DEAR READERS: I am a regular reader of (and occasional contributor to) Innovative Veterinary Care, the peer-reviewed journal from Redstone Media Group, as well as the Journal of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association. As such, I am encouraged to read about the increasing use of botanicals -- herbs, and tinctures and essential oils of the same -- to treat a variety of conditions in companion animals and farmed animals. Many are more effective, less costly and have fewer, if any, harmful side effects than many prescribed, synthetic drugs.

Sayer Ji with Green Med Info recently posted an article entitled, “1899 Merck Manual Shows Natural and Food-Based Medicine Once Reigned Supreme.” (Visit greenmedinfo.com for more details and a link to the first edition of the Merck medical manual, which Ji references.)

He writes: “Perhaps what is the most striking thing about the first 1899 edition of the Merck Manual is that many of the remedies (for various human conditions) listed are entirely natural. It would not be until 1906 that Congress, with the strong support of President Theodore Roosevelt, would pass the Pure Food and Drug Act, which would usher in the era of pharmaceutical medicine, largely consisting of patented, synthetically produced medications. In 1899, the standard of care included toxic compounds like arsenic and mercury, as well as completely natural ones derived from common plants and foods, but few, if any, patented drugs.”

It is a matter of public record that the pharmaceutical industry periodically seeks to have all botanicals removed from over-the-counter sales, taken off the shelves and restricted to prescription-only medications. However, I do not advise people to blindly try any “natural” remedies on their animal companions, but rather, find a veterinarian who uses them along with conventional drugs for animal health issues. Visit ahvma.org for a list of such practitioners in your area.

DEAR DR. FOX: I have heard that it is not necessary to administer the DHLPP vaccine to dogs older than 10 years; only the rabies shot is necessary. Your thoughts on this? -- S.M., Medford, Oregon

DEAR S.M.: You are partially correct, provided that the dog has had prior vaccinations, which can give anywhere from five-year to lifelong immunity for most dogs, but not all.

Depending on risk of exposure to other dogs and the health of other dogs in the community, it is safe, in my opinion, to give dogs no more such “core” vaccinations after 2 years of age -- but again, with the proviso that blood titer tests are taken at every annual wellness examination to evaluate the dog’s immune status.

No, I am not opposed to vaccinations, and my concerns about current vaccine marketing practices and risks does not make me an anti-vaccine advocate. Neither are Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with his Children’s Health website, or celebrity supporter Jessica Biel. They recently voiced concerns to the California Legislature about proposed new vaccination regulations. The precautionary principle should not be overridden by fear and the power of the pharmaceutical industry.

As a veterinary bioethicist, I was in shock to read that Arthur J. Caplan, a Ph.D. bioethicist at the NYU School of Medicine, said, in response to the efforts of Kennedy and Biel: ”Defenders of vaccination are much more engaged. They’re saying, ‘We’re not going to put up with anti-vaxxers and celebrities maneuvering around the edges of the debate.’” He also alluded to “celebrity claptrap and nonsense” and “anti-vaccine malarkey.” It seems that such defamatory and demeaning language has gone from the political arena to the academic, where sound science and ethics are under siege. I take the middle of the road on this issue, and that makes me radical to both sides!

SALMONELLA INFECTIONS TOTAL 279 IN OUTBREAK LINKED TO BACKYARD BIRDS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have fielded 279 reports of salmonella infections linked to backyard chickens in recent months, and the number of states involved has grown to 41.

Children under age 5 account for about one-third of the cases. Many of the reports involve chicks and ducklings purchased online, at hatcheries and from agricultural stores. (United Press International, 6/14)

I advise people considering setting up such backyard laying-hen operations not to do so in high-population urban and suburban communities for public health reasons.

(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.)

DEAR READERS: This is part of the testimony I gave on June 25 at the U.S. Department of the Interior public hearings in Brainerd, Minnesota, urging the Trump administration to protect wolves and keep them on the endangered species list.

The existential values of wolves far exceed their material value to the trapper, the self-gratification of the trophy hunter, and the environmental and ecological sustainability value of free-range cattle and sheep. These existential values are derived variously from sound science, veterinary bioethics, cultural anthropology and public sensibility.

-- Wolves are of environmental value as apex predators, with their many ecological services optimizing sustainable biodiversity.

-- Wolves are of wildlife health value, removing sick, infirm and aged deer and other prey; keeping herds healthy; and most probably limiting the spread of Chronic Wasting disease (CWD) and other contagious and infectious diseases.

-- Wolves are of forest and woodland regenerative value, preventing over-browsing by deer and other cervids through control of numbers, allowing saplings to survive and thrive.

-- Wolves are of public health value, their trophic effects on ecosystems helping reduce the incidence and extensiveness of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.

-- Wolves are of value to smaller, commensal carnivores like the red fox in limiting the incursion of prey-competing coyotes and feral dogs into some ecosystems.

-- Wolves are of value as an indicator species of ecosystem health.

-- Wolves are of symbolic, recreational, educational, scientific, heuristic, artistic and spiritual value to civil society.

-- Wolves are of totemic and religious value to indigenous peoples, and others of like mind, who treat them with reverential respect.

-- Wolves are of intrinsic value in and for themselves as emotionally and cognitively intelligent, sentient, social beings with rights, interests and entitlements as an indigenous species.

From a bioethical perspective, these existential values call for the protection of wolves from human depredation and habitat encroachment.

With livestock keepers being compensated for veterinary-certified losses -- provided they have incorporated non-lethal methods of predator control and prevention in their animal husbandry -- fewer wolves would be killed, both legally and illegally.

Deer-hunters, and others who see wolves as competing for and depleting state-managed deer herds and deer on private land, need to step back and refrain from eating any meat that hasn’t been tested for CWD (arguably an anthropogenic disease). It also shouldn’t be fed to dogs, cats and other animals known to be susceptible to prion diseases like CWD.

It is not too late to care for the whole, which some call holy. As Henry David Thoreau declared, “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” Every state should foster their wolf populations in viable, protected and monitored habitat areas of the wolf’s original range out of enlightened self-interest. The federal government can enforce the same for Canis lupus and all subspecies throughout the United States.

DEAR DR. FOX: I hope you can help us with a dog problem.

My daughter’s friendly 3-year-old purebred Pomeranian comes up to people, wagging her tail furiously and squealing to be patted. But when anyone reaches down to pat her, she squats and pees all over the floor, carpet or whatever she’s on. It seems to be some sort of submissive posture she is taking. The dog appears to me to be rather high-strung.

This has become an annoying habit and we are stumped as to what to do about it, other than just not pat her. We hope you will have some advice! -- L.R., Rio Linda, California

DEAR L.R.: You are correct in your interpretation of this dog’s behavior.

In the exciting social context of meeting and greeting people, I term this reaction “submissive urination.” It is associated with a ritual, instinctive display of ears-back, tail-wagging, body-flattening, rolling-over behavior -- and indeed, the urine can sometimes fly!

Many dogs show this kind of behavior when they are young, and eventually grow out of it. Its persistence may indicate a genetic component similar to Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans: a kind of persistent infantilism. There is not much one can do, except advise people not to gush over the little dog, essentially ignoring her until she calms down.

Don’t let anyone persuade your daughter to try any kind of medication to control her dog’s behavior. It comes with the breed and the lineage!

SCIENCE OFFERS EXPLANATION FOR PUPPY-DOG EYES

Domestic dogs have a special set of muscles around their eyes that wolves lack, and those muscles operate together to widen and open the canine eye, contributing to a larger, drooping appearance that many people find irresistible.

The muscles, called the retractor anguli oculi lateralis and the levator anguli oculi medialis, appear to be an evolutionary adaptation that arose during domestication, possibly as people selected dogs they found more appealing. (The Atlantic, 6/17)

(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.)

DEAR READERS: In a major step in recognition of animal rights and the bioethics of exploiting animals for human entertainment and money, the Canadian government has voted resoundingly for the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act. This new law prohibits the capture, breeding, trade and possession of orcas, porpoises and dolphins.

Such a humane, civil society initiative is needed in many countries, including the U.S., to protect these extraordinary, highly intelligent and empathic mammals. Further protection is also needed for those in the wild, where many are dying from ingested plastics or from being tangled in floating nets. Others are starving as a consequence of over-fishing and warming waters resulting in declining fish stocks. Sonic booms from deep-ocean oil and gas prospecting and naval sonar activities may also damage their navigational senses, leading to mass stranding.

DEAR DR. FOX: After reading your article on shelters, I was deeply moved -- to the point that I decided that I would adopt at least three dogs.

I have for the last 30 years always had a dog in our family, as many as four at one time. Slowly, we were drained of savings for their care (because after all, they are family). Our credit card debt also soared from some of the illnesses they got. I have looked into pet insurance and honestly, on a fixed income, the $30-$50 a month is not an option. Even the low-cost shelter vets are insanely costly.

If there were an option, I would have found it by now. If more of us pet lovers could afford the vet bills, maybe the shelters wouldn’t be crammed full. I have thought of fostering, but I don’t think I could give up a dog after falling in love with it.

Any alternatives to the high cost of pet ownership would be appreciated. -- M.G., Jupiter, Florida

DEAR M.G.: Yes, caring for a dog or cat cannot be done on the cheap when it comes to quality food and regular veterinary wellness evaluations.

People do not want to pay for behavioral advice, but that should be part of the bill, and is an essential part of owner-education and optimizing the human-companion animal bond. Obesity, dental problems and, later in life, cancer, are the big afflictions of dogs and cats, which annual veterinary appointments can help address and potentially prevent.

Some people advocate pet health insurance, but that has not caught on here or in Europe. Some veterinary practices have their own insurance policies, but often insist on frequent appointments, and may seek to sell more than is justified by the animal’s health.

For those people with little savings and on a fixed income, their responsibility to secure proper veterinary preventive care and treatments when needed may be compromised. One option that has been long established in many locations in the U.K. is the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals. People can take their animals there for treatment, bringing along their tax returns to show they need charity support, which is provided with the best affordable care for their animals. In the U.S., some local animal shelters have their own veterinarians or contract with local practitioners to provide low-fee services.

Clearly, the veterinary profession does care; treatments are often very costly, along with diagnostics, and appropriate veterinary care standards cannot be short-changed. How do you think veterinarians feel when clients insist on having their animals, who could be saved by the veterinarian, euthanized because they do not think the animal is “worth it,” regardless of whether they can afford treatment? Many clients are unduly demanding, and even expect vets to charge little because the animal only cost them a few dollars in the first place. Yet many veterinary treatments and diagnostics are virtually the same as in a human hospital or as prescribed by the family physician.

Not all U.S. veterinarians are aware of the fact that the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Foundation has a Veterinary Care Charitable Fund. According to AVMA President Dr. John H. de Jong, the fund “provides veterinarians a simple and effective way to offer charitable veterinary services to clients facing personal hardships, as well as a means to support animals injured as a result of abuse or neglect.”

(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.)