of limited resources, it’s argued, how can we refuse to offer this meat to those who would consume it in lieu of factory-farmed alternatives?
Though I’ve included it as one of my reasons, I’m not sure I can offer you a true yea or nay on this one since I don’t have the math in hand to effectively evaluate the economics and environmental impact of meat that’s largely shipped to faraway destinations. But if it’s more environmentally sound and of economic assistance to the US, I’d argue that it helps support the notion of slaughter in light of the above issues.
***
In case you’re wondering, Im not alone on this issue. In fact, the equine veterinarians I know, especially those who offer their services free of charge to rescues and serve in other equine welfare capacities, have come to feel as I do.
The American Association of Equine Practitioners has even issued a statement on the matter with respect to upcoming legislation pushing for an outright ban. In it, it urges that H.R. 6598––the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008––does away with what is "currently a necessary end-of-life option" for unwanted and would-be neglected horses.
In the end, they agree with me: The “evils” inherent to equine slaughter serve to mitigate more egregious evils that fluorish in its absence. Killing horses in commercial slaughterhouse conditions is an acceptable option given the alternatives I’ve detailed above.
Conclusion? At least for now, I’ll have to hold my nose and swallow the slaughter.
Testimonials and positive reviews abound on the web when it comes to the product reserved for the eyes of our “little angels.” Owners of white pets everywhere swear by Angel Eyes. Those whose pets suffer marked tear stains caused by ruddy lacrimal pigments called porphyrins are “amazed” by its results. All in all, it’s the end of the unsightly ocular dreeblies in a bottle. And it REALLY works.
A teaspoon or less of Angel Eyes in your dog or cat’s food or water bowl daily and a few weeks later––cue up the heavenly soundtrack––no more ugly facial expressions caused by those pesky tears.
Never mind that tears run down faces because eyes are misshapen. Never mind that the presence of excessive lacrimation is evidence of disease. We have a cure for what ails you, claims Angel Eyes. The look of sickliness is all but erased by our magic pixie dust.
God forbid we should actually explore the problem behind excessive tearing and its indelible staining...lest we find that our pets are afflicted by the genetic anomalies, ophthalmic diseases and/or poor hygiene that too often lead to a feline and canine “racoon-eyed” appearance.
But the worst part is NOT that Angel Eyes is a quick fix to a basic problem of poor ocular conformation or a variety of other ophthalmic diseases. And it’s NOT that the presence of a product like Angel Eyes allows for breeders of Maltese dogs and Persian cats, among others, to continue to breed for unhealthy deformities and disease.
The real problem? Most users of Angel Eyes have no idea what they’re offering their pets by way of aesthetic maintenance. In case they really wanted to know, here’s a sampling of what the manufacturer offers on its website by way of explanation:
"Q. How does Angels' Eyes® work?
A. Angels’ Eyes works to prevent tear staining by tying up circulating porphyrins. A porphyrin is a compound that reacts with light to produce a reddish brown stain to the medial canthus. The ingredients in Angels' Eyes will prevent your dog from contracting Ptyrosporin (Red Yeast) and bacterial infections which causes excess tearing and staining.
Q. What are the ingredients in Angels' Eyes®?
A. Angels' Eyes is wheat and dye free, it's made of 100%Pure beef liver, tylosin as tartrate.
Q. What's the difference between Angels' Eyes® and all the other products on the market?
A. All other products mask or have artificial food coloring, artificial food additives and preservatives, and cereals such as wheat causing the stains to reappear worse than before. Angels' Eyes® does not require rubbing or any other difficult maintenance. With Angels' Eyes® you will not need to use bleach, peroxide or any other product that may cause allergies and irritations."
Angel Eyes is truly sent from heaven, any interested owner might glean, since it’s got “pure” stuff and is “wheat and dye free.” All other products are so “artificial” with all their “preservatives.”
Never mind that this product’s main ingredient is a macrolide antibiotic called tylosin. Never mind that clearing up tear stains in this way means you’ve got to offer your dogs a daily dose of antbiotic for the rest of his natural life. Never mind that Angel Eyes is illegal in Europe. Never mind that while the rest of the world is looking for ways to curb bacterial resistance to antibiotics, Angel Eyes is promoting it...just so your dog can look “pretty” in the face of disease.
Remember how we discussed Obama’s proposals condemning the use of on antibiotics for non-therapeutic use in animals intended for our food supply? Most of you agreed that antibiotics should not be freely administered to our farm animals given that they facilitate the overcrowding of agriculture species and promote bacterial resistance to antibiotics sorely needed for human and animal health.
Angel Eyes offers a parallel scenario. But it’s legal. It’s also legal to offer your pets antibiotics you buy at the fish store. But would you?
Angel Eyes’ website clearly states that anyone considering starting any “supplement regimen” for pets should consult their veterinarian first. Good for them. (Though I think you’ll agree it’s a tad disingenuous to call any product containing an antibiotic a “supplement.”) Too bad I’ve yet to meet the first Angel Eyes user I didn’t have to prompt for info before I could ascertain the real reason behind the lack of tear staining.
Nope, I’ve never been consulted. Why? Because these clients had no idea Angel Eyes contained an antibiotic. They had no idea their own pet was a test case for bacterial resistance. They had no idea that it might make a difference for their own pet’s health to ask the vet. Nope, they were using it based on the seemingly innocusous advice of a friend, neighbor, breeder, Google, etc.
Go ahead. Search Google for “Angel Eyes and pets” and the bulk of what you’ll get is a lengthy list of places to buy along with Maltese and poodle owners waxing poetic on the glories of the product. “And then the heavens opened up and gave me and my Pucci these Angel Eyes...just look at her:”
Effectiveness and evangelical testimonials notwithstanding, the only thing I know for sure is that this product...she’s no angel.
You might find it distasteful for your neighbors to keep a backyard flock of chickens. What’s next, you muse, goats and pigs? A line for air drying laundry? Vegetable gardens in place of front-yard annuals? Work trucks in the driveway? What’s your neighborhood coming to?
Environmentalism, health and gastronomical concerns should only go so far, you say. Animals have their place and it’s as traditional pets or on farms, not in residentially zoned areas that deserve their protections from property value-dumping elements of the avian variety.
We hashed out all the pros and cons on Dolittler not too long ago in the context of what is legal and what is not on my residential acre in suburban Miami. At the time, we determined that where I live, horses are legal but goats and chickens (indeed, anything that deserves the title “livestock”) is not.
Therefore, you can keep all manner of fancy “fowl”: an aviary of finches, roving peacocks, a cluster of cockatoos, a gaggle of fancy pigeons, a breeding pair of Macaws and almost any other kind of bird. but when it comes to chickens, their ‘livestock” designation does them in. Once you can expect to eat off their backs, all bets are off.
But an increasing number of municipalities are choosing to throw off the mantle of anti-gallinaceous racism in light of the increasing popularity of backyard flocks––not to mention the vociferous cluckings of their keepers. Here’s a Wall Street Journal article from a couple of weeks ago to prove just how far the movement’s come.
There are too many benefits to keeping birds in this way to ignore, say the ones who have chosen to cross the feathered line. The ones who toe it, claim these progressive zones, risk offending minority groups whose cultures successfully integrate flocks into the smallest of spaces. They risk staying behind the curve on the modern movement that reaps the rewards of a grow-your-own philosophy. And they lose nothing in allowing these citizens to care for pets little different than others residential inhabitants are allowed to maintain.
Sure, there have to be some ground rules. But these are easily laid down and enforced: No noisy birds that crow 24/7. No chicken coops integrated into your neighbor’s fence-line. A policy of basic containment. A set number of feet to separate any aviary or coop from your neighbors’ structures. These are simple rules that keep a neighborhood feeling neighborly and a tony residential burb from losing its fancy flavor.
For my part, I’ve recently had cause to become especially vigilant of how neighborly I behave with respet to my own flock. That’s because I’ve come to learn that keeping this avian species flies in the face of my zoning regs––despite the fact that every other species of bird is allowed, along with pet equids (yes donkeys, too). It’s also because my backyard flock managed to swell from three hens to twelve over the past week.
Yes, twelve. And before you lambast me on how anyone already informed of her neighborhood’s regs could flout the law so flagrantly, consider that I had already ordered three of these birds before I became aware of the avian double-standards in place around my parts. Sure, I knew I’d get noise violation action for keeping a rooster––but for hens? I truly thought I’d be defensibly raising birds just like my neighbor, whose cockatoos I can hear from more than a block away.
Moreover, I never ordered nine more birds. I ordered three. I was sent nine on the heels of a simple mixup, one rendered irreversible by virture of the stressful nature of the shipping process. So now––count ‘em––I’ve got nine Red Star pullets (five weeks old) and three Barred Rocks prepped and ready to start laying any day now.
Here are the "babies"(being watched over by a curious Poppy):
And here are the three "Furies," as I call them (hanging out with their beloved Poppy and Tulip):
So the new coop we’d planned to build over the weekend? Throw the plans out the window because Houston...we’ve got a problem. We need new plans, new wood, a new location, new everything. And here’s a shocker: we also need more money.
Hiding birds from prying eyes and animal control becomes a much more expensive proposition when you’ve got double the number to conceal. Luckily, I’ve got plenty of unused terrain and lots of vegetation on my wooded acre (and no nosy neighbors on the far end of my property).
But enough about me, already. Here’s where this movement is headed: A simple search for “politics” on the popular BackyardChickens.com website shows just how much change might be afoot where you live. Here’s just a taste: a link to their message board on the subject.
In case you’re not impressed by the dedication in evidence here, recognize that every pet has had to make strides in the US by starting somewhere. Remember there was a time when indoor dog-keeping was considered unsanitary and when bed-sharing with cats was the height of eccentricity.
We’ve come a long way, baby. Backyard chickens here we come.
