DEAR DR. FOX: Our 8-month-old kitten has recently been diagnosed with feline leukemia virus (FeLV), which has spread to his bone marrow.

We adopted him at our local animal shelter when he was 4 months old. We brought him into our home with our 7-year-old cat who we had adopted two years ago from the same shelter. She has tested negative for FeLV and FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) several times, so we are assuming that our new guy was born with FeLV. He now has monthly checkup appointments at the vet and is on daily doses of prednisone.

I have two questions for you:

1. As the FeLV has spread to the bone marrow, what are the expectations for years of life left? Is there anything beyond steroid treatment we should be doing to improve his chances or extend his life?

2. Our older cat was never vaccinated for FeLV. She has since been tested again and is negative. She was immediately vaccinated and subsequently received her booster, during which time she was separated from her brother. We have now reintroduced them for quality of life purposes. Are we putting her at undue risk by allowing them to be together? Are there strategies we can employ to reduce her chances of contracting the virus?

Any insight you can share would be most appreciated. -- D.P., Washington, D.C.

DEAR D.P.: Cats are susceptible to a variety of virus infections, some contracted prenatally, others very early in life.

Those with certain infections, such as feline herpes, do well keeping the infection suppressed so long as their immune systems function well and they are no subjected to stress. Your young cat may cope with the feline leukemia virus infection so long as he is not unduly stressed, as by frequent trips to the vet; so arrange for in-home visits if possible.

Avoid boarding and separation from his family. Also avoid additional vaccinations and anti-flea drugs, which can wreak havoc with the immune system and trigger a flare-up of the infection. Good nutrition is essential, ideally some raw or freeze-dried cat foods, or my home-prepared diet, posted on my website.

DEAR DR.FOX: My 9-year-old spayed female yellow Labrador has been very itchy all her life. We had her tested for allergies when she was 2, and she tested positive for many food and environmental allergies. We can control the food allergies, and we give her allergy shots for 12 of her environmental allergies. She still gets so itchy by July and August that we can't even touch her or give her a belly rub because she goes into a scratching frenzy. Several summers I have had to give her prescription pills from my veterinarian, which can be quite costly.

This spring, I read in the newspaper about the benefit of local honey for people with seasonal allergies. I checked online to see if honey would be safe for dogs, and decided to try giving one teaspoon a day on her dry food. She loves it, and licks the spoon, but even better, within two days, her itching was gone. She got through July without itching, and I'm hoping she will get through the rest of the summer and fall without constantly scratching. Maybe some of your readers' itchy dogs could benefit from this cheap but effective remedy. It must be locally produced honey, which is available at local farmers markets and even some supermarkets. -- G.M., Jackson, New Jersey

DEAR G.M.: I have been advocating giving dogs local honey or bee pollen for decades to help stop seasonal allergies. Many thanks for confirming what some of my critics have said disparaging words about. Such treatment can indeed be highly effective, but of course it is not a panacea, since there are other causes of itchy skin in dogs, which call for different treatments.

(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 DrFoxVet.net.)

DEAR READERS: I have long been railing against what has become a standard practice in many animal shelters: intimidating a newly arrived dog when he or she is eating by pushing a stuffed glove that looks like a hand on the end of a stick at the poor animal. This is done to elicit “food-guarding aggression,” and dogs who growl and snarl are likely to be killed. Other temperament tests are also of questionable value, considering the situation and state of most dogs in unfamiliar and stressful conditions.

"No better than flipping a coin: Reconsidering canine behavior evaluations in animal shelters,” an article by veterinarians Gary J. Patronek and Janice Bradley published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, has urged animal shelters to stop such tests:

“Shelters already screen from adoption obviously dangerous dogs during the intake process. Subsequent provocative testing of the general population of shelter dogs is predicated on an assumption of risk that is far in excess of existing data and relies on assumptions about dog behavior that may not be supportable. We suggest that instead of striving to bring out the worst in dogs in the stressful and transitional environment of a shelter and devoting scarce resources to inherently flawed formal evaluations that do not increase public safety, it may be far better for dogs, shelters and communities if effort spent on frequently misleading testing was instead spent in maximizing opportunities to interact with dogs in normal and enjoyable ways that mirror what they are expected to do once adopted (e.g., walking, socializing with people, playgroups with other dogs, games, training). In conjunction with a thorough and objective intake history when available, these more natural types of assessment activities will help identify any additional dogs whose behavior may be of concern. Engaging in the normal repertoire of activities familiar to pet dogs has the additional benefit of enriching dogs' lives and minimizing the adverse effect of being relinquished and confined to a shelter, will be more indicative of the typical personality and behavior of dogs, and may help make dogs better candidates for adoption.”

I would urge shelters to also practice group housing wherever possible, keeping adoptable dogs in compatible groups and avoiding single caging.

DEAR DR. FOX: HELP! I am at my wits' end. I have an 11-year-old male tabby cat. His weight is in normal range, health is good (I take him to the vet for checkups, plus anything else not routine) and appetite is good, but he started spraying in the house about two years ago, mostly in corners of stairwells and rooms.

I got him and his littermate sister when they were 8 weeks old. They have always been indoor cats, but when this started, my vet said, "What you have here is a tiger in a cage,” and said I should let him out to roam the neighborhood. My cat usually goes out in the evenings and comes in when called. He’s brought us a few mice.

He and his sister don’t get along anymore, though they used to. The mostly ignore each other, but sometimes will hiss and attack.

My husband was diagnosed with cancer approximately two years ago, when this spraying started, and I can’t help but wonder if this has contributed to the problem, as the household was in a lot of turmoil at the time.

I have tried everything -- drugs from the vet, Feliway, sprays, etc. -- but he continues to spray. There are three litter boxes indoors, and one outside, which he does use. He is very skittish and afraid, but he has always been this way. -- E.D., Potomac, Maryland

DEAR E.D.: Certainly a home in turmoil can upset cats, and spray-marking and house soiling are not uncommon reactions. What is important in your case is the fact that your cat still sprayed inside the house after you followed the vet's advice and let him out. I would never have recommended this, but many vets do. This probably makes things worse with outdoor cat fights and bites, bringing home fleas and other more serious potential health problems, as I document in the article “Releasing Cats to Live Outdoors” on my website, DrFoxVet.net.

Frankly, I find it ethically unprofessional for veterinarians to suggest such "outdoor therapy" for indoor cats who start to spray, a suggestion widely made in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States. Letting the cat out could mean cat fights, death by automobile or a cat who comes home and sprays inside the home because he is insecure and needs to mark his territory.

There are other reasons why cats spray, and many effective treatments including pheromones, behavior changes, mood- and anxiety-modifying drugs and activities other than letting the cat run free. For your cat, I would have the veterinarian rule out stress-related cystitis and possibly stones or calculi before consulting with an animal behavioral therapist.

(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 DrFoxVet.net.)

DEAR DR. FOX: I am writing in regards to the article about the owner who doesn't regret his dog's surgeries.

I have three cats. Bosoco is 16 years old. When I adopted him, he had a broken jaw and some broken teeth. He also had a problem with his eyelids that was "taken care of" by the shelter, but we never knew what happened. The injury to his jaw was too old to fix, but you would never know anything was wrong. He also has high blood pressure and a thyroid issue, which he is on medication for.

Last year, Bosoco came down with a very bad upper respiratory infection that landed him at the vet for a week. He came home with a feeding tube. It took him a while, but he got better and has done very well. The cost was $2,000.

My other cat, Gabby, was adopted from a local veterinary hospital. Her owner was moving and wanted to put the cat down, but the doctor refused, so I took her and gave her a home. She had many health problems, including cat-scratch fever and gingivitis. The hospital cleaned her teeth, pulled some and treated her with antibiotics at no cost. When she came home, I noticed that when she ate, she would run off and cry in pain. She was diagnosed with stomatitis. She was given steroids for quite a while until I read about the disease and found out by pulling molars and pre-molars, cats do well. In November, the vet pulled her teeth, and today Gabby is free from cat-scratch fever and stomatitis and is thriving. The shots and surgery cost around $2,000, which I am paying off each month.

I have no regrets; it was worth every penny, and I would do it again. The cats are our family. I've had five cats and was down to two when I took in Gabby. We've had people tell us we are crazy, spending that kind of money on animals; but again, it was worth it. -- L.Z., Washington, D.C.

DEAR L.Z.: Thank you for sharing your experiences and costs for providing quality of life for two of your rescued cats.

I know that you know that their lives are worth every penny you spent, and I wish that more people understood that responsible care could be costly for a dog or cat -- regardless of age and source -- so be prepared! You, and others like you, may be ridiculed for such extravagant indulgence. Most such critics put people first and look down on other species, an attitude that is laying waste to the natural world and harming us all in the process.

I appreciate that you are paying off your veterinary bill in installments, and I wish that more veterinarians would be so accommodating, rather than demanding full payment before an animal is released from their care.

FEDERAL PROTECTION FOR GREAT LAKES GRAY WOLVES

On Aug. 1, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided the gray wolf in the Great Lakes should remain on the federal endangered species list. This means protection from hunters and trappers for the wolves of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.

This is a ruling against the Interior Department’s 2011 decision to delist the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. The court said, “Because the government failed to reasonably analyze or consider two significant aspects of the rule -- the impacts of partial delisting and of historical range loss on the already-listed species -- we affirm the judgment of the district court vacating the 2011 Rule.”

This decision re-affirms what we already know: Wolves need protection and respect as essential wildlife managers of healthy ecosystems for us to work with and not exterminate. Ranchers must use non-lethal deterrents and adopt protective animal husbandry practices to prevent wolves from utilizing their livestock as a food source. Such predation by wolves is understandable when there is human encroachment into the wolf’s habitat, which becomes degraded by the livestock that supplant the wolf’s natural prey. Deer are their primary food, but in these and other states, they must compete with millions of “recreational” deer hunters.

(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 DrFoxVet.net.)