Underground Skunk Spray and Its Aftermath

If your dog is hit by skunk spray underground you may be in very serious trouble! Get your dog out of the ground as fast as possible. If the dog is not breathing when you get it out of the ground, do mouth-to-snout CPR as explained here.

Even if your dog recovers, he or she may still end up having issues. The reason for this is that skunk spray explodes red blood cells, and can cause serious persistent anemia in your dog.

Skunk toxic shock seems, in part, to be genetic, with certain lines more susceptible to this problem than others, perhaps due to overally weaker kidney or liver function. If your dog has been skunked several times underground and lived to tell the tale (all my dogs) count yourself lucky!

After your dog has been sprayed underground, check your dog's gums regularly for at least a two or three hours. If the dog's gums become very pale (almost white), rush your dog to a vet. A pale pink gum is normal, but white is not.

Most dogs that are skunked underground get out of the ground on their own or with help, and most dogs recover from an underground skunking provided they get out quickly. Time is of the essence, however, and a dog can lapse into a comma after only a few minutes if it is unable to exit a tight earth.

If your dog has pale gums or seems to be in shock, rush it to a vet and make sure your dog is seen immediately. Explain that the problem is MORE than stink: skunk-related shock and anemia can kill a dog.

The best course of therapy for a dog suffering from skunk toxic shock is to fully hydrate the dog (an IV will be needed) to speed the flushing of toxins, as well as to dose the dog with Acetycistein (sold as Mucomyst, Fluimucil, Mucolator, or Tixair).

Acetycistein seems to help the dog cough mucous out of the lungs, and it also strengthens blood cells and the vascular system in general, while working to maintain renal function -- a big issue with skunk toxic shock syndrome.

Since acetylcystein is cheap, easily available, and a well-tolerated drug, starting a dog on this drug is always a good idea if skunk toxic shock seems to be setting in.

If your dogs gets out from underground and skunk toxic shock does not seem to be an issue (this is the situation most of the time), your next issue is the stench. What to do about it?

The short story here is that nothing will completely get rid of the smell of skunk spray except time. And yes, I have tried it all.

"Nature's Miracle Skunk Odor Remover" is a commercial product that works well for a few days at a time. I have tried other commercial skunk-odor removers (such as Skunk Off), and I do not think they work quite as well as Nature's Miracle.

You will need a quart of Nature's Miracle Skunk Odor Remover to dose a 12-pound terrier, but buy two quarts (about $10 a bottle) and keep a spare quart in the wheel well of your car or truck for emergenices. The main ingredient in this stuff appears to be alcohol, but the important ingredients are various enzymes that break down the stink.

What about masengill douche, tomato juice, and vinegar? I have tried them all -- forget it.

What about home-made skunk-odor reduction recipies?

The good news is that they work and they will save you a few dollars over time, as you are going to have to wash your dog every four or five days for a month as the skunk stink leaches out.

Here's the recipie for home-made skunk stink remover:

• 1 Quart of 3% Hydrogen Peroxide


• 1/4 cup of Baking Soda


• 1 teaspoon of Liquid Soap
  
  Mix it all together in a pan, and wash the dog in in while the mixture is bubbling... let is sit for a few minutes, and then rinse off with tap water.
  
  Do not get the mixture in the dog's eyes!!
  
  The quantities described here are for a small Jack Russell. Scale up as necessary.
  
  Be sure to use FRESH Hydrogen Peroxide... H2O2 will eventually turn into water.

Why does this hydrogen-peroxide, baking soda, and squirt-soap recipie work, and why will your dog have to be rewashed in four or five days all over again?

The short story is that skunk spray contains several kinds of thiols.

The oxygen in the Hydrogen Peroxide releases the Thiols (the odor part) as it foams up, and the detergent removes the oily part that holds the odor in the animal's fur. The baking soda provides a little texture against the fur (thiols are sticky) and also helps deodorize the dog a bit.

The reason that the skunk spray keeps coming back is that the thioacetates absorbed in the skin and fur of the dog, continue to break down over time, turning into stinky thiols. This process is speeded up a bit if your dog gets wet again, but NO, you cannot speed it up too much as it is partially time-released.

If your dog is hit straight-on with skunk spray, either underground or above ground, your dog may get some small blistering around the muzzle and may get some caustic burning of the cornea as well. This occurs because one of the ingredients of skunk spray is hydrochloric acid, created when different skunks two glands mix chemicals together as they exit the skunk's rear end.

It is a myth that skunk spray can cause permanent blindness. When gotten into the eyes the spray often causes temporary blindness, and burns like crazy, but there are no documented cases of skunk spray causing permanent blindness in a dog.

If your dog does end up with ulcerations of the cornea, crate the dog for several days and load it up on antibiotics (cephalexin is fine). The only thing to fear is infection. The important thing is to let the eye rest and heal.

Feed and water your dog well and keep it warm and rested for at least a week after a skunk encounter.

Road flares placed in a skunk den are said to kill the animal, but if your dog has just been sprayed, and stink is pouring out of the hole, you may just want to get the hell out of there and take care of your dog. First thing's first!

How Much Is That Jack Russell in the Window?

I've happily plundered the web site of Embrace Pet Insurance in the past to write about the true cost of Golden Retrievers, German Shepherds, English Bulldogs, and Dachshunds.

Now it's time to talk about the Jack Russell Terrier.  l love this write up from Embrace Pet Insurance. 

Right at the top, Embrace Pet Insurance says most people  do not want one.  No you do not!  Please do NOT get this dog if all you want is a cute lap dog.  Jack Russell Terriers are prey-driven hunting dogs.  They bark, dig, and they are a complete pain-in-the-ass.  Or as Embrace Pet Insurance puts it in their opening paragraph:

No matter how enamored you were of Eddie on Fraser or PBS' Wishbone, the fact is this: The Jack Russell Terrier (or the Parson Russell, as he's known in AKC circles) is almost certainly not the breed for you. That's not because Jack Russells are bad dogs. He was created for active work, and it's what he loves and what he is driven to do. If you have a job in mind for him that will push his limits and engage his full and enthusiastic attention, then you may be that rare person who is right for one of these dogs.

Bingo. And, on behalf of the dogs, THANK YOU Embrace Pet Insurance. The description goes on:

If you're wondering why your Jack Russell isn't as well-behaved as Eddie or Wishbone, it's because the dogs that portray those characters have full-time trainers on staff to keep them in line. More to the point, those dogs had full-time jobs, which is what the JRT wants and needs. His endless desire to be digging, barking and investigating can't and shouldn't be squelched. It should be celebrated by someone who loves the very traits that drive many JRT owners insane.

Bingo again. And again, on behalf of the dogs, THANK YOU Embrace Pet Insurance.

So what about health? Embrace Pet Insurance gets it right there too:

If you look at the list of diseases on the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America website, you'll decide this has to be one of the unhealthiest breeds around. Not so; it's just that most breed clubs aren't as relentlessly thorough about even the rarest health conditions that can affect their dogs.

Yep. Bingo again.

In fact The Jack Russell Terrier is just about the healthiest and longest living "breed" around, but that's not something those of us who love the dog are going to tell everyone, because we do not want people rushing out to acquire a Jack Russell terrier before they have gone into a quiet room to take inventory about themselves -- not who they want to be, but who they really are.

A dog is not a hat to try on and discard with fashion and mood; it is a commitment for life.

Let me suggest to you a simple truth: most people who want a dog need a cat and deserve a gold fish. Damn few people need a Jack Russell Terrier.

The health care costs of a Jack Russell are going to be pretty low, but you might find the fencing costs staggering (this little dog both digs and climbs), and they may eat your furniture if they are bored.

Still thinking about getting one of these dogs? Then please visit Jack Russell Rescue after reading this article twice. And if you are thinking about breeding a Jack Russell (please do not!), be advised that JRTCA members routinely test their breeding dogs for vision, hearing and other health problems, and so should you if you ever hope to find a place for your dogs in the marketplace. And no, Jack Russells do not sell for much money, so there's no big dollar puppy business to be had here. If that's your dream, can I suggest AKC toy poodles rather than JRTCA Jack Russells?

The Jack Russell Terrier Club of America (JRTCA) stands for the dogs, it stands for canine health, and it stands against the puppy peddlers who oversell other breeds. The JRTCA runs ads in almost every all-breed magazine every month telling people NOT to buy a Jack Russell terrier, with links to the "Bad Dog" page. This is what a breed club should be doing, but so far as I know, the JRTCA is the only dog breed club in the world that actually does it.

If your take-away message from reading this little post is that Jack Russell terriers owners are fierce about protecting their dogs as healthy working dogs and keeping them out of rescue, then I have only two words to say to you: Damn right.
.

Brilliance...

.
Brilliance...


... and more brilliance.
.

Morning Edition Tomorrow

I get a few quotes on NPR's Morning Edition tomorrow, talking about the war on fraud -- especially health care fraud.  For a previous interview on this topic, see here.   For how this relates to canine health, see here.
.
.

How to Trap a Republican ... First Get a Paper Bag

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Apparent Trap
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

"The only way this health care meeting is a trap is if Boehner's got nothing. It's like a paper bag is only a trap if you can't punch your way out of it."

Watch this to the end, when the Republicans go to Hawaii (in winter) to denounce "socialized" health care, unaware that Hawaii has universal coverage and loves it!

Oh, and Rush Limbaugh gets a heart attack in Hawaii and then proclaims the medical attention he gets on the island to be the best he has ever gotten. Nice!

Finally: Dog Chapman, the Bounty Hunter, explains how it works on the mainland and how it's different in Hawaii. Bonus!
.

The Kennel Club Report on Its 130-Years of Failure

I have loaded the just-released Bateson report which can be read, in its entirety, here.

The bottom line is that it is a complete repudiation of 130 years of Kennel Club practices and it is a complete endorsement of what Pedigree Dogs Exposed found -- and what so many of us in the world of dogs have been saying for generations.

Recommendations cover three areas:

1. Inbreeding and inherited disease and the selection for extreme morphologies.


2. Poor or negligent management and care of breeding dogs


3. Inadequacies in the way dogs are bought and sold
   

Recommedendations addressing inbreeding, inherited disease and selection for extreme morphologies include:

• A non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established. The key role of the Council should be to develop evidence-based breeding strategies that address the issues of poor conformation, inherited disease and inbreeding as appropriate to the specific breed and to provide advice on the priorities for research and development in these areas. The Bateson Report recommends that the Advisory Council members and Chairman should be appointed by open competition according to Nolan Principles. Defra should manage the selection process, drawing appropriately upon the advice of the devolved authorities and experts. Members should be selected on the basis of their personal expertise and not with regard to any personal affiliation or membership.
  
  
• High priority should be given to the creation of a computer-based system for the collection of anonymised diagnoses from veterinary surgeries in order to provide statistically significant prevalence data for each breed. This should build upon the work already started by the Royal Veterinary College. It is important that this scheme is fully supported by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. In a pilot scheme, priority should be given to collecting data with respect to the conditions creating the greatest welfare challenges in terms of pain, impact on quality of life, capacity for correction, and early age of onset. The data collected should relate both to the incidence of inherited disease and to the incidence of veterinary procedures necessary to correct faults due to selection for extreme morphologies (e.g. Caesarean sections, corrections for entropion, soft palate resections, etc).
  
  
• Revisions of Breed Standards should recognise the need to avoid the selection for extreme morphologies that can damage the health and welfare of the dog. When possible, revisions should involve guidance from the Advisory Council on Dog Breeding. Where a welfare problem already exists within a breed, the breed standard should be amended specifically to encourage the selection for morphologies that will improve the welfare status of the breed. In these instances the breed standard may need to be more precise, either by aid of diagrams or quantitative ratios, in order to encourage the necessary changes.
  
  
• The Kennel Club should upgrades its Accredited Breeder Scheme promptly. If it is unable to do so and no other body steps forward to supply an appropriately robust and UKAS accredited scheme, a new scheme should be implemented under the auspices of the Advisory Council on Dog Breeding. The organisers of any accredited breeder scheme should apply for and obtain UKAS accreditation. The minimum conditions for such a scheme should be that:
  a. All pre-mating tests for inherited disease appropriate to the breed or breeds are undertaken on both parents.
  b. No mating takes place if the tests indicate that it would be inadvisable in the sense that it is likely to produce welfare problems in the offspring and/or is inadvisable in the context of a relevant breeding strategy (see also 8.2).
  c. Any prospective purchaser is able to view the puppies with their mother.
  d. Every puppy is identified by microchip prior to sale.
  e. All pre-sale tests on the puppy which are appropriate to the breed have been carried out.
  f. The scheme establishes and requires clear, written standards of management with regard to the housing, health, exercising and socialising of all dogs on the premises managed by the registered breeder, including establishing minimum staffing levels appropriate to the numbers of dogs involved.
  g. All relevant documentation connected with the puppy including, inter alia, advice on feeding and care, registration documents, details of vaccinations etc are handed over to the purchaser at the time of sale. When an appropriate contract is available this should be signed by both parties.
  h. All assured breeders are inspected by duly appointed and trained scheme inspectors against the written standard, either before or shortly after registration with the assurance scheme; and regularly thereafter.
  i. Non-compliance with the standards of the scheme results in de-registration.
  j. If accolades are to be awarded to any breeder under an accredited scheme, they should clearly and solely relate to the provision of higher welfare standards.
  
  
• The veterinary profession needs to do more and needs to change their emphasis. The RCVS and the BVA should lead a shift in emphasis towards preventative veterinary medicine rather than simply focus on the correction of problems after they have occurred.

It needs to be emphasized that the Kennel Club itself commissioned this independent report which found the world of pedigree dogs to be a basket case of archane, Victorian-era breeding principles leading to the physical ill-health of dogs.

In short, this report is a bit like the Vatican Times saying the Pope wears a skirt and buggers boys "and one of those things might be a problem."
.

Dalmatian Back Cross Gets Greenlight in UK

On the eve of what is likely to be a groundbreaking report about the dysmal state of pedigree dogs in the U.K. (commissioned by the British Kennel Club itself, it should be said), the Kennel Club has moved to greenlight Low Uric Acid Dalamatian dogs imported from the United States.

This is good news, and places the British Kennel Club ahead of the American Kennel Club, which has seen its registration numbers drop 55% in the last 15 years as word has gotten out that AKC dogs, as a group, are are NOT healthier or smarter than cross bred dogs.

As for the American (non-LUA) Dalmatian, it remains a mess. As I noted in an earlier post:

Who speaks for the dogs in America? Not the AKC, that's pretty clear.

Just look at Patti Strand if you have any doubt. Here you will find not only an AKC Board Member, Dalmatian breeder, and dog show judge, but an open apologist for puppy mill registrations, pet-shop sales, and ribbon-chasing within a closed-registry system.

Stand for the health of the dog? Sorry, but at the Dalmatian Club of America and the American Kennel Club that idea seems to take a back seat to blue ribbons and green cash.

• Related Posts:
  ** The Dalmatian Club of America Embraces Purity and Pain
  ** The Defective Dalmatians at Crufts
  ** Who Speaks for the Dogs?
  
  .

A Veterinarian Breaks the Code of Silence

If you have been waiting for a veterinarian to confirm everything I have been saying about veterinary price-gouging and medically unnecessary services, your wait is over.

For eight years Matthew Watkinson worked as a vet. Then he quit and wrote a book about the rip-off industry he found himself in.

As he notes in an article in The Daily Mail, a great deal of veterinary care is based on price-gouging for medically unnecessary services:

Today you will notice more and more practices have sprung up throughout the country - especially in those affluent areas where the middle-class residents treat their pets as part of their family.

One might imagine that because there are so many more vets that animals need more medical help than ever. But the truth is far simpler. A whole industry has arisen out of squeezing the most money out of treating family pets.

During the 'health check' that goes with a jab visit, it is amazing how many problems the vet might find

It is not unheard of for vets to Google a pet owner's home to see which area the family live in. Big house in a posh road - well, you can offer more treatment to that pet owner, of course. I never witnessed this in my practice, but I heard of it happening. Charge more for your services so a vaccination that costs a few pence becomes a £35 'consultation'. And that isn't all.

While the owner might believe he or she is only taking their cat for a vaccination (and I have no problem with sensible preventative healthcare) for the vet, this visit can be a way to make even more money out of a perfectly healthy animal.
During the 'health check' which accompanies the vaccination visit, it is amazing the potential 'problems' the vet might find.

So your vet discovers your cat has a seemingly innocuous chipped tooth? I have known of cat owners told that despite the fact their cat is perfectly fine - and frankly animals in the wild break their teeth all the time and do not need expensive dentistry work - that to remove the tooth is justified 'just in case' it later causes a problem.

Having a tooth removed, especially a canine tooth, is major surgery - costing upwards if £100 - and should only be done if the cat is suffering because of it.
But more often than not, a loving owner will trust their vet and sadly go along with surgery that is not only unnecessary but plain risky for a pet who does not need it. Similarly, I have known vets suggest doing an 'exploratory' operation on a cat just because it had been sick. But like humans, cats and dogs get sick from time to time. The best response is to wait and see, not offer a battery of blood tests and invasive operations.

Having allowed their pet to have such an operation, the owner when the pet recovers will put this down to the operation being a success. It is not: if nothing was found, your pet would have begun feeling better anyway. Possibly sooner.

Watkinson goes on to note that veterinary insurance encourages price inflation and choices which too often lead to more pain and dysfunction, not less. He writes:

Which brings me to another issue that helps vets to carry out these expensive and totally unnecessary procedures - pet insurance.

These days, pet insurance is pushed as a 'necessity'. Sit in any vet's surgery and you are left in no doubt as you survey the dozens of adverts for it that 'good' owners have it while 'bad' owners do not.

'However you look at it, pet insurance is simply a licence to print money'

So unsurprisingly, the average middle-class family feels more comfortable having this insurance. They have medical insurance for their children, so it's only natural that they want the same for their family dog or cat. Insurance for a pet dog or cat costs on average from £60 to £250 a year. Worryingly, if you have pet insurance you can be sure your vet is more likely to offer your pet treatments - because your vet knows you won't be paying so you can afford it.

But, however you look at it, insurance is simply a licence to print money. Unfortunately, the only creatures insurance helps are vets. If you are a loving owner you will not want to put your pet through cruel, lengthy and costly procedures.

Watkinson also notes that many vets are complicit in the embrace and continued adoption of breed standards that result in deformed, disabled and defective dog.

But vets aren't only guilty of treating animals when there is no problem. Sadly they are guilty of creating problems in the first place. Take bulldogs. They have been hideously bred to have a characteristic collapsed face. This restricts breathing and stops them panting properly.

Ridiculous as it may seem, they have also created an animal that can't breathe fast enough to have sex. So a bulldog must be artificially inseminated by a vet using a general anaesthetic.

Once pregnant, the bulldog faces another dreadful side effect, again caused by breeding. Bulldogs have such a small pelvis that most are unable to give birth naturally. So 90 per cent of bulldogs require a Caesarean.

If the vet were truly putting the animal first, he would refuse to inseminate a bulldog in the first place. Instead, to ensure the welfare of the bulldog, vets should be insisting that pregnancies only occur in bulldogs that can mate naturally.
But, of course, they won't say that or refuse the breeder's wishes - after all, as a vet you are making money out of all of these medical procedures. An insemination costs around £80 to £300 depending on the exact procedure and a Caesarean £500.

One of the reasons there are so many vets now is that vets have created their own market.

I find it outrageous that, given their role, any vet criticises Cruft's for exhibiting these dog breeds. After all, it is the vets themselves who have aided and abetted these atrocities.

And this practice certainly isn't confined to bulldogs. We have dachshunds bred with elongated spines so they look 'attractive' for their breed. But these sausage dogs are prone to slipped discs and back problems which, in turn, makes more money for vets who do many operations a year to 'help' these issues (most of which do not work and cause more suffering to the dog.)

We have cats that can't breathe because of their overly flat noses and weep constantly from eyes that are too large, other cats and dogs without fur that can't go out in the sunshine as they will burn.

The current fashionable craze for miniature dogs is also damaging. These dogs are prized on their tininess - so the smallest dogs are chosen but in reality these are the runts of the litter that used to be allowed to die as they were so weak.
In turn vets are simply creating weaker animals. They are going against the force of nature, Charles Darwin's natural selection. And because weaker animals are surviving they need more medical care from vets who force them to survive.

This is great news for vets and the reason for their proliferation. But surely not for animal welfare, which they pledged, when they took their veterinary oath, to put first.

Read the whole thing at this link.

And while you are at it, read some of the posts below for an even wider look at some of the scams common in veterinary medicine today. A little knowledge may save you thousands!

• Related Posts:
  ** Veterinary Trades Say It's Time to Rip-off the Rubes
  ** A Vet Writes About the Veterinary Business Model
  ** Vaccines for Less
  ** A Quick Guide to Common Canine Diseases
  ** The Billion Dollar Heartworm Scam
  ** The Billion Dollar Lyme Disease Scam
  ** The Billion Dollar Vaccine Scam
  ** Rimadyl: Relief From a Swollen Wallet
  ** SuperGlue to Close Wounds
  ** Antibiotics for Less Without a Prescription
  ** Saving Big Money With a Ball Point Pen
  ** Bitter Pills and Veterinary Care
  ** Health Care Basics for Working Terriers and Other Dogs
  ** Is Your Veterinarian Clean? Don't Count On It.
  ** A Business Plan Based on Fencing Out the Truth
  ** Year Round Dosing for Big Veterinary Profits
  ** Low Cost All-Worm Treatment
  ** Lyme Disease: Hard to Catch and Easy to Halt
  ** Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Dogs
  ** Vet Pricing Has Nothing To Do With Care
  ** Glad We Could Help
  ** Antibiotics for Less Without a Prescription
  .

Mostly, the TV Networks Pimp for the AKC

Canine freaks make for quick laughs, easy action, and good television ratings.

The AKC was invited by NBC television's Today Show to put on a spokesperson to talk about the U.S. showing of Pedigree Dogs Exposed on BBC America.

Of course they declined.

And how could they not?

What the American Kennel Club has done to dogs is truly indefensible -- dogs that cannot breathe, that cannot walk, and that are so inbred that breed after breed of dog is now little more than a cancer bomb with legs, liver dysfuncion with fur, hip dysplasia with a tail.

When asked about such things, the American Kennel Club shrinks away like a salted slug, as they did earlier this year when ABC's Nightline television show tried to get them on camera.

The AKC will not talk about dogs in an open forum with veterinarians, working dog men, and genetic experts to call them out on their nonsense.

And why should they?

After all, all of the television networks will come mewing back to them in February when the Westminster dog show is in full swing.


Earlier this year, Matt Lauer gave the AKC a lot of free Westminster publicity.

Consider The Today Show. They gave Pedigree Dogs Exposed about 3 minutes this morning, and had a nice interview with James Serpell from the University of Pennsylvania, but earlier this year this same TV show had all four of their morning anchors up at Westminster trotting around the ring with a quad of strange-looking dogs.

This is how it goes with American TV.

Every year the American Kennel Club gets millions of free advertising dollars from Westminster Dog Show puff-pieces and from televised dog shows which now seem more numerous than ever.

Why? What's going on?

The simple truth is that American television networks are in a "race to the basement" as far as production costs are concerned. With 100 channels and the Internet too, fewer advertising dollars are chasing more and more media outlets.

The result is that television is now crammed with low-cost talking heads, pontificating popinjays, and cocked-up reality shows in which faded stars and wanna-be celebrities contrive personal dramas in order to get, or keep, their name in lights.

You want investigative journalism? Then you better pray that American networks buy more already-produced investigative piece from overseas, because American journalists are no longer in the business of finding or reporting news -- they are in the business of re-writing press releases and sending news crews down to Florida in order to see if they can locate one more Tiger Woods mistress.

So will showing Pedigree Dogs Exposed on American television shudder the keel of the AKC? I would not count on it.

Remember that for the dog show world, breeding dogs solely for looks and not for health or function, is a religion.

My Catholic friends did not become Buddhists because a news show ran a story about a few pedophile priests.

They did not stop taking Communion when it was revealed that archbishops across the country had known of, and hidden, hundreds of pedophile priests for decades.


NBC Today Show host Meredith Vieira gave the AKC a lot of free publicity (2009).

That said, a great deal of evil has died the death of a thousand cuts, and every little bit helps.

Though the old media of television is not likely to force change, the new media of the Internet may yet get the job done.

• Related Video:
  ** BBC - Pedigree Dogs Exposed
  ** ABC News Nightline "Best in Show'


• Related Links:
  ** Let's Do to Horses What We Did to German Shepherds
  ** A Dog Show We Need to See
  ** Dogs and the Asch Experiment
  ** Counterfeit Collies and Transvestite Terriers
  ** Making and Breaking Dogs In the Show Ring
  ** The Kennel Club Freak Show
  .

Competition for Good Health and Econonomics

.

Food Nazis Say Natural Foods May Make You Sick

A new report from the "Food Nazis" at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) comes to a very interesting conclusion: some of the "healthiest" foods may also be the most likely to cause food-borne illness.

Gee, ya think? Who would ever suspect that foods that can quickly spoil, that are grown in dirt, that are fertilized with shit, that are crawling with bugs, and that are picked by illegal aliens, might be able to make you sick?

Too much can be made of this, of course. In fact, just by noting the data, too much is already being made of this. The simple fact is that across the world our foods have never been safer than they are right now, and they are safer in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world.

OK, with that enormous data caveat out of the way, what foods are most likely to make you ill according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest? What are the 10 riskiest foods regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration? Answer below. These 10 foods account for nearly 40 percent of all foodborne outbreaks linked to FDA-regulated food.

1. Leafy Greens, involved in 363 outbreaks and 13,600 reported cases of illness .


2. Eggs, involved in 352 outbreaks and 11,163 reported cases of illness.


3. Tuna, involved in 268 outbreaks and 2,341 reported cases of illness.


4. Oysters, involved in 132 outbreaks and 3,409 reported cases of illness.


5. Potatoes, involved in 108 outbreaks and 3,659 reported cases of illness.


6. Cheese, involved in 83 outbreaks and 2,761 reported cases of illness.


7. Ice cream, involved in 74 outbreaks and 2,594 reported cases of illness.


8. Tomatoes, involved in 31 outbreaks and 3,292 reported cases of illness.


9. Sprouts, involved in 31 outbreaks and 2,022 reported cases of illness.


10. Berries, involved in 25 outbreaks and 3,397 reported cases of illness.

.

CBO Says Senate Health Bill Will Reduce Deficit

CBO Says Senate Health-Care Bill Would Reduce Deficit

Health care legislation drafted by a key Senate committee would expand coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population at a 10-year cost of $829 billion, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in a preliminary estimate.

The Congressional Budget Office added that the measure would reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over a decade and probably lead to "continued reductions in federal budget deficits" in the years beyond.

Why Cavill Was Cut from Pedigree Dogs Exposed

It turns out that David Cavill, the editor of Our Dogs, is a complete moron.

But don't take my word for it. Watch the video, above, for yourself.

Here's a man who says he can judge the health and suitability of a woman in 1/7th of a second. A dog? Two minutes is all that is needed.

Right.

And this is a man who claims he is good judge of a hunting breed? Does he actually hunt them?

Cavill then goes on to say that scientists are only interested in "breeding for physical perfection."

Eh?

Jemima Harrison, the interviewer, assumes Cavill has simply mis-spoken. It happens to all of us. "You mean for health?" she enquires, logically assuming that Cavill would then go on to note that in working dogs minor health issues in a sire or dam might sometimes have to be weighed against other factors such as bidability, nose, size, or gameness.

But no, Cavill, says, veterinary surgeons know nothing about canine health. And his evidence for this is his own breed, the Finnish Spitz, a dog so befouled with genetic problems that in Finland, where it is still used as a hunting dog, they have culled hard to get rid of the kind of serious health problems that Cavill is so eager to sweep under the rug.

A dog with a known inherited eye problem, that was voted Best in Show at Crufts is "absolutely fantastic" he says, and never mind the genetic wreckage.

And how does Cavill fob off the fact that this top Crufts winner is widely known as "the blind dog?" He simply says he knows an old man at Crufts who is blind and "he is having a wonderful time" at the show today. So no problem if a dog is blind as well!

Jemima Harrison cannot quite believe what Cavill is saying, and she gives him a chance to backtrack and clarify. Surely he does not mean a blind dog should be winning Crufts?

But no, Cavill, is as thick as brick and as stupid as a rock. He bulldozes right ahead with his confused logic. Who does he say is the model of health perfection in humans? Stephen Hawking!

Stephen Hawking? No! Surely I am joking? No one could put Stephen Hawking out as a model of health perfection.

But no, it's true. See for yourself at the video, above. The bit in question is right around 5:30.

And then, just to put a cherry on top, David Cavill describes the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel as "by and large a very healthy breed."

A very health breed? Over 80 percent of Cavaliers come down with heart problems, to say nothing of the neurological issues.

And when this is pointed out, what is Cavill's answer? He laughs it off. Well, "it doesn't show!"

One could not invent David Cavill. He stands as a monument to what is wrong in the world of pedigree dogs.

His only fault is that he is not very articulate and his logic train is so broken down that he seems to be a caricature of everything wrong in the world of pedigree dogs.

If Jemima Harrison had included this clip in Pedigree Dogs Exposed, she would have been accused of trolling to find the stupidest and most inarticulate person she could find.

And who could argue that she had? No one!

And so Cavill did not make the cut, but thanks to the Cold Wet Nose blog, this little bit of video has now made it out into daylight. This is what David Cavill has been demanding everyone should get an opportunity to see? Excellent!

Well played Mr. Cavill. You are well and truely a moron.

.

Don Hewitt Goes to the Green Room in the Sky

Don Hewitt created the CBS television newsmagazine “60 Minutes,” and he was its sole executive producer for 35 years.

Today, he died of pancreatic cancer at the age of 86.

I never met Hewitt, but I like to think we worked together in an eliptical kind of way. I tell the story >> here.

Oddly enough, the "drugs from Canada" story is still rippling through the American political landscape.

Very recently, the Obama Administration worked out a deal with PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) which says PhRMA will support the Obama health care plan in exchange for drug companies continuing to be able to rip off American consumers by charging them two or three times what these companies charge consumers in Canada, Mexico, or Europe for the very same drugs.

Eh? How's that work? Why can't we just order cheaper brand-name drugs from overseas?

Simple: there is a ban on reimporting brand name drugs from countries where they are sold for less. Instead, we have to buy them directly from the manufacturer so that the company can continue to price-gouge us. Welcome to America!

Brake pads from Korea? No problem.

Chainsaws from China? Fine.

Grapes from Chile? Eat up.

But drugs made in Puerto Rico, sold to a warehouse in Windsor, Ontario, and brought across the border to sick people in Detroit? No way!

And yes, if that sounds like a sick game of "Your money or your life?" you have it exactly.

Believe it or not, however, I am not too critical of Obama's deal. It's good politics, and it might not be bad medicine.

After all, it's not like we haven't been getting ripped off all these years anyway, is it?

And who complained? Not you, I will bet.

Do you recall the Clinton or Bush Administrations banging the gong to get us cheaper drugs from Canada?

No? Me either.

Besides, the reimportation ban only applies to branded drugs. The U.S. actually has cheaper generic drugs than most other countries. More importantly, generic drugs are actually better medicine than most of the branded stuff.

Eh? Why is that? Simple: We know all of the side effects and downsides of generic drugs. We almost never do with branded drugs; they are simply too new.

Aspirin is cheaper and safer than Vioxx.

Prozac does less damage to your system than Zyprexa or Risperdal.

And when it comes to hypertension, a cheap diuretic beats almost everything else.

Of course, there's not much to be done about pancreatic cancer, which got both Don Hewitt and my friend John Wilke earlier this year.

One thing is for sure, however: If they have a news room up in Heaven, it got just a little bit better.
.

Canine Health Care in the Field

Since you are the human with the credit card, the cell phone, and the keys to the truck, you are in charge when it comes to emergencies in the field. These emergencies may range from poisoning to traps, from suffocation to laceration.

Whatever the problem, the thing that will matter most in the end is preparation beforehand and quick level-headed action afterward.

Part of preparation is having a decent medical kit with you in the field.

Part of level-headed action is taking the time NOW to think through possible problems and emergencies that might arise.

Field health and emergency situations can be broken down into two categories: critical and chronic. >> To read more

.

Pet Insurance Data Shows Mutts ARE Healthier!

T-shirt available here.

When it comes to warranties and insurance, predictive values are important, and fortunes are made by determining the correct digits to place to the right of a point mark.

What does this have to do with dogs?

Quite a lot.

You see, pet insurance companies are in a competitive business to get your dollar. If they get the numbers wrong, and price a premium too high, potential customers may forgo pet insurance altogether or else sign up with a competitor's plan. On the other hand, if the company routinely prices insurance premiums too low, they may push themselves into bankruptcy.

And so, pet insurance companies have collected data on hundreds of thousands of dogs and analyzed that data, in order to assign correct premiums to predictive risks.

What do pet insurance companies tell us? Basically, three things:

1. The size of the dog matters.
   As a general rule, larger dogs do not live as long as smaller dogs. This is not closely held information. As a major British pet insurance company notes: "Typically, larger pets are more expensive, so ... a terrier will be cheaper then a Labrador."
   
   
2. The breed matters.
   Not all breeds of dogs are equally healthy. This is not closely held information, as any review of Kennel Club breed health surveys makes clear. If you are looking to get complete health care coverage (as opposed to a catastrophic plan to cover vehicle impacts), your premium will rise or fall depending on the breed.
   
   
3. Mongrels are healthier than pedigree dogs.
   Again, this is not closely held information. As a major British pet insurance company reports: "A survey by the [insurance company] found almost 40 per cent of pedigree pet policy holders will make a claim on their insurance compared to just over 20 per cent of cross-breed owners." David Pickett, pet insurance manager at Sainsbury's Bank notes that "While it is imperative all cats and dogs are adequately insured, our experience is that pedigree owners are more likely to call on their pet insurance for illness and disease than owners of crossbreeds because their animals are more likely to suffer certain hereditary illnesses."

What else do we find by looking at the fencing-in of risk by insurance companies?

Well, for one thing, we find that some pet insurance companies are willing to extend insurance to older cross-bred dogs, but not to older pedigree dogs.

Embrace Pet Insurance, for example, will insure a mixed breed dog up to 8 years of age, but the cut-off for purebred dogs is 6 years.

What's that about?

Simple: Taken as a whole, there is a "health gap" between cross-bred and pedigree dogs, and that gap is about two years. The insurance industry is simply mirroring in policy, what has been proven true on the ground.

Why are pedigree dogs less healthy than their mongrel cousins?

One factor is that many breeds are positively selected for exaggeration.

Flat-faced breeds which have been selected for brachycephalism, for example, are far more likely to suffer from cleft palettes, breathing problems, and eye injuries than cross-bred dogs which have better snouts.

Dogs that have been selected for the benched legs associated with achondroplasia (a kind of dwarfism) are more likely to have heart problems and joint problems.

Giant breeds are more likely to die of gastric torsion, heart problems and cancer, while teacup breeds are more likely to suffer from neurological and dental issues.

Dogs bred for wrinkles are much more likely to have skin problems, while dogs bred for screw tails or very long backs, are more likely to have vertebrate problems.

Another problem with purebred dogs, of course, is inbreeding. Here the issues are best observed not by looking at dogs through the lens of purebred vs. mongrel, but by looking at dogs, within breeds, that have higher or lower coefficients of inbreeding (COI).

Here too the data is rather unambiguous: Dogs with higher coefficients of inbreeding tend to get sick sooner, and die sooner, than their less inbred counterparts, a fact that holds true for breeds as varied as the Rhodesian Ridgeback, the Dachshund, and the Standard Poodle.

How does this translate down to the realities of pedigree dog ownership?

Simple: Purebred dogs are, on the whole, sicker more often that their cross-bred brethren, and as a consequence the vet bills of purebed dog owners can be expected to be 15% higher says Saga Pet Insurance.

Pet insurance premiums, of course, reflect this reality. As the PetGuard Insurance company notes on its home page:

If you own a pedigree dog or cat, you are more likely to incur greater veterinary expnse (sorry!) due to the degree of inbreeding that has to occur ... pedigree cats and dogs are more likely to suffer from respiratory or hereditary conditions.

Bottom line: If you are looking for the healthiest dog possible, stay away from Kennel Club dogs and look for a mongrel that weighs between 10 and 40 pounds and which has a real snout.

Is that dog guaranteed to be healthy? Nope.

But, as the pet insurance industry will tell you, the odds are certainly tipped quite a lot in your favor.
.

Stems Cells Might Fix Dysplasia in Your Aged Dog

Jemima Harrison has sent me a link to something that is completely new to me, which is the use of stem cells to cure some serious canine problems, especially hip dysplasia in aged dogs.

This appears to be pretty miraculous stuff, and as Martin Bashir at ABC News notes (video link and a lot more information here), this is no longer experimental therapy: It's available right now.

It's not cheap -- about $2,500 -- but a heck of lot cheaper than operating on two hips, or even one hip.

And if we can do this with dogs now, what will we be able to do with humans into the future if we allow science to continue apace?

Thank God Barack Obama has greenlighted stem cell research to continue apace.

.