Friday , 18 August 2017

Let’s Raise The Standards On All Fronts

The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Montreal Dog Blog or its individual bloggers.  However, we feel presenting all rational sides of important animal issues can further deeper discussion, education and improvement of animal welfare. Ultimately, our collective end goal remains the same: betterment of animal treatment – not only in Quebec, but around the globe. 

 

Becoming a vet was a childhood dream and I feel very fortunate that after 17 years of practice I still love what I do. There are many rewarding aspects to this profession. However, like with everything, there are some issues and situations that are not as pleasant to deal with. The most challenging has been dealing with all the misinformation from various sources. As a vet, I see first hand the consequences of this as well as unnecessary suffering of animals due to the lack of proper care by well-intentioned, but incompetent individuals.

For my first blog, I have chosen to respond to an article that I recently read in the Montreal Gazette on October 19, 2011, by Marla Newhook. I knew I was not seeing the information through rose-colored glasses as would be the many others who had come across this story. My position may appear harsh, but I feel strongly that we have a long road ahead of us if we want to improve the standards for our beloved companions.

Here is the link of the article:

Help puppies, kittens whose owners just changed their minds

By MARLA NEWHOOK, Freelance October 19, 2011

Read more

Here is my response:

In reading the article written by Marla Newhook, I am immediately struck by the fact that in relating her story, she doesn’t even realize that she is perfectly describing everything that is wrong with most animal shelters: lack of concern for the animals’ origin, lack of basic and rapid health care, lack of facilities, lack of concern for the people fostering or adopting the animals, and at times outrageous practices that are often no better if not worse than the ones that they blame pet stores and puppy mills for.

The problems begin as soon as the shelters get hold of an animal, a cat in this case. Most refuges assume that every cat that they come in contact with is a stray. When you consider that elderly cats often look unkempt and thin because they don’t groom, and because there is a natural loss of muscle mass due to the aging process, this may already be a serious mistake and someone may often be left wondering if their beloved cat has been lost or even killed. In the present case, the cat was declawed, had a flea collar, but was still deemed a “stray”. This very same assumption also causes a lot of shelters to not even bother looking for the previous owners, and I’ve even seen some shelters that became so self-righteous that they actually “stole” pets from people whom they deemed unfit to have them. A colleague of mine was once asked by the owner of a refuge to surgically remove a microchip from a dog that she had stolen so the dog could not be traced back to its owner! This is outrageous!

The next thing is the lack of basic health care for the animals, and by extension, of concern for the people who will be fostering these animals. It should be obvious that if this so-called “stray” had quickly been examined by a veterinarian instead of being “dumped” on an unsuspecting “foster” family, her age and condition could have been determined much sooner and the proper steps instituted, potentially saving a lot of money and grief. Instead, basic precautions are rarely the norm when introducing new pets. On the contrary, in order to save money, shelters will often keep the healthy animals and give the sick ones to foster families with the provision that these families are responsible for all health-related costs while the animal is under their care. This is obscene, and it creates a situation where unnecessary and unjustified risks are being taken by bringing animals of unknown health status into households where kids, elderly people and/or other pets are present. This could be a major cause of disease transmission to both animals and humans. Certain conditions are zoonoses, meaning that people can catch them from animals, making them a public health risk. As an example, simple intestinal worms, which are common in stray animals, have been known to cause blindness in young children. Another example is ringworm, a fungal infection of the skin that is often found in stray animals. In other words, this “fostering” system, which sounds very nice at first, is only proof to the fact that most shelters are guilty of taking responsibility for more animals than they can possibly care for properly considering the resources and finances that they have at their disposal. This creates a potentially hazardous situation which can promote the spread of very serious diseases, such as FeLV and FIV, to the general “house cat” population that may not always be vaccinated against them, and of other contagious diseases to the human population.

In her article, Ms. Newhook mentions that the cat was de-wormed and given flea medication. However, this was done prior to consulting a veterinarian. This again demonstrates another problem with shelters: how volunteers often like to play doctor with the animals even though they have no formal training of any sort pertaining to animal health. In Quebec, even certified Animal Health Technicians are legally forbidden to initiate treatments without a veterinarian’s prior instructions, and most medications are not readily available “over the counter”. In order to circumvent this “problem”, shelters have resorted to buying medications of unknown origin and quality directly over the internet from unknown suppliers. Another strategy is to take one of the sick animals to many veterinarians in succession in the hope that each will make a prescription for the said animal, thus building a “reserve” of medications, usually antibiotics, that can then be used on the other animals. This is another frequent and unacceptable practice!

It’s also interesting that shelters blame strictly pet stores and puppy mills for the high number of abandoned animals. As a practicing veterinarian for more than 17 years, I have seen a multitude of shelter-adopted pets that were already with their third of fourth family by the time I saw them. Years ago, when I worked at the SPCA, I found that the return rate was very high and to this day, I don’t believe that the rate of successful placement through shelters is as high as they would have us believe.

Finally, I have an issue with so-called “adoption days” and with the posting of pictures of pets online. These adoption tactics completely mimic pet shops and disreputable breeders, and are often conducted with a lack of any proper facilities: many shelters set up cages at fairs, shopping centers, parks and parking lots, often not in the most ideal of conditions. They put themselves in full view for everyone to see how “cute” the animals are, or even worse, how pitiful they look. Does this practice not encourage “impulse adoption”? We should not be fooled! Because of their lack of resources, shelters are under just as much pressure to give out the animals, if not more, than the pet stores are. Additionally, the questionnaires that shelters have potential adopters fill out are, at best, only a “feel good” measure that gives a false sense of security. People quickly learn what the “correct” responses are, and nobody can conceivably ascertain that the answers given are truthful.

I continue to maintain that having good intentions does not justify the reckless behaviour of certain animal advocates. It is high time that we raise the bar where standards of pet health and welfare are concerned, and if shelters want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, they need to clean up their own act before they start giving lessons to others, and they need to be held just as accountable as others.

A rebuttal to this post is here

An update from “From a Vet’s Point of View” is here  

About Christina

Check Also

Special Contributor, Dr. James Rassi: Will Quebec ban declawing?

Special to Montreal Dog Blog – Dr. James Rassi  There’s a renewed sense of optimism …

4 comments

  1. As the writer of the original article “Help puppies, kittens whose owners just changed their minds”, I feel it’s my duty to add what information couldn’t be squeezed into a 400-word column.
    First off, you say that shelters assume every found animal is a stray and very little is done to reunite them with their owners. That’s not the case with CASCA. Someone came to take our cat’s photo and she was advertised on their website. They also post photos and stories of the animals who are lost and whose owners are desperate to find them. In many cases, lost animals are indeed returned to their homes…it’s just not necessarily front-page news.
    Secondly, shelters exist because there is a problem and they do the best they can to address it. If everyone took the time and effort to be responsible pet owners by spaying and neutering their animals, micro-chipping them, and making sure they are tagged with their name and phone number, perhaps there wouldn’t be a need to house an over-population of pets. As a foster home for the SPCA, I have fostered animals who were unable to be adopted for various reasons. They were not “dumped” on me. I chose to provide a warm and safe environment until they could be adopted. In fact, Jonas, my black lab was a foster dog before we officially adopted him, as you are well aware.
    Furthermore, what are foster families to do when an animal in need comes across their path? Should I have done what all my neighbors did and turn my back on a sick, suffering cat? CASCA did what it could to help me with the situation. They provided me with food, supplies, and a friendly shoulder to cry on when the that difficult decision to euthanize was made.
    Clearly you and I have had very different experiences with animal shelters and foster homes, yours on a professional level and mine on a personal one.
    You have succinctly pointed out all the flaws in the system and now I eagerly anticipate your suggestions in resolving the problem.

    Marla Newhook

  2. As a rescuer and foster for both cats and dogs since 2005 FULL-TIME, I can vouch for the decent rescues out there who do things right. The good ones outweigh the ones who don’t by far. Putting everybody in the same boat this way is poor writing and in poor taste. What is this vet doing to be part of the solution? Any free clinics offered? A reduced fee for rescues? Is she on call for emergencies for rescues? God knows we get plenty of those. Get real if you really care about the situation. I’d like to see her manage on a non-profit income and rely strictly on volunteers. Have the guts to name the rescues you have a problem with at least and give specific details. This article is not helpful in any way, especially for all those rescues who go out of their way to do everything right.

    Annie Primeau

  3. I have been following this discussion both here and on Facebook for a few days now, and I find it ironic how quite a few of the interventions meant to discredit Dr.Nosotti actually tend to support her point. If I understand correctly, one of her major qualms is the fact that very few people involved with shelters have any kind of credentials or training pertaining to animal health itself and/or running a shelter, and their reluctance to consult rapidly with, and listen to the professionals who would be best suited to help them. Isn’t this exactly the reaction that she is getting from her blog? She comes here describing situations which are utterly unacceptable, and instead of people saying : “yes, there is a problem, it might not be as rampant as she suggests, but how do we fix it?”, which would be the expected normal reaction, some people criticize her writing skills, her availability… and others even get PERSONALLY offended! WHO CARES? Aren’t we all here to discuss and help THE ANIMALS? It doesn’t seem to be! The other point that I absolutely do not understand is this notion, demonstrated by Ms. Newhook , Ms. Albany and others on Facebook, that veterinarians constantly overcharge for their services. Where does this come from? At a time when human medical costs are skyrocketting through the roof and health care systems all over the world are in disarray, where do people get this idea? Veterinary fees in Quebec are amongst the lowest, if not the lowest in North America! Also, what do people mean exactly by “reasonnable” and “decent” rates? Reasonnable and decent compared to what? Is $200 too much to spay a cat? Or a dog? Changing brakes or a muffler on a car costs more than that and it’s not surgery! How much does it cost the veterinarians themselves to do these procedures? Isn’t this what we should be looking at before accusing a whole profession? It sounds like people just want veterinarians to be available 24/7, obeying their every request, free of charge! This isn’t realistic! Why should veterinarians financially bear the lion’s share of the cost of rescuing animals in Quebec by doing hundreds if not thousands of free or “low-cost” spayings and neuterings, dewormings, vaccinations, etc, representing hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars? Is it their fault that so many animals are bred and then abandonned in this Province? I don’t think so! It’s very easy to blame the vets, including Dr. Nosotti, but that’s not where the problem is!! Not at all!! It’s a problem with society, there is a SEVERE lack of resources, and we all have to work together to solve it instead of against one another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*