DEAR READERS: The fundamental problem in seeking justice for animals is that our laws view them as mere "property." The nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund has been working to change that. The Oregon Supreme Court just issued a landmark ruling in State v. Newcomb that will give animals more of the protections they deserve.

It all started with Juno, an emaciated dog seized by law enforcement. Once seized, Juno received routine veterinary care, which included drawing his blood for tests. However, Juno's owner argued that because Juno is his property, the blood draw should be considered a "search" under the Oregon Constitution and Fourth Amendment, which prohibit unreasonable searches.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund fought back, filing an amicus ("friend of the court") brief urging the court to consider that animals are "sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear," according to legislation the nonprofit helped enact in the state in 2013. The court rejected the owner's argument. In a win for all animals, the court emphasized that sentience matters in cases like these, and this dog should not be considered a mere object. The purpose of a blood test is medical diagnosis and treatment, and now investigators in Oregon do not have to go through the long process of securing a separate warrant before a veterinarian can treat an abused or neglected animal who has been lawfully seized as part of a cruelty investigation.

For more information about the Animal Legal Defense Fund and how you can support it and the animals it defends, visit aldf.org.

DEAR DR. FOX: I had a similar experience to many of your readers with a vet regarding Frontline. My dog would significantly react for a day or two after administration of this product, hardly moving and drooling. When I told my vet about this as it related to this product, he said that it was not possible.

My previous dog died at the age of 8 from a cancerous tumor that formed near the site of Frontline administration. After the second dog reacted badly to this medicine, I stopped using it. I am not a fan. -- L.L., Berryville, California

DEAR L.L.: Every summer, I receive letters like yours concerning the adverse effects of some anti-flea products. There are several safer and more effective anti-flea products and preventive steps to take to deal with these nasty external parasites, which you can read about on my website, DrFoxVet.net. Avoid over-the-counter insecticidal products without consultation with a veterinarian who should do more than sell you a product.

MEDALS OF COURAGE FOR DOGS

In July on Capitol Hill, four dogs received the K-9 Medal of Courage for their military heroism. Matty, Fieldy, Bond and Isky all received the nation's highest military honor for dogs due to their bravery in war zones, where they detected explosives and provided protection and comfort.

Perhaps next year there will be some police dogs given this medal after being shot and stabbed in the course of doing their service. Better still, in the War Memorial area near Capitol Hill, it is surely time to put up an epitaph in commemoration of all the various kinds of animals who have served in times of war: horses (in the millions), mules, dogs, pigeons, pigs, dolphins and elephants. And near the National Institutes of Health, another memorial is overdue for all the chimpanzees, monkeys, cats, dogs, birds, rabbits, rats, rodents and other creatures, many of whom children keep as pets, who have variously suffered and died to help find cures for the diseases of civilization.

(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: I would like to address the response you received from Brandi Hunter, vice president of public relations for the American Kennel Club, which you printed in your column recently.

Hunter states, "The AKC is dedicated to the well-being of all dogs; it in no way condones or supports substandard care..."

Would you consider the painful and systematic ear and tail docking the AKC insists certain breeds have to maintain their vision of how a dog looks under the widely accepted "dog standard" substandard? The AKC inflicts a selfish vision of how some breeds should look, which is not the way they are born to look. The maiming of these helpless animals is animal abuse and absolutely unethical.

Hunter also mentions a H.E.A.R.T. program and various breeder education courses. Do they mention in these courses that the tail is actually part of the animal's spine, and dogs' ears are full of nerves? I cannot begin to imagine the pain these dogs experience and the potential health and emotional issues caused by these procedures.

What is your opinion on the docking of dogs' vital body parts so their humans can follow the AKC "dog standard"? With your voice, we can better educate the public on this issue. -- J.R., Arlington, Virginia

DEAR J.R.: I sent your letter to the American Kennel Club. This is the reply that I received:

"Canine Legislation Position Statement: ear cropping, tail docking and dewclaw removal

"The American Kennel Club recognizes that ear cropping, tail docking and dewclaw removal, as described in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health. Appropriate veterinary care should be provided."

This "position statement" is ethically unacceptable except insofar as removal of extra, non-functional dewclaws on the hind legs, which is not cosmetic but needed to stop them being torn when the dog runs.

Tail docking and ear cropping should be phased out and breed standards changed, but the AKC is clearly pandering to breed clubs and those dog show judges who see nothing wrong with such mutilations. For more details, see my article "Dog Mutilations," posted on my website, DrFoxVet.net.

In more dog-friendly (and in my opinion, less barbaric) cultures, such as in the United Kingdom, veterinarians amputate dogs' tails only for medical reasons, and certain "breed standards" that involve ear cropping and tail docking are not evident in dog shows.

DEAR DR. FOX: I was happy to see you remind us that captive animals are not necessarily pets. In this case, it was regarding reptiles and amphibians. Do you consider birds captive animals as well? I've never understood why it is acceptable to take a creature with the awesome ability to fly, clip its wings, cage it and call it a pet.

The only captive animals I've kept were "fancy" mice during my daughter's childhood. We tried to keep their habitat as natural as possible, and we endeavored to keep them busy hunting for food and nesting materials. We always kept a wheel available, but it was rarely used. I always hoped that meant they were not going stir-crazy enough to need it! -- S.P.K., Louisville, Kentucky

DEAR S.P.K.: For many people, bringing any animal into the home is like taking in a new family member to be treated with respect and understanding. For others, regrettably, they are disposable commodities -- live toys for the kids who too soon lose interest when there is a lack of parental supervision and example.

In general, animals adapt best to living with us if they have no fear. In the process of domesticating animals like white mice, rabbits, ferrets, canaries and parakeets, there are genetic changes that mean less hypervigilance and less fearfulness and fright-flight-fight reactivity, therefore less stress and potential suffering. This makes these animals easier to socialize, and they develop an emotional bond with people. Freedom from fear is a basic animal right.

Another right is a proper, safe environment. For any bird, captive and wild but not releasable, such as an Amazon parrot, or domesticated, like a canary, this means a safe place to fly -- preferably a large flight cage or room. Clipping or pinioning their wings is more for convenience than their safety, and it amounts to a cruel and unnecessary mutilation. Yet another right for highly social avian species like parakeets is group housing so they have the security and enrichment of each other's company.

Any bird in a cage -- except briefly for medical purposes -- is an abomination. Many suffer, developing stress-related diseases, physical problems from lack of activity and behavioral problems such as feather-pulling and self-mutilation.

(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: Can you share your philosophy or professional views on how we can keep animals well and prevent their suffering? -- L.O., Washington, D.C.

DEAR L.O.: I contend that all animals should be treated humanely, and their basic biological, psychological and emotional needs provided for, be they companion animals, farmed animals or captive wild species.

Resistance to adopting humane alternatives to how animals are raised and killed by the pig, livestock and poultry industries, with their disease-promoting concentrated animal feeding operations, is problematic. Government support of this agribusiness sector and allied pharmaceutical food industry complex puts consumers and the environment at grave risk. It must be confronted by the medical and veterinary professions, and be supplanted by more humane, ecological and healthful food production systems and informed consumer choices.

Above all, I see my mission as helping to heal the human-nonhuman bond, which involves education and inspiration through promoting understanding and respect; a relationship with the environment; and ethical animal breeding and rearing. We must focus on optimal nurturing of body, mind and spirit -- the soma, psyche and ethos of every creature under our care and assumed dominion.

These basic animal rights are the core principles of holistic, preventive medicine. Combined with veterinary bioethics and applied veterinary ethology, it optimizes the provision of animals' behavioral needs. For more details, see my books, "Healing Animals and the Vision of One Health" and "Animals and Nature First."

DEAR DR. FOX: I have a pug who is 13 years old. He sneezes and coughs from his throat rather than his lungs. I'm told it is his trachea.

He has been on different types of medicine. The latest is a high dose of steroids. He's been on it for almost a week with no relief. He's been coughing and sneezing like this for months now.

Can you please help my pug? This happens constantly when he is awake. -- J.M., Cumberland, Maryland

DEAR J.M.: I am so sorry for your poor dog. So many dogs afflicted with the condition called brachycephaly -- a foreshortened muzzle or squashed-in face -- suffer lives of misery.

Brachycephalic animals are unable to breathe easily, so they cannot enjoy much physical activity. The pressure created by the abnormally narrowed nasal orifices and especially the relative excess of soft palate tissue in the pharynx (back of the throat) set up such a negative pressure that the trachea (wind pipe) collapses. Pulling hard when wearing a collar may aggravate this; I advise a no-neck-pressure harness for all the afflicted breeds, from bulldogs and boxers to Boston terriers and pugs. These dogs also have protruding eyes, which make them more injury- and infection-prone. The large, domed heads mean difficult births, often calling for emergency surgical intervention. And many of these breeds have become more popular than ever.

Remedial surgery to reduce the amount of soft palate tissue and widen the nasal orifices can help provide these poor dogs with better quality of life. But the ultimate solution is to stop breeding those with extreme brachycephaly and change the breed standards to stipulate longer muzzles and snouts.

In the U.K., a committee including the British Veterinary Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club and breed club representatives has been set up to address this long-neglected human-caused genetic abnormality, which can result in much suffering. The American Veterinary Medical Association -- of which I am a member -- and the Humane Society of the United States -- where I once served as a vice president -- should follow suit, along with the American Kennel Club, with whom I consulted some 30 years ago on this and related canine concerns.

OUTRAGEOUS PET FOOD COMPANY BEHAVIOR

According to Susan Thixton at truthaboutpetfood.com, "2013 FDA testing of Beneful found above allowed levels of cyanuric acid and melamine, and ethoxyquin that was not listed on the pet food label. Purina Beneful refused to provide FDA documents, refused to provide FDA with testing methods and in one instance, Purina refused to provide FDA the actual content of ingredients in a suspect food."

Cyanuric acid and melamine were linked with the manufactured pet food debacle of 2007, when thousands of dogs and cats developed kidney disease, many being killed or chronically impaired. Ethoxyquin has been linked to cancer and other health issues. For historical details, see my book "Not Fit for a Dog: The Truth About Manufactured Cat and Dog Food," which I co-authored with two other veterinarians.

(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.)