DEAR READERS: Several years ago, I inspected dairy cow feedlots in California after thousands of the exposed, unshaded and stressed creatures died from heat stress. I also flew over dairy feedlots in the Arizona desert that were taking water from the Colorado River to grow alfalfa to feed the cows. It was evident to me then that these factory-scale dairy operations were unsustainable as well as inhumane, and my view has not changed.

These feedlots compete with smaller-scale, generally more humane operations in other dairy states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin. These smaller operations have been forced out of business by government subsidies going to larger factories and farms, which claimed false efficiencies based on the economy of scale. "Get big or get out" was the memorable proclamation of Earl Butz, secretary of agriculture under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Rising costs for feed, water, electricity, medication and other inputs, along with supply chain disruptions -- all exacerbated by climate change -- call for closing all large dairy operations.

California is the biggest U.S. producer of dairy products. Many of the state's farms rely on irrigation from the Colorado River -- a dwindling resource -- to produce alfalfa for dairy cows and also for export, as highlighted by Washington Post reporter Joshua Partlow ("Water Cuts Could Save the Colorado River. Farmers Are in the Crosshairs," April 16). That same week, New York Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson offered a troubling report that said suicide rates among farmers are more than three times higher than among the general population. And the suicide rates in rural communities increased 48% between 2000 and 2018 ("A Death in Dairyland Spurs a Fight Against a Silent Killer," April 19). More broadly, the shortage of veterinarians in rural communities is a national concern.

Together, these stories point to a crisis created by a highly competitive industry that is bad for all involved -- including the animals at its center. There are glimmers of hope, however. More and more consumers are choosing organically certified dairy products from pasture-raised cows, such as those supplied by cooperatives like Wisconsin's Organic Valley. For these smaller operations, securing a reliable, affordable supply of organic, non-GMO feed is a continuing challenge -- one that could be alleviated by a secure market of consumer support.

DEAR DR. FOX: I am beside myself. My Lab turned 2 in June -- a gorgeous dog who loves obedience and agility, and swims like a fish. All of a sudden, he has developed aggression that I'm convinced is a type of seizure. These episodes come out of the blue: I can see a shift in his demeanor, and his eyes look wild. He acts like he is going to get beaten.

He had a brain scan on Friday, and we are waiting for the results. I have stopped giving him his Simparica Trio and have ordered the necessary meds that you have suggested in the past for detoxing. (It doesn't help that my husband, a Vietnam vet who was exposed to Agent Orange, now has Parkinson's, which has added a tremendous amount of stress to our household.)

Is there anything else I can do? I want my dog to be happy and healthy. We did have plans for him to be a therapy dog, and I did a lot of training with him. -- J.M., Hawthorne, New Jersey

DEAR J.M.: I sympathize deeply with your situation, as both your husband and your dog are experiencing the harmful consequences of exposure to dangerous chemicals.

Your dog's symptoms -- fear and seizurelike behaviors -- are often reported in dogs as adverse reactions to these widely marketed pesticides, which I find utterly unethical. Some dogs may have frequent seizures, while others become aggressive. There are botanical insect repellants available, such as those from Alzoo and Earth Animal, that are highly effective and harmless to dogs -- and us!

There is a remote possibility, considering your dog's age, of thyroid dysfunction. My friend and veterinary colleague W. Jean Dodds, DVM, writes that there is a significant relationship between thyroid dysfunction and seizure disorder, and between thyroid dysfunction and dog-to-human aggression. This confirms the importance of including a complete thyroid antibody profile as part of the laboratory and clinical workup of any behavioral case.

I am surprised about the brain scan you mentioned, so far as its value versus cost, and urge that your veterinarian evaluate the dog's thyroid function as well. Continue to follow the detox protocol I have posted. In addition, keep your dog calm and quiet and give him a thorough bath/shampoo to remove any remaining pesticide residue.

Have your veterinarian (and your husband's physician) read this article by veterinarians Ihor J. Basko, DVM, and Laurie Dohmen, VMD, about using the Lion's Mane mushroom to treat neurological conditions, including Parkinson's disease in humans: ahvma.org/journal/PSSJ9210.

Also check out the Guardian article entitled "Revealed: The Secret Push to Bury a Weedkiller's Link to Parkinson's Disease." From the introduction: "The global chemical giant Syngenta has sought to secretly influence scientific research regarding links between its top-selling weedkiller and Parkinson's, internal corporate documents show." (Full story: The Guardian, June 2)

(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 DR. FOX: I am having a debate with a friend, who says that my partner and I going out to rejuvenate our spirits in nature disturbs the wildlife. We are always quiet, we avoid early mornings and evenings, and our dogs never run free.

I feel that the physical and mental health benefits of viewing wildlife are important, and so is protecting that same wildlife. We can strike a balance for the benefit of all. -- P.S., San Francisco

DEAR P.S.: I appreciate your concern about this important issue. There is much to consider, from parents not teaching their children to quietly respect wild places to the "democratic" multiple-use concept for public spaces. The latter leads to littering, fire-setting and the use of noisy, polluting all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes and snowmobiles in wildlife-inhabited areas. Nationally, almost 85% of wildfires are started by humans, according to the National Park Service.

The appeals by hikers, naturalists, wildlife photographers and other lovers of nature to prohibit such vehicular traffic and other harmful human incursions -- including trapping and hunting -- are generally ignored by state wildlife management authorities. But an "eco-cratic" stewardship of wildlands would be just. It would also be in our enlightened self-interest, because our ultimate well-being is dependent upon restoring and protecting natural biodiversity.

A new study has found that human hikers create a "landscape of fear" that chases other animals into hiding. Even when hikers are unarmed and using the landscape peacefully, they can cause disruption on par with that of apex predators, according to the study published in January in Scientific Reports (A.K. Anderson, et al: "Partial COVID-19 closure of a national park reveals negative influence of low-impact recreation on wildlife spatiotemporal ecology").

Limiting the numbers of visitors to wildlife habitats during certain seasons and times of day will help reduce wildlife disturbances, which can include disruptions in feeding, breeding and care of young. The associated stress from these disruptions can increase animals' susceptibility to disease. Core areas should be strictly off-limits, allowing trail cameras, at most, for noninvasive wildlife research and monitoring.

IN MEMORIAM: ROGER PAYNE, ETHOLOGIST

I mourn with others the passing of Dr. Roger Payne, who electrified me and other scientists at an international ethology conference where he first played his recordings of the humpback whale. His "Songs of the Humpback Whale," released in 1970 as an LP, helped turn the world against whaling, making him one of my heroes in the fight for animal rights and conservation.

INSIGHTFUL INTERVIEW WITH ANIMAL RIGHTS PHILOSOPHER

On the June 15 episode of the BBC program "HARDtalk," hosted by Stephen Sackur, philosopher Peter Singer gave a memorable interview. Singer was promoting his updated book "Animal Liberation," originally published in 1975. While the book helped launch a worldwide movement, it did not stop the proliferation of cruel farmed animal factories or the numbers of animals exploited for research and other purposes, as Sackur pointed out. Ethical arguments and reason alone rarely change public opinion, especially over such matters as culturally and religiously condoned animal consumption and exploitation.

Singer is now emphasizing the harmful environmental consequences of meat consumption and of raising animals for food -- a major contributing factor to the climate crisis. As I have written, we need to go beyond concepts of animal rights and degrees of animal sentience (including their capacity to feel pain) and emphasize that it is ultimately in our own self-interest -- economically, ecologically and from a One Health perspective -- to immediately reduce our consumption of animal-derived foods. We must adopt vegan/vegetarian diets to support environmentally regenerative, low- to zero-emission, organic agriculture, and restore natural biodiversity to help prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases.

The multiple drivers of government-subsidized farmed animal factories include the livestock feed, agri-petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries and their high-paid lobbyists, all of which must become something of the past. But progress in bioethics will continue to be minimal so long as basic human rights continue to be violated worldwide.

(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: If you have been reading this column for any length of time, you know that I oppose the widespread practice of TNVR -- trap, neuter, vaccinate and release -- of unadopted cats. I oppose it on the basis of its inhumane nature, its ineffective track record in managing cat populations, its harm to wildlife and its risks to public health.

The position statement below from the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP), which amounts to an unqualified endorsement of TNVR, is a response to me calling for all concerned citizens to contact the AAFP and request that the group support the proper feeding, sheltering and medical care of these cats.

Here is a large excerpt from the statement, as posted on the group's website, catvets.com:

"The AAFP supports the humane management of free-roaming cats with the overarching goals of: sustained reductions of unowned free-roaming cat populations over time; improved cat health and well-being; mitigating negative impacts on the environment, wildlife, public health and neighborhoods; and supporting free-roaming cat caregivers and their human-animal bond.

"The AAFP supports reducing the number of free-roaming cats through humane capture, sterilization and appropriate homing ... The AAFP supports nonlethal programs for controlling free-roaming populations. Outdoor access for companion cats should focus on methods that address the goals listed above, including leash-walking and fenced yards or other enclosures when possible.

"The AAFP recognizes that the management of free-roaming cats is complex. The AAFP encourages collaboration between humane groups, conservationists, animal control authorities, caregivers and other stakeholders. The AAFP encourages more interdisciplinary research to increase evidence-based management practices."

Upon reading this statement, I sent an email to Jeff Pane, marketing and communications manager at AAFP.

DR. FOX'S EMAIL TO JEFF PANE: I have looked over the new statement that condones TNVR of feral and unadoptable cats, but find no details as to how such colonies should be cared for by those involved. Should the cats be fed? Should they be restricted to contained areas to protect wildlife? What reference citations support the implicit belief of the AAFP that TNVR reduces overall cat numbers in various communities? I would like answers at your earliest convenience to post in my nationally syndicated column.

J.P. REPLIES: The AAFP does not currently have a position statement developed on how cat colonies should be cared for; as noted in the statement, "The AAFP recognizes that the management of free-roaming cats is complex." However, in the position statement, there is a link to a resource from International Cat Care entitled "Cat Friendly Decision-Making" (icatcare.org/international-cat-care-introduces-new-cat-friendly-decision-making-documents).

DR. FOX'S REPLY, FOR READERS: All involved and concerned should consider the excellent advice and initiatives posted by International Cat Care (website above). We should also seek to involve the AAFP in making TNVR something other than a slow death sentence and life of suffering for unadopted cats, who, being released into communities across the U.S., harm wildlife and put public health at risk. It is surely incumbent upon the AAFP to develop a statement on how cat colonies should be cared for.

There is no freedom for the domestic cat in having to live as a predator, killing in order to survive.

GENE THERAPY FOR CAT POPULATION CONTROL

A single injection of an experimental gene therapy that spurs production of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) prevented pregnancy in six female cats in a study published in Nature Communications (Nature.com, June 6).

If proven safe and effective in larger studies, the gene therapy could offer a nonsurgical alternative for controlling feral cat and dog populations, particularly in under-resourced regions. Reproductive biologist David Pepin is also studying AMH as a possible human contraceptive.

(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.)