DEAR READERS: Minnesota journalist Brandon Ferdig, in his article “The wolf debate and modern America” (Star Tribune, March 2), clearly presents how the wolf has become a symbol of a divided nation. Some want to protect wolves, while others want to kill them. Ferdig’s suggestion is that "more localized solutions are in order."
The foundation of democracy is based on the concept of mutual acceptance, respect and equal rights for all protected under the law. The divergent interests of various segments of society can undermine and even destroy this foundation if there is not an overarching, unified sense of respect for all life. That includes wolves.
For a democratic government and society to be sustainable, the “personhood” of nonhuman animals such as wolves and whales should be recognized and protected under international law. Such a trans-species democracy would benefit humankind by virtue of the ecological services that these and other species provide, and in the process, contribute to our own well-being under the environmental banner of One Health.
It is notable that the national environmental group Nonhuman Rights Project is calling on Utah Gov. Spencer Cox to veto a bill that state lawmakers have recently passed, which prohibits the use of legal personhood in cases involving any member of a taxonomic domain that is not a human being. In contrast, legal personhood has been signed into law in New Zealand for the Whanganui River and the Te Urewera park. At the United Nations, Maori and Pacific leaders are proposing the same status for whales as a further step to protect them and the environment.
Minnesotans, living with the largest gray wolf population east of the Rockies, might rise to this occasion and lead the states in maintaining wolf protections, if not also recognizing their personhood.
I must respectfully remind readers that President Joe Biden has done much to restore the morale, programs and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency -- one of the good legacies of the Nixon administration -- which the Trump regime sought to obliterate as a barrier to various corporate interests.
DEAR DR. FOX: My two young cats are addicted to dry kibble and they do not like canned cat food. But I have heard dry kibble is not good for them. What can I do? -- B.K., Washington, D.C.
DEAR B.K.: I am glad you have raised this question, since many cats do indeed become addicted to high-starch kibble containing poor-quality protein. This can lead to chronic health problems including inflammatory diseases, diabetes and urinary tract issues.
Every bag of manufactured dry cat food should bear a statement that warns, "This product should not be the primary diet for cats, who should be given canned (or frozen/warmed) moist cat foods." For more details, see the relevant chapters by feline nutrition expert Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins in the book "Not Fit for a Dog! The Truth About Manufactured Dog and Cat Food," which I co-authored with Marion E. Smart.
Here are a few steps you can take with your cats:
They must drink plenty of water. Many cats do not properly regulate their hydration when on dry cat food, which leads to highly concentrated urine and urinary tract problems. Flavoring their water with salt-free chicken broth, ideally homemade, may encourage them to drink more.
Find a good-quality cat kibble that is grain-free, and moisten it with warm water before feeding. Feed a tablespoon per cat, five to six times daily. Cats do best on small meals and should never be allowed ad-lib feeding from a kibble dispenser.
After they have become accustomed to the moistened kibble, start introducing a trace of moist, canned cat food, gradually increasing the amount until your cats accept a full serving of it. Try different formulations, since some cats do not like any fish in their meals!
You might subsequently try my home-prepared cat food recipe, which is posted on my website: drfoxonehealth.com/post/cat-food-recipe.
(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.)