Japan had been hunting whales in the waters off Antarctica for "research" purposes since 1987, killing between 200 and 1,200 whales a year, and conservationists accused the Japanese government of using the hunts as a cover for commercial whaling, since much of the meat was eventually sold. Following its decision to leave the International Whaling Commission in December 2018, Japan is ending the Antarctic hunts, but resuming commercial whaling in its own waters.

While such actions are deplorable along with whale killing by Iceland and Norway, yet claimed to be a cultural tradition, concerted efforts by cattle ranchers and trophy hunters to decimate the dwindling wolf population in the U.S. are no less egregious.

The precarious status of the wolf and other endangered species and their habitats in North America are indicative of a nation divided between exploiters and conservationists. The de-listing of the wolf from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act currently being pushed for by the exploiters will do to this indigenous species what the dominant culture did to indigenous peoples one or two generations ago. To make America great, the rights and interests of all must be upheld, without distinction as to species, race or religion.

Reverential respect for all life is the hallmark of a truly democratic, civilized society and the path to One Health and justice for all.

MORE ON EUTHANASIA

DEAR. DR. FOX: It's been my experience that determining if and when to end someone's life is fraught with uncertainty.

What gives me the greatest pause are the stats on suicide where it is allowed. It's been legal in the state of Oregon longer than anywhere else in the U.S. From that data, it appears to me that when given the option, most humans would rather put up with misery than choose death. I'm unfamiliar with statistics from other parts of the world; perhaps this is a cultural artifact.

But the Oregon data makes me wonder whether my decision to end an animal's life might be more about my discomfort and anguish than trying to do what they would say is best for them.

I appreciate your article on this difficult matter. I'm attaching a brief essay recounting one of my experiences in this realm. -- R.B., Madison, Wisconsin

DEAR R.B.: Your attached account of you euthanizing your cat brought on a flood of memories of beloved and suffering animals that I have killed.

You used a pistol to end the life of your terminally ill and suffering feline companion, reasoning that it was better that you ended your cat's life rather than some stranger. But this way is not for many people who lack the expertise, if not the courage, and opt for a veterinarian to do the job. Rather than take the animal to a strange place, the veterinary clinic, euthanasia by a licensed animal doctor is best done in-home. In most communities, it is illegal to discharge a firearm.

Without some medical understanding of the animal's condition, empathy for the animal could be compounded by one's own associated suffering for the animal and sense of helplessness and uncertainty. This could mean the animal is killed prematurely and might have recovered, so one is filled with self-doubt. Or euthanasia is delayed, and the animal suffers longer than she/he should have.

So a veterinarian should always be present, and for me, I prefer calling in one to our home rather than euthanizing one of our own animals.

Animals rarely lapse into the comatose state seen in people, some who suddenly regain consciousness. Keeping any living being alive at all costs when there can be no quality of life because of a persistent vegetative state is an aspect of the pro-life sentiment that is neither ethical nor compassionate.

R.B. REPLIES: I worked for a small animal vet through high school and assisted with numerous euthanasias; I was being obedient to authority at the time.

The data on assisted suicide in Oregon shows that when pain is successfully managed, humans are far less likely to choose suicide, and even with chronic severe pain, people more frequently choose life over death even when medical assistance is available to them for ending their lives. This causes me to second- and third-guess my actual motivation for deciding to kill someone like Minnie. It’s been my experience that I and others, probably you too, suffer greatly in the face of their suffering. Perhaps I am actually acting on my own behalf rather than theirs. For me, it's an unsolvable dilemma.

DEAR R.B.: I thought I had answered your question to some degree. I will add your response to my column and I hope it will generate more discussion concerning euthanasia.

(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: 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.)