DEAR DR. FOX: I really think there is a need to get the word out about the prey drive in retired racing greyhounds.

Oh, yes, I am very familiar with the advertisements by the rescue groups that emphasize such qualities as "sweet," "mild-natured," "not aggressive" and "couch potato." Well, guess what! One such sweet, non-aggressive couch potato tried to kill my miniature poodle a few days ago!

I was walking Evette along a sidewalk that bordered a parking lot when I saw a greyhound leaning his head outside a window and barking. I am used to seeing dogs guarding their cars, so I calmly continued to lead Evette along the sidewalk, thinking all would be well as long as we stayed away from the car. I was about 30 feet away from the car when I heard the dog's owner yell. I turned and saw the greyhound hit the ground after diving his narrow body through the window. He charged at full greyhound speed toward Evette and me. There was no question that this dog was in violent predator mode, charging for the kill. I pulled Evette into my arms and managed to kick the greyhound away from both of us as he was making a leap for Evette. At that point, the owner caught up with him, grabbed the dog's leash and pulled the greyhound toward the car. I walked away with Evette in my arms. The last I saw of the dog, he was fighting ferociously to break free of the leash and get to Evette.

At home, I did some research that confirmed that my experience was not a unique one. I read an article in Greyhound Companions of New Mexico by Judy Kody Paulsen that shares an even more harrowing story of an attack on a 3-month-old puppy in Nashville, Tennessee, by two greyhounds acting together as a team. In her article "Dog Parks: Are They a Good Idea?" it is clear that Paulsen is a person who truly loves greyhounds and knows a lot about them, but she expressed concern that rescue groups frequently fail to educate retired racing greyhound adopters of the reality of their prey drive and the precautions that need to be taken to avoid harm to smaller animals -- and especially small children. She warns that the episodes of prey drive can be highly unpredictable and that a greyhound can be docile for a long period of time before an unexpected circumstance causes the prey drive to suddenly explode. Her advice is to muzzle a greyhound in situations where it is exposed to other animals and to keep it out of all situations where dogs are running loose, such as dog parks.

Unfortunately, it has been nine years since Paulsen's article was published. Her prudent advice is clearly not being heeded now. I hope you will renew the advice that retired racing greyhounds can be wonderful pets, but they have a powerful prey drive that once led them to chase a small object around a track. For the sake of the greyhounds as well as everyone else, that prey drive needs to be acknowledged and appropriately dealt with. -- C.P., Falls Church, Virginia

Dear C.P.: Your experience and additional documentation does raise a red flag of caution for these poor dogs, many of whom are exploited and treated like throw-away equipment by the racing industry.

They have been bred and trained to chase, and some may lack the ability to discriminate between a lure to chase on the track and a small, lurelike dog or other small creature, including a human infant in a park or other open space. I see this as a human-created problem and do not blame these fine dogs. Unfortunately, some people may deem this breed untrustworthy because of selective breeding and training as a "gaze" or "sight" hound. I would never advocate any breed-specific legislation as per the wave of bills banning ownership of pit bulls or any kind of dog that looks like a bull terrier. But some greyhounds coming off the track after a miserable life in a small cage or pen may well have cognitive and affective post-traumatic stress disorder and need to be handled by adopters with appropriate, responsible care and understanding.

DEAR DR. FOX: My almost 1-year-old golden retriever ate kibble and canned food for several months without much interest in his food, frequently leaving much of the kibble in his bowl.

I supplemented his food with probiotics and apple cider vinegar but did not feel he was getting the proper nutrition. About three weeks ago, I switched him to a raw food diet, using the highly rated frozen portioned patties available at the upscale dog store near me. He is doing great and loves the food. I do not want to prepare the food myself; I want to continue to use a commercially prepared, balanced food.

My question is this: In ranking dog food, would you say that a raw diet is better than a cooked diet, as you describe in your columns? I want to feed my dog the best possible food, but if you feel a cooked diet is better, I will switch. -- L.L., Oak Hill, Virginia

DEAR L.L.: I think of the many poor dogs and cats who have to eat the same dry kibble every day, which makes them feel sick and lose their appetites, or else they are so hungry for lack of essential nutrients that they actually overeat and become obese, diabetic and develop other health problems. While my holistic veterinary colleagues are advocating biologically appropriate, nutrient-complete, home-prepared or freeze-dried and frozen cat and dog foods, the mainstream pet food industry seems to be in a state of alarm over such competition. They are overdramatizing the risks of potentially harmful bacterial contamination of frozen products, which has resulted in several major market recalls of dry pet foods over recent years.

Handle all pet foods with care! The alternative is to prepare your own, and both my basic dog and cat food recipes can be put in a grinder and fed raw, or lightly cooked. Cooking does destroy some nutrients, but it also kills off potentially harmful bacteria. Some nutrients harmed by heat during cooking are added as supplements after cooking in my home-prepared dog and cat foods, which you can find at DrFoxVet.net.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Universal Uclick, 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 DrFoxVet.net.)

DEAR READERS: The 2015 State of Pet Health Report from Banfield Pet Hospital, "Making Pet Care Personal: A Guide to Improving Preventive Care for Pets," seeks to answer the question: What is the disconnect between how veterinarians position preventive care to pet owners and what pet owners truly believe? The report recommends expanding the definition of "preventive care." For most veterinarians in the survey, preventive care includes vaccines, neutering and parasite control, but pet owners are concerned about their animals' diets, exercise, basic care, play and emotional well-being.

"For many pet owners, interactions with their veterinarian are not meeting their expectations and are seen as transactional," says the report. "They're tied to specific services, like vaccines or parasite control." For advice on overall wellness of their animals, pet owners turn to groomers, boarders, breeders, day care providers and trainers and go online for information about behavior, health concerns, generics and nutrition.

This has been my concern and the reason for my appeal for a more holistic and integrated approach to companion animal health and well-being, as I expressed in my book "Healing Animals & the Vision of One Health." I've received many questions from animal caregivers over the past several decades, along with statements regarding their experiences at some veterinary hospitals, which support the findings and recommendations of this report. We must identify where advances in preventive health care can be made for the good of all involved. And, in my opinion, more pet owners should be prepared to pay for veterinary advice in an annual wellness examination for their animal companions.

DEAR DR. FOX: As much as I value most of your observations and opinions, I do not agree that people who want pets but cannot afford them should have them. If people know that they cannot afford marginally decent food or veterinarian care, they shouldn't expect someone else to pay for their pets or ignore a pet's likely health problems, all because they're lonely or like to have pets in their home.

People must provide routine veterinarian examinations and care -- and certainly emergency care, potentially due to the lack of care to date.

I work in the rescue arena and encounter people who say they can't afford to care for their pets, but these people are often unwilling to make changes to do so. Evidence includes dogs surrendered in matted condition by perfectly manicured and coiffed individuals.

No animal should suffer because someone selfishly put his or her desires above an animal's well-being. Unfortunately, the no-kill community turns its back on this concept, believing a home that cannot or will not provide care is better than euthanasia. Neither choice is good, but only one is right. -- M.G., Rockville, Maryland

DEAR M.G.: You raise a very significant issue with which reasonable people must agree. There are, indeed, those who will look for any handout, claiming insufficient funds, when it comes to caring for their companion animals and even their children.

There are genuine hardship cases, and those emergencies where a person is incapacitated or hospitalized, and temporary shelter or foster care for his or her animals is needed. It is a regrettable aspect of human nature that some people abuse and exploit charities and human and nonhuman welfare and support programs, and refuse to be responsible caregivers themselves. This is why many animal shelter adoption policies include in-home inspections where there are sufficient funds and trained staff.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Universal Uclick, 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 DrFoxVet.net.)

DEAR DR. FOX: Everywhere I look, I see rabbits as impulse purchases or adoptions, quickly discarded outside or imprisoned in a wooden box and left to languish in a garage or backyard until they die of loneliness and lack of care. If I put a dog or cat outside to live its life in a small cage, I could and should be cited for animal cruelty.

In my community in the metro D.C. area, we have a domestic bunny who was abandoned after Easter 2009 when the family moved away. Amazingly, he is still alive; yet the residents of the homes he frequents will neither bring him inside and provide vet care, nor allow anyone on their property to trap him because they want him "to have his freedom." (We have a community email list where this has been discussed.)

How well-intentioned, animal-loving people can think that domestic rabbits can survive outside 24/7 without medical care, nutritious food or integration into the social fabric of their lives and homes baffles me. It's beyond my ability to comprehend that the general public thinks that confining a house rabbit in a "hutch" somewhere is OK.

House rabbits are not wild rabbits or chipmunks or squirrels who can live outside in all kinds of weather. They also are not hamsters or gerbils who can and should live their lives in a cage.

Please help educate the American public about house rabbits so people will understand that they are not a novelty or wild animal, but a companion animal, deserving of the same love and care as our cats and dogs. -- D.A., Falls Church, Virginia

DEAR D.A.: Thanks for this important reminder. Too many rabbits are treated like disposable toys or commodities, and many are kept inhumanely, condemned to a solitary life in a small cage. They are wonderful, intelligent and sociable creatures whose essential needs and rights need to be more widely respected and upheld.

BOOK REVIEW: "UNSPOKEN MESSAGES" BY RICHARD D. ROWLAND

Animals often play an unrecognized and unappreciated role in our growth and transformation into more humane being, making us more compassionate and empathic and less self-involved and unaware. U.S. Army Vietnam veteran and retired Kentucky state police officer Richard D. Rowland has written a memoir of his transformative experiences with horses, dogs and other animals. He describes his metaphysical explorations and his confrontation of the challenge of healing himself from a highly invasive cancer.

He makes it clear how conventional Western medicine nearly killed him with treatments while declaring he had a fatal disease, and how his enjoyment of and enjoinment with other animals helped him deal with such a devastating diagnosis. I was riveted by the first chapter describing how stabled horses at his facility reacted at exactly the same time when the veterinarian euthanized a beloved mare, sight unseen from most of the other horses.

The five people witnessing this were amazed that the horses all knew. This is affirmation of what I call the empathosphere, which I first documented in my book "The Boundless Circle: Caring for Creatures and Creation." Rowland describes this event as "Something spiritual, something older than time, some transfer of wisdom or spirit took place through the communication that we witnessed."

Rowland's memoir, "Unspoken Messages: Spiritual Lessons I Leaned From Horses and Other Earthbound Souls," will be an enjoyable and encouraging, if not inspiring, read for all who have been close to another being other than human.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Universal Uclick, 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 DrFoxVet.net.)

BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETIES OPPOSE CAT TNR, BUT ONE ENDORSES FERAL PARROT RESCUE, REHABILITATION & RELEASE

I was dismayed seeing the summer cover story of Audubon Society magazine about the rescue, rehabilitation and release of feral parrots in Southern California, under municipal permit! How can the National Audubon Society endorse such practices while another bird protection society, the American Bird Conservancy, vehemently opposes cat trap-neuter-release for many of the reasons that I share? Namely, all released, non-native species have ecological, environmental and potential public health consequences. Parrot disease (Psittacosis) is one that can be deadly for humans.

Clearly some bird lovers and rescuers are like some cat lovers and rescuers, evidently blind to the well-being of other species and in need of wider vision and ethical consistency in their passions and actions. Having been with parrots in their jungle habitat in South India, I, too, am enthralled by their spirit of being, their joyful chatter, their beauty and intelligence.

Let's all strive to help save parrots and other "exotic" nonindigenous wild species in the places where they belong. I discourage people from purchasing "exotic" animals as pets so that the international trade in wildlife can come to an end. The American government should prohibit the importation of wild species for the pet industry, and commercial breeding in captivity in the U.S. should be similarly prohibited. The deliberate and accidental release of nonindigenous plants, which can have serious wildlife habitat and agricultural consequences, is a related issue too long overlooked.