It’s popular to report the news as a Friday variety show. Tired as the format might be, this week was so chock-full of news on the animal/veterinary front I figured it would be a shame to let any of it slide by unnoticed.
To that end, Dolittler will run with the wolves this week and offer you a round-up of things playing out in the veterinary arena. Here goes...
Beware blue-green algae––it kills
Oregon State University confirmed that four dogs in that state died as a result of romping in a pond containing an overgrowth of blue-green algae. The neurotoxins released by this kind of algae kill quickly after dogs drink it––which, of course, they are wont to do when around any body of water.
Animals usually seizure and die after playing in the cyanobacteria-contaminated water. It can happen within minutes and the symptoms come on so quickly that intoxication is rarely reversible (though much depends on the dose of the algae ingestion). That’s why owners are urged to be on the lookout for milky, brownish-green water. And to keep their pets away!
Here’s some more info on this deadly water contaminant.
Novartis’s Onsior gains approval from the FDA
Anyone need another NSAID? I’d be grateful for this news if this one didn’t appear to have all the same drawbacks as the other ones. I’ll be sitting tight and sticking to the ones with the most evidence to back them until everything shakes out in a couple of years.
Partial pit bull saved by DNA test!
This news story is so inane I thought of posting on this one all by itself. Lucey the mixed breed was up against her local pit bull ban. Until a DNA test used to determine mixed breed provenance identified her genes as only 12% Staffordshire terrier––not enough to establish a preponderance of pit bull genes contaminating her double helices.
Saved!
I don’t know what’s more ridiculous, the pit bull ban or the reliance on this kind of notoriously fickle testing to determine breed origin.
USDA attempts to define “natural”
Seriously? Again?
The USDA’s conflicted––yet again. I guess it finally decided that having two vying definitions of “natural” didn’t actually inspire confidence in its regulatory prowess. Currently, its Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) claims that meat and poultry can go by the “natural” designation only if they are “minimally processed” and don’t offer any artificial flavorings, colorings, preservatives, or additives. Meanwhile, its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) goes its own way. This USDA arm references hormone growth promoters, antibiotics, and animal by-products in its definition. As in, none of the above.
To reconcile its internal differences, the USDA is now “soliciting opinions.” As if putting the two definitions together was so very taxing. Well...I guess it is, seeing as how we’re all paying for this unnecessarily complex process with our tax dollars.
****
OK, so there’s more news I could have referenced. But I think this enough for today. Feel free to comment on any other newsworthy stories I might not have mentioned.
***
And if you haven't had enough on rabies vaccination (I'm sure you have), check out this week's USA Today column.
Add Comment11 Comments
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is this algae limited to Oregon? Any idea where else it is found? The site info was unenlightening.
Susan September 18th, 2009 01:22:32 PM
Harmful algae grows all over the planet. For a bit more, here's one of the links from that website that might be more helpful to you http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hab/docs/bgahealthconcernsfaq.pdf
PJBoosinger September 18th, 2009 01:53:28 PM
Al G. is dangerous, but a fungi like me is harmless... mostly. ;-)
Bob Jones September 18th, 2009 04:02:59 PM
Oh, my, Texas is so impressive. Well, this is during the past month but... Apparently what Houstonians paid the new Boss at BARC (the City of Houston Bureau of Animal Regulation and Control) $200/hour to do this past month was to attend public events to defend his appointment and garner support, then draft his resignation, then draft the withdrawal of his resignation, then go into hiding - still being paid $200+ per hour! The City hired a NON-veterinarian (in fact, no medical background at all) AND doubled the salary of this position traditionally held by vets. Now that ought to make everyone around here "happy" :)
PJBoosinger September 18th, 2009 06:27:22 PM
Barbara, Isn't that what a Lazy Sealyham is for? (Sorry, getting slap happy.)
PJBoosinger September 18th, 2009 06:29:51 PM
Forgot to mention (since most of you aren't in Houston) that BARC runs the city's animal shelter. Fact: They don't have a vet on staff, haven't had for weeks now. Nobody's telling what the conditions and circumstances for the animals at the shelter is/has been/will be. Um, fired the vets, fired half the non-vet staff, they were understaffed to start with, hired a dweeb with no animal experience who's been jacking around since being hired. Yeah, I'm sure the animals are in tip top shape at the City Shelter. Big, BIG, fast, REALLY FAST changes just like we were promised. Well, not exactly.
PJBoosinger September 18th, 2009 06:37:53 PM
That was a good one PJB! still laughing!
Barb A./NH September 18th, 2009 07:29:11 PM
Stefani, I agree 1000%. I don't know which is worse, little staff or more but poor staff; just know they're still taking animals in and they disappear into a black hole.
PJBoosinger September 19th, 2009 07:17:48 AM
:( Very sad PJ. We had a situation about 1/10th as bad here locally a few years ago. A nonprofit formed, started by a group of mostly fired former volunteers (they had fired volunteers, can you believe?). They were fired for critiquing shelter operating policies. No outright abuse was alleged, but the shelter was dank, depressing. No one helped people who came in looking for pets. There were allegations that they failed to hold animals the required time before euthanasia, and that they failed to scan for microchips. Perhaps worst of all -- both the structure of the housing and air ducts, as well as the operating policies and behavior of staff, caused disease to spread like wildfire, giving shelter staff perhaps the excuse they needed to euthanize large numbers of animals and not count them in the "adoptable" stats due to disease. There were also allegations that all owner give-ups were recorded as "owner requested euthanasias" -- all to game their statistics.
The nonprofit of former volunteers that formed did so specifically to either pressure the city into giving the shelter operating contract to a new organization, OR barring that, take over via competitive bid. They submitted an unsolicited bid (which I pulled together for them), but the shelter contract was simply re-upped to the same old organization. The founding member of the nonprofit then became a major contributor to a local campaign for county executive, exacting promises from him to put the contract up for competitive bid.
It has yet to happen now, years later. BUT by all accounts, the outside pressure and bad publicity HAVE resulted in SOME changes -- not the total overhaul one would hope for, but there the long time Exe Director resigned under pressure; so did her replacement. The new person has experience turning things like this around; the board has been reconstituted. Some of the former detractors report that they actually ARE trying to address the problems now. Still, I don't believe their euthanasia stats at all, because I foster for another local rescue, and am always getting emails saying that the municipal shelter "just received a litter of kittens and will euthanize them all if we [a totally different organization with no city funding] don't find a foster by [x] day." Yet they taut this high adoption rates.
Reminds me of a book: "How to lie with statistics."
Keep up the pressure. It is a long and frustrating process.
Stefani September 19th, 2009 10:20:29 AM
Now that I'm outside the city limits, I have zero leverage; didn't have much as a city resident! Think my "local" focus is likely to be on getting the county I live it an animal shelter; we've got none at all which means we're mostly "shoot on sight" for "problem" animals. Yes, I'm cringing already.
PJBoosinger September 19th, 2009 07:37:11 PM
Rolex Submariner watches
replica watches February 7th, 2010 06:14:23 PM
Add Commment