Deer are becoming more and more common in human-populated areas and are establishing themselves as a fixture in our neighborhoods. In the coming months we are going to see increased deer activity as fawning season begins in late April and May. Depending on your viewpoint, they’re a nuisance and garden thief, or they’re an attractive addition to your local community. In either case, there are some do’s and don’ts that you should keep in mind.
First off, do not feed them or do anything to attract them to your home. For one thing, not all of your human neighbors would appreciate it – particularly those with gardens. And any food that you might put out would also attract other animals that you might not want to have nearby, such as mice or rats. The deer in our backyards are feeding themselves very nicely and do not need your help. In fact, we do not want them to become even more accustomed to human habitats than they already are. For their own sake, we want them to be cautious around humans and avoid us. Another reason to keep them at a distance is that they carry parasites and diseases (ticks, mange, lyme disease, leptospirosis, salmonella and giardia, to name a few) that are contagious to us and our pets1. Your pets belong in your yard; the deer may visit from time to time but do not need to be regulars. In fact, it’s a bad idea to let them become regulars.
In the spring you might encounter a fawn that is bedded down in a corner of your yard or in a wooded area. This is common. The fawn is fine, you should leave it alone and keep your pets and children away from it. Unlike a lot of other animals, deer do not keep their unweaned young with them 24/7; they will leave fawns in a safe, quiet place while they graze nearby2. So, if you see a fawn, just assume that it is most likely not orphaned or abandoned and does not need your help. If you are concerned about it, set up a camera and watch it for a day or two to see if the deer returns. If she doesn’t, call a wildlife rescue organization.
Summing it up, deer are cute and attractive animals. Even though they live close to us, they are still wild animals and its better for all concerned if we leave them alone and admire them from a distance.
Does CBD have any medical uses, and can it be used safely for pet dogs?
What is CBD?
Cannabidiol (CBD) is a naturally occurring chemical substance that is an active ingredient in marijuana. It is not a narcotic and has no psycho-active effects – unlike THC, the other major compound found in marijuana and hemp. In the past year, it has been extensively marketed as a beneficial treatment for a number of health issues and has turned into a huge industry. You can’t drive past a strip mall without seeing stores advertising CBD products.
What is it used for?
CBD products are available in capsules, pills, topical creams, lotions, oils and tinctures, food additives, smoothies, gummies, vaping products and pretty much any other form that can be taken internally or applied to skin1. They are marketed as treatments for a huge array of ailments, including anxiety, PTSD, chronic pain, arthritis, cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease, autism and Alzheimer’s disease2,3, in both humans and animals.
Does it work?
Does it? We don’t know.
There is clinical evidence that CBD is effective in treating some forms of childhood epilepsy. And early studies suggest that CBD has some effect on insomnia and anxiety in humans, and in treating anxiety in humans. Early studies indicated that it may have some use as an anti-inflammatory4. However, later testing showed no pain-relieving or anti-inflammatory effects in dogs5.
Recent testing has also shown that CBD was not effective in reducing anxiety in dogs, either alone or in combination with other medications. In fact, it seems to reduce the effectiveness of other medications when used in combination with them6.
The FDA has issued warnings to several companies, ordering them to stop making unproven claims about CBD’s effectiveness. However, these warnings have little effect, and the FDA is essentially playing whack-a-mole in trying to reign in consumer fraud regarding CBD.
Adding to the confusion is that dogs have entirely different digestive systems than humans and produce different digestive enzymes. Products designed for human consumption don not always work with dogs.
What are the issues with it?
First of all, there’s a serious lack of testing. And much of CBD testing has been of questionable quality, relying on owners’ and veterinarians’ impressions of effectiveness rather than objective testing. An AVMA spokesman estimates that the placebo effect of CBD studies can be as high as 40% 7. As discussed above, when controlled testing takes place, efficacy claims are placed in serious doubt.
Being an unregulated product, there is no way of knowing whether the contents of a pill, cream or other form of CBD actually match what’s on the label8. Further, its available in a wide range of forms. We don’t know it should be administered or what dosage may be effective – if it has any effect at all.
We do know that it can cause liver damage and that it can affect other medications. It can also cause mood changes and stomach upset9.
What’s the bottom line?
CBD has some interesting possibilities, but we have to wait for the scientific process to prove or disprove the marketing claims. It is probably safe in that it won’t cause harm to your pets, although side effects have been noted, but we have no reason to believe that it will be effective in treating any physical, emotional or mental conditions. And we don’t know how it may interact with other drugs, how it should be administered, what form it should take and what dosage is needed. Further, until it is regulated in some form, we have no way to know what’s in those pills or gummies that are sold online or over the counter.
My advice: If you think your dog needs medication for some condition, talk to your vet.
Mejia, S., Duerr, F. M., Griffenhagen, G. and McGrath, S. (2021). Evaluation of the Effect of Cannabidoil on Naturally Occurring Osteoarthritis-Association Pain: A Pilot Study in Dogs. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 57 (2), 81-90. doi: 5326/JAAHA-MS-7119
Morris, E. M., Kitts-Morgan, S. E., Spangler, D., McLeod, K. R., Costa, J. H. and Harmon, D. L. (2020), The Impact of Feeding Cannabidoil (CBD) Containing Treats on Canine Response to a Noise-Induced Fear Test. Frontiers in Veterinary Science (2020). doi: 3389/fvets.2020.569565
Working at an animal shelter, you see a steady stream of dogs that have had their ears cropped and tails docked. These are often pit mixes, or dogs that resemble pits regardless of their breed, with their ears cropped to satisfy some previous owners’ wishes. The ears are sometimes cut so severely that they are reduced to tiny points, termed a “battle crop”. Tail docking seems to be done somewhat less often and I have seen it done at random lengths – we have gotten dogs with tails cut so short as to be almost non-existent.
Of course, this “surgery” is done at the behest of breeders to make their dogs more marketable and to satisfy breed standards, or by owners to satisfy some desire to change their dog’s appearance. At any rate, this subject is hotly debated by animal welfare organizations, breed clubs, veterinary organizations and dog fanciers in general.
Why is it done is the first place?
The practice began centuries ago, based on an ancient use of war dogs, a 5th century understanding of infectious disease, a 17th century understanding of religion and an 18th century tax code.
The Romans believed that docking dogs’ tails (and clipping their tongues) was a means of protecting them from rabies infection1 (Mills, Robbins, von Keyerlingk). Dogs’ ears were cropped throughout the ancient Mediterranean civilizations as a means of keeping them from being harmed in fighting or hunting large game. The puritans of colonial America docked dogs’ tails in the belief that they were possessed by demons2.
Figure 1 Statue of Molossian dog with cropped ears. Believed to come from Epirus, 2nd Century BCE
One of the more practical historic reasons for tail docking goes back to 18th century England, in which it was determined that working dogs would not be taxed, but that a tax would be imposed on pet and hunting dogs. It was further determined that working dogs would be identified by their docked tails. This created an incentive for tail docking, although wealthier people who kept hunting dogs made a point of leaving their tails intact to demonstrate that they could afford to pay the tax3.
Over the centuries, these practices of cropping ears and docking tails became traditions and in Victorian England they were incorporated in written standards when the Kennel Club was established and developed the concept of dog breeds and their physical criteria for canine perfection4. These established standards were adopted by the American Kennel Club (AKC) upon its establishment in 1884. The AKC first published conformation standards for purebred dogs in 1929, and continues to do so today, including requirements for ear cropping and tail docking5.
Why is it done now?
In many countries, it isn’t done. Ear cropping was prohibited in England in 1899 and tail docking became highly restricted under the Animal Welfare Act of 2006. These surgeries are prohibited for cosmetic reasons in the European Union, Australia, and a total of 40 developed countries; and are highly restricted in others. In fact, there is currently a movement in the UK to close a loophole in their laws by banning the import of cropped and docked dogs from countries where this is still legal6. The United States is distinctive as having no restrictions on these practices.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)7 and The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)8 are actively opposed to cropping and docking dogs’ ears and tails unless necessitated by illness or injury. In fact, the ASPCA requested that the AKC remove cropped ears from breed standards as early as 1895, and the AVMA made a similar request in 19769. That said, a number of veterinarians still perform these surgeries, possibly reasoning that they can at least ensure that the operations are performed safely.
The docking and cropping of dogs is primarily championed by breed clubs and show organizations in the United States. Although the American Kennel Club has no rules requiring these surgeries or prohibiting the showing of dogs with natural ears and tails, it has published a position statement stating, “These are important in not only defining and preserving breed character, but also to enhance good health.” That same position paper goes on to deny that cropping and docking surgeries are done for “aesthetic reasons”10 , ignoring the fact that AKA standards for showing dog breeds only address aesthetics. In fact, the only justifications providing for cropping and docking in early AKC publications are to give dogs a more pleasing appearance. To this day the AKC judging guidelines include clear standards for ear and tail modification in select breeds11. And various breed clubs have published statements advocating cropping and docking dogs12, and standards for showing dogs that recommend severe penalties for failing to dock tails or crop ears13.
Proponents of ear cropping have stated, without any evidence, that ear cropping for specific breeds reduces the risk of ear infection later in life. The fact is that although some breeds have a higher incidence of ear infection than others, and that the shape of the ear has not been shown to be a factor. In fact, breeds such as German Shepherds with naturally pricked or erect ears, have been found to suffer from ear infections more frequently than others with floppy ears14.
Ear cropping has also been rationalized as a means of preventing injury to a dog, on the basis that a working dog’s ear can be wounded or injured. The thinking behind this is performing surgery on the ears of all dogs in about 20 particular breeds will prevent a small fraction of them from needing some veterinary care later in life. If you take time to examine some breed associations’ justifications for injury prevention, you will find that the possibility of “injury” is associated with organized dog fighting, which was the basis for modifying the ears of breeds such as cane corsos, Staffordshire terriers, and others.
Injury prevention is also used as a rationalization for tail docking, on the theory that some 50 breeds are at risk for injuring their tails in the normal course of work or play, so amputating their tails shortly after birth prevents some of them from needing veterinary care later in life. And yet, this thinking is applied only to specific breeds, ignoring the fact that related breeds or breeds with similar working lives are left with full tails: Schipperke’s tails are docked close to their bodies, while Keeshonds have full natural tails. Pembroke corgis’ tails are docked so close as to be nonexistent, while Cardigan corgis’ tails are left alone. German shorthair pointers’ tails are docked while English pointers’ are not. A Rottweiler fancier once gave me a heated lecture about the need for their tails to be removed because they were once used at cart dogs. He was unable to explain why Bernese Mountain Dogs and Great Swiss Mountain Dogs, which are still used to haul carts, are left with full natural tails.
This advocacy of tail docking as a means of preventing future injury has been thoroughly debunked. A survey conducted by the AVMA found that tail injuries requiring surgery are extremely rare and are experienced by only one out of 500 dogs. The study calculated that a dog has a 0.23 percent chance of needing tail surgery any time in its life15, 16. A Scottish study of undocked spaniel dogs concluded that it would be necessary for 230 dogs to have their tails proactively amputated in order to prevent injury to one of them17. Another rationalization for tail docking is that it is done on puppies without anesthesia when they are only a few days old, and they don’t feel pain because their nervous systems are undeveloped18. This has also been thoroughly debunked. Studies have shown that they experience severe pain during the surgery19, 20; but at that age they are simply unable to communicate it as well as older dogs21.
The fact is that these surgeries are done solely for cosmetic reasons, to satisfy breed standards that were established two centuries ago and have been discarded by the country that originated them as being unnecessary, harmful and cruel. Dog fancier publications from as early as the 1850s denounce these as cruel practices done for purely cosmetic reasons22 and publications from the early days of Kennel Clubs list dogs’ appearance as the only reasons for cropping and docking23 . And the notion that these surgeries are needed to preserve a historic or traditional function for the dogs is simply ridiculous. There are innumerable cruel and inhumane practices that were once justified as “tradition” and are now outlawed.
Is docking and cropping harmful?
In a word, yes.
For starters: It is unnecessary surgery. In addition to the pain and trauma to the dogs, these procedures entail the risk of applying anesthesia, post-operative complications and infection24. Tail docking has been shown to have long-lasting effects on the dogs’ musculature and development, affecting the use of their hind quarters and elimination. And early trauma has been demonstrated to have long-term effects on dogs’ emotional lives and fear responses25.
Perhaps the greatest damage caused by these surgeries is the effect that is has on dogs’ ability to socialize and communicate. In the years since cropping and docking were adopted, we have learned that dogs have highly sophisticated means of non-verbal communication involving their postures and facial expressions. Ear and tail position and movement are key factors in their ability to express themselves to others26. By removing or cutting them, we are rendering them incapable of socializing with other dogs, leaving them vulnerable to aggression or outright attack.
These pictures are of two young pit bulls that were recently placed in a shelter from the same household. The one on the left, who was given a “battle crop” by a previous owner, is left with his ears permanently fixed in an upright and forward position, giving other dogs a clear signal that he is aggressive and about to attack. His younger brother, on the right, has natural ears that give him a softer expression and allow a range of communication with other dogs. A recent study found that humans have a natural tendency to consider dogs with cropped ears as being more aggressive and dangerous than those with natural ears27.
Figure 2 Side by side comparison of young pitbull terriers. The dog on the left has a “battle crop” and the dog on the right has natural ears.
Similarly, dogs use their tails to convey their moods and intentions. The position of the tails conveys detailed information about their emotional states, ranging from relaxed and confident to fearful. The simple act of wagging their tails communicates information to us and other dogs about how they are feeling and how they are likely to react to situations, including showing friendliness, willingness to play, fear, anxiety or submissive behavior. By removing them, we limit their ability to get along peacefully and happily with other dogs. We limit their social development and put them at risk.
In spite of claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that ear cropping or tail docking has any beneficial effects, or prevents illness or injury. In fact, there is growing evidence that these procedures entail risks to the dogs and can have long-lasting adverse physical effects. The popular assertion that tail docking does not cause very young puppies to experience pain or trauma has been thoroughly refuted. And the notion that performing veterinary surgery on an entire breed of dogs in order to avoid veterinary care for a small fraction of them defies logic. These surgical procedures also severely inhibit dogs’ abilities to interact with each other safely and peacefully. At this point, there is a legitimate question as to why the American breed associations still advocate these cosmetic procedures in the face of all the evidence that should convince them to stop, along with the breeders and fanciers in the rest of the developed world.
A last word: In colonial America, ear cropping was a common punishment given to people for petty crimes. This practice was later abandoned as being cruel and inhumane. Why would it be considered overly cruel for human criminals, but acceptable for dogs that have committed no offense?
Mills, K. E., Robbins, J. & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., 2016, Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public Awareness and Perceptions, PLoS One 11(6), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131
Cameron, N., Lederer, R., Bennett, D. & Parkin, T (2014). The Prevalence of Tail Injuries in Working and non-Working Breed Dogs Visiting Veterinary Practices in Scotland. Veterinary Record 3 (174), doi: 10.1136/vr.102042.
There has been great deal of interest and reporting about the EPA’s report on dog illnesses and fatalities linked to the Seresto flea and tick collar. Like most dog owners, I’m interested in this reporting. But I’m bothered by the reporting for much different reasons than most others whose comments I’ve seen.
The story, which first appeared in USA Today on March 2nd, (www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/03/02/seresto-dog-cat-collars-found-harm-pets-humans-epa-records-show/4574753001/ ), states that 1,700 pet deaths have been attributed to Seresto collars. As stated in the article “Seresto, one of the most popular flea and tick collars in the country, has been linked to hundreds of pet deaths, tens of thousands of injured animals and hundreds of harmed humans, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documents show. Yet the EPA has done nothing to inform the public of the risks.” The article provides a link to the EPA’s website, containing an aggregate summary of pet deaths attributed to Seresto collars from 2012 through 2020. The report contains information about the total number of reported illnesses and deaths, along with reported severity of the illnesses. However, that’s all the information that was provided. The article doesn’t provide any amplifying information about the data collection.
For example, the article provides a link to the aggregate reporting of pesticide incidents attributed to Seresto, but does not state the source of those incident reports. There is no explanation as to whether the incidents were reported by private citizens, veterinarians, state agencies or the manufacturer. Every one of these potential sources can contribute to the EPA’s database, with varying degrees of reliability ( www.epa.gov/pesticide-incidents/introduction-pesticide-incidents ). And, although part of the data collection for incident reporting, the aggregate database cited in the article contains no information about the probability that the incident was accurately reported.
Although the article questions the safety of Seresto collars, it fails to consider how many reported incidents may be inaccurate. Or how many deaths and illnesses are attributable to other causes. Or how many reported incidents are the result of incorrect use. For example, one active ingredient in Seresto collars, imidacloprid, has been found to have no adverse side effects when applied topically, but is extremely toxic when ingested ( www.dogaware.com/articles/wdjmdr1.html ). This raises the possibility that dogs licked or chewed on a collar, or that the insecticide was ingested by excessive grooming or licking a hot spot, rather than becoming ill through normal use.
All this is not to say that the Seresto collars should not be re-examined for safety concerns and that mitigations may be needed. And there is clear evidence that the EPA has been lax in enforcement in recent years. But the article took one data element that is used to evaluate product safety, and drew somewhat inflammatory and potentially misleading conclusions from it. We need to be mindful that this is only part of the story.