Weekend inspiration

Can you believe this poodle is 14 years old? Looking good.

Its yet another wet Sydney weekend downunder, and we're blogging late because a) we had to nip out this morning so I whisked Phil over to the Easter Dog Parade to check out the action and b) I've started working on a project which involves a fair bit of reading and research. So today was a blur of Endnote, Web of Science and juggling documents - through which most of the household slept, blissful in their ignorance.

How do you tackle big projects? Some people I know seem to be carried by inspiration, others kick and scream all the way, but the ones who seem to generate consistently excellent work are masters of routine. So I enjoyed this post on how these types get things done.

Coincidentally I had just learned that the novelest Haruki Murakami is also a runner in Damon Young's book How to Think About Exercise. I'd never really considered the philosophy of exercise before, and this book was a beautiful introduction.

Having gone to the gym twice in my life (once in the mid-90s, another valiant effort made more recently), Young articulated my until-then-undefined unease about gyms: they really are based on a type of flawed dualism.

To overcome the sedentary lifestyle, many turn to the gym...To begin, this encourages the idea that mental and physical work are somehow at odds: different worlds, with different uniforms and music. In the office, I work with my mind; in Fitness First, with my body. ...But exercising only for health can worsen the very dualism that led to a sedentary lifestyle in the first place; we behave as if we were minds servicing bodies, like a sports repairman fixing a raquet" (p9-10).

Well said! And forget the uniform thing. I was disappointed to discover that even in inner Sydney, sequined leotards are frowned upon. But the intention of Young is not to discourage exercise - far from it. He points out that the ancient philosophers were sold on exercise.

For Socrates, philosophy...is promoted by exercise. 'Many people's minds are so invaded by forgetfulness, despondency, irritability and insanity because of poor physical condition,' Socrates argues, 'that their knowledge is actually being driven out of them'. (p14).

Walking the dog, then, is good for one's character and brain - as well as the dog! 

Anyway, if that's too much to contemplate and you are committed to couch-surfing this weekend, you might want to consider modifying your furniture to suit its primary devotees - the felines in your house. I hope someone from Ikea is paying attention to this brilliant design concept.

Do pets have bucket lists?

Phil at the beach.

We hadn’t considered the question until this week, when we were forwarded links about a woman (Riina Cooke) who drew up a bucket liston behalf of her dog (Romeo) when he was diagnosed with cancer.

The concept of a bucket list is very odd when you think about it. The assumption is that most days we go about our routine lives being unfulfilled. But the threat of impending death tends to focus our priorities and, if we have time, we can do all those things we wanted to do…typically bungee jumping, learning to cook marshmellows or writing a note to someone who changed our lives [NB these aren’t from my list, there’re from here].

Once we’ve done it, it is ticked off the list – and we move onto the next item.

When you think about it, it’s a very bizarre take on life. The value of living, it suggests, is in those intermittent peaks that can’t be anything more than transient. The meaning of life is reduced to ticking boxes. And what happens if you get to the end of the list – can you die happily? I’m not sure there’s any evidence that someone who skydived, learned to iron underwater and met Bill Clinton/the Queen/insert influential figure here dies any more at peace than someone who didn’t.

The concept of a bucket list applied to animals is interesting and dare I say controversial. How do we know, as proxies, what our pets would include on that list? (Do you really know for sure what would be on your best friend or mother’s bucket list? What about your partner’s? You might be able to write a list, but check yours against theirs.)  

Items on human bucket lists tend to be things we’ve never done before – but how do we know a pet will enjoy something they’ve never done before, except by extrapolating from what we do know? Would your cat really love to run free in the bush? Not necessarily. Does your dog want to travel? Not all of them do.

I had some wonderful clients whose dog was diagnosed with a brain tumour. They were offered radiotherapy but the prognosis was very poor. Instead, his owners decided to make several trips to his favourite beach and enjoy quality time with him until it was time to go. It wasn’t a list as such – more like a plan.

In Romeo’s case the bucket list was a way for his owner to structure and record their time together before he was euthanased due to advanced metastatic cancer. They enjoyed breakfast in bed and she spent time giving him massages. A lot of dogs would enjoy those experiences – and many would be happy to do that every day.

But there are one or two things on the list that a dog might take or leave. Having your photo in a fire truck or police car. Most pets aren’t big on having their picture taken. So seeking an elaborate photo opp may not be ideal (if it involves time spent together, and a car trip which the dog happens to love – which I suspect it did in Romeo’s case - that’s a different story). The point is that it’s about the journey, not ticking the box. It would be unfortunate if copy-cats tried to out-Facebook each other by posting pics of terminally ill pets posing in novel settings without considering the animal’s experience.

One other item that was controversial was the feeding of a cheeseburger to the dog knowing diarrhoea would be theresult – but the eating would be enjoyed. If we’re feeding a gourmet food item that a dog’s gastrointestinal tract will tolerate, that’s one thing. But if it’s going to cause discomfort, should it be on the list?

There are positive spin-offs to the bucket-list approach – in this case Romeo’s owners made an attempt to think about all of the things he enjoyed, and prioritised spending time with him. Clearly they had a close bond and focused on his quality of life.

But it raises the question of whether we really capable of generating a suitable “bucket list” (if such a thing can ever be suitable) for non-humans? When you think about what might be on your pet’s bucket list, the activities they most enjoy, you might come up with some odd entries. Given the chance, Phil delights in sniffing and snorting the excretions of any other dog and he will do it for hours. If I am honest, I am pretty sure he would prefer that to some of the activities I would pick for him.

Cooke is honest: she admits that the bucket list was a coping mechanism for her.

“I was just so upset for the first few days [after the diagnosis], I needed to do something to occupy my mind. I decided to put together a list of fun things for us to together,” she said.

In Romeo’s case, despite all of the elaborate arrangements his owner made, she felt his favourite activity was eating a steak dinner. And that is just it. Making your pets happy doesn’t need to involve an event manager – the simple, routine things are probably more important.

Three things I learned: rethinking flea control (or, HELP! there’s a biomass in my carpet!)

Fleas are the number 1 cause of pruritis (itchiness) in dogs and cats that I see in practice. By a mile.

Not sure if you’re noticed, but fleas are going INSANE this month and they can be a nightmare to control. One of the biggest challenges of managing fleas is managing the expectations of owners – and maybe vets too.

Fleas caught when I bathed Phil and flea combed him. (He is on several reputable flea products - how can it happen? Read on).

ProfessorMichael Dryden, or Dr Flea as he is known in the business (not to be confused with Flea from the Red Hot Chilli Peppers), is a world expert on fleas and has played a pivotal role in development of some of the more commonly used antiparasiticides (say that with a mouth full of cereal). He presented a webinar last week on flea biology which was entertaining. (The webinar was hosted by MSD Animal Health, and it should be declared that MSD has just launched a new flea product in Australia).

You would think vets would get sick of continuing education on fleas, but actually they are one of the commonest woes of our patients, causing everything from alopecia (hair loss) to fulminant dermatitis to behavioural changes and lack of sleep (for the owner and the animal). One of my goals in life is to fight fleas more effectively - but that ain't no humble goal.

Dr Flea's take on fleas is a bit different to others I have heard. I often instruct owners to treat their environment because fleas on the animal represent the tip of the iceberg of infestation.

Dr Flea says this: By the time a pet owner notices fleas, immature flea stages have been developing in the home for the previous 1-2 months. (The fleas came from pupae, which came from larvae, which came from eggs 1-2 months before).

The “biomass” (what a creepy concept) of immature flea stages in the home environment will continue to re-infest pets. Most of us are in denial about the biomass in our carpet. And if the word biomass doesn't make you feel like Sigourney Weaver taking on aliens, I don't know what will. It elevates the battle against fleas to intergalatic warfare.

As pet owners we want the infestation over yesterday (amen) but it isn’t biologically possible to eliminate that biomass overnight. You can kill the fleas on your pet, but more young fleas will emerge from this biomass, continuing to do so for 3-8 weeks, up to three months in some homes. Up to 95 per cent of the biomass will develop and complete its emergence within about two months.

If the product you are using effectively prevents flea reproduction, you need around a three month timeline (with variation between individual households due to temperature and household conditions).

With the release of decent spot-on treatments in the 1990s we moved away from blasting homes with chemicals to using products to break the flea life cycle, either killing fleas before they reproduce on animals or directly inhibiting reproduction.

The initial speed of kill of any residual insecticide is directly proportion to its concentration. The longer the product is on, the longer the speed of kill (the residual speed of kill) – until eventually the speed of kill slows down enough to allow fleas to lay viable eggs before they die (they only need 24-48 hours).

This is the reproductive break point. The ideal product kills fleas before they lay eggs, or actually destroys eggs.

Dr Flea went into great detail about the way he performed flea studies, a methodology he has refined over decades. So where do flea researchers go for their field studies?

Tampa,Florida, it turns out. This is the flea capital of the US. Temperatures vary from 27 to 35 degrees C with 75-85% humidity. Flea heaven. Some of the infestations he described (>250 adult fleas visible on pets) made me wince. 

Even Dr Flea said it isn’t ethical to use placebos in his studies because the infestations in this area are life-threatening (heavily infested animals die from anaemia or flea-borne infectious disease).

He looks for fleas in an interesting manner. He combs certain areas – for example the dorsal midline, base of the tail, lateral thorax on left and right and the inguinal region. The number of fleas he sees in these areas represent 23 per cent of the total adult flea burden on that animal (try this at home). 

For those of you who feel like fleas are worse than ever you might be on to something. Dr Flea has observed a gradual steady increase in flea infestations since 1997. He added that no flea product can kill every single flea before it can feed.

You can read more about Dr Flea's research on fleas on his website which is a treasure trove of fact sheets, flea research info and even videos of fleas if you so desire. (He is also a keen hiker and photographer).

When animals attack: are shark nets based on good science?

An endangered grey nurse shark. Up close, they look like less Jaws and more Gary Larson's Far Side.

Here’s a little insight. I am scared of sharks. Not just in the ocean. If I am flicking through a book and a turn the page over and see a shark, I recoil. Fortunately, during my day to day activities (working at my desk, working in a clinic, all on land) I rarely (i.e. never) encounter them and I don’t even give them a chance since I have a policy of avoiding ocean swimming.

I watched Jaws at an impressionable age. So terrified was I of the vision of a shark rushing out at me from below the water that I refrained from taking a bath for some years after. This is no minor deal – anyone who knows me knows that I practically live in the bath. But for a while there (and I was a child) I convinced myself that the plug was a black shark eye, and just couldn’t go there.

Yet more people are killed driving to or from the beach, or by drowning, than by shark attack. I don’t avoid cars or motor vehicles and I will (now) happily jump in a body of water like a bath or even a swimming pool. According to the stats, I am modifying my behaviour to avoid the thing that is least likely to kill me.

This chart was present at the talk last night. (NB I don't have an official source for this, so please don't take these figures on face value - peer reviewed data is always more reliable. But what this DOES illustrate is the relative risk. If you want to know more about how Aussie's died last year, see the Australian Bureau of Statistics).

I share this insight because it illustrates that our response to fear can be irrational. In my case the response wasn’t harmful (thank goodness for showers – and lucky Sharknado wasn’t released until I was an adult), but it can be.

When someone is bitten by a shark in Australia, fatally, the response – historically – has been to go and kill the perpetrator. There’s an element of vengeance as well as a sense that the shark hunters are protecting us from this rogue menace.

In Australia, the use of shark nets and drum lines to prevent sharks from munching swimmers, divers and fisher-people has been the subject of very emotive debate, particularly in Western Australia where Government policy around shark culling has come under enormous criticism.

Whether you are marine-oriented or not, it’s a brilliant example of the way we react when human-animal interactions go badly – for us (I don't know any Homo sapiens with a paralysing fear of spear-fisherpersons).

Last night the Sea Life Conservation Fund hosted a panel discussion about sharks, shark nets, risk and risk perception and it was fascinating. I admit to being one of those naïve individuals who assumed that a netted beach was something protected by a net barrier that extended headland to headland, 24/7, keeping sharks on the other side.

How wrong I was. From the DPI’s Dr Bob Creese, we learned that the nets, on 51 beaches in NSW, are around 6 metres high in 12 metres of water – extending for around 150 metres each. They are positioned around 500m offshore. The rationale is that most sharks will swim at about this level at this depth – and so other fish can swim over, and bottom-dwellers and rays can go under. So they do NOT prevent shark access to swimming beaches! Sharks, if they want to, can swim right over the top. Of course they don’t always and the nets do catch sharks. Moreover the nets are in place at least 14 days per month – not every day. 

They also catch what is euphemistically known as “by-catch”, a word with similar connotations to “collateral damage” used by some Governments to describe the death of civilians during military operations. By-catch refers to your non-man-eating sharks, dolphins, whales, dugongs, turtles etc. that become caught in nets. Under the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program the nets must be checked regularly for by-catch – every 72-96 hours. But that means an animal can struggle for up to 96 hours – long enough to hang itself in an entangled net.

Shark nets are killers of sharks, but they are indiscriminate killers – and endangered species, including the grey nurse shark of which there are only an estimated 1200 in the wild, get trapped and die.

Shark bite survivor Lisa Mondy couldn’t be present last night, but she wrote a letter describing her experience of being attacked while swimming back toward her wakeboard at Jimmy’sbeach on a crystal clear day. The response from the media, she said, was almost as scary as the attack.

She was and remains traumatised by that event in 2011, but was concerned that the response to a shark attack often consists of “punishing a species for a random, probably mistaken, act of nature” and urged people to analyse events scientifically, rather than maintain unfocused vengeance. She also cited a figure that I found interesting and somewhat alarming - 40% of sharks are caught on the beach side of nets! 

Dr Chris Neff supported that point, and provided background for the dominating rogue shark theory, and the history of nets in Australia. He suggested that when we analyse shark fatalities in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s – many “fatal” attacks were survivable by today’s standards – we just didn’t have the antibiotics, blood transfusions, high-tech ICU gear and reliable transport to hospital. Many victims died within the days or week after an attack rather than in the water. 

Professor David Booth took an ecological lens to the problem. In ecosystems the big sharks are what we call “apex predators”, and they play a role in keeping the mesopredators in check. Remove the apex predators and the meso predators over-populate and eat everything in sight, changing the whole ecosystem.

According to this paper, "Mesopredator outbreaks often lead to declining prey populations, sometimes destabilising communities and driving local extinctions." 

The biggest threat to the world’s sharks is overfishing, and there’s plenty of that, but Booth reminded us that we remove sharks from their ecosystems to our own detriment – we’re robbing ourselves of potential food sources too.

Alexia Wellbelove, from Humane Society International, revealed that from 1930 to April 2013, shark nets had had a huge impact on the marine ecosystem, trapping 15506 non-target species, catching more “by-catch” than sharks.

In other words, there is no definitive data that shark nets protect us – but concrete data that they are detrimental to wildlife.

So why keep on with the nets? They build confidence (even if it’s false). As a friend of mine brilliantly wrote:

This is the basis of the famous dread factor that Paul Slovic described in his classic works on risk perception. It doesn't matter how low the real risk or likelihood of harm is, what matters is what you think the likelihood is.  And there are so many differences between what is technically and what is emotionally the likelihood.  Unexpected harm arises from the actions people take to protect themselves from the perceived but improbable harm.  With sharks, the netting probably does a lot of harm for little benefit.  However, since the nets went in no shark (I repeat not one single shark) has been seen in my street - so I am definitely not in favour of removing those nets. 

Its someone puzzling in Australia that when a shark bite incident occurs, the Government feels compelled to do something.

Dr Neff, with the support of the Sea Life Conservation Fund, Sydney Sea Life Aquarium and the University of Sydney, surveyed 674 people at Sydney Aquarium (42 per cent were born in Australia, 58 per cent born outside of Australia) and has shared some new results with SAT.

After the talk I walked out of the venue and ran into this giant model of a great white shark. Despite the fact that this is an inanimate object, that I was on land, and in an environment where models of sea life abounded, I gasped audibly.

He was particularly looking to see if viewing sharks in the aquarium changed people’s perceptions and it did.

Most (77%) either didn’t feel frightened of sharks, or felt moderately frightened (23% were still extremely frightened). But seeing the sharks helped. I can attest to that. Once you look at these sharks, they aren’t nearly as scary (I went as far as diving with them at Manly Aquarium, which was adrenalin-fuelled but turned out to be a not-at-all scary experience).

My visit to Manly Aquarium to confront some of my Jaws issues (as opposed to issues with my jaws).

Interestingly, when asked who was to blame when sharks bite, only 2-4% blamed the Government; 6-8% blamed the shark; 9-11% weren’t sure, 33-40% said no one and 38-44% blamed the swimmer. Makes sense. If we go into the water, as land mammals, we have to assume some risk, don’t we? 

Increased levels of fear were not associated with increased levels of blame.

Policymakers often react to shark bite incidents because they are concerned they will be blamed. But the above results suggest that this might be an unfounded fear (though it would be interesting to survey non-aquarium goers, as I suspect some of the most diligent shark-o-phobes (selachophobes) would avoid the aquarium like the plague).

But certainly those surveyed had differing views about how Governments should respond to shark bites.

Around 4% thought shark hunts were a valid response, 9% would provide more shark nets, 18% would leave the shark alone and 69% felt compelled to educate the public. Around 87% of those surveyed preferred Government responses that did not kill sharks. But it is interesting that 13% of aquarium visitors did – so the surveyed population, as Dr Neff pointed out, aren’t “shark-huggers”. 

Am I a shark hugger? Well, to some extent last night yes.

Confession: I hugged this shark. 

Someone was dressed in a shark suit and I hugged them. I've not lost my sometimes irrational fear of sharks. But I do have rational concerns about fear and know that the gap between percieved risk and actual risk can be enormous. If we're making life and death decisions based on risk assessments - and this should apply to any species - we need to base them on good science, not hysteria. If we don't, we risk doing much more harm than good.

Activities for animal lovers

Tuesday night in? I don't think so! It may be winter, but there is plenty on for pet and animal lovers.

Yesterday's post on the vetting of potential adopters by shelters generated some amazing discussion...some on the blog and some people just wanted to email me and let me know their feelings. It is clear that the case discussed yesterday was not isolated, but its also clear that there is a real need for vetting out unsuitable owners (and yes, they are out there). To continue the discussion, scroll down and add a comment. And thanks everyone for keeping it civilised...I know this is an emotive topic.

On another note if you thought Tuesday nights were quiet, think again. If you're based in Sydney there are a few things you might like to try.

The City of Sydney Council is hosting a workshop on "Petiquette" tonight, focusing on living with pets in strata accommodation and keeping the peace with the neighbours. There are still spots available so if you're free from 6.30-8 get register here.

If wildlife if your thing, make your way to Sydney Aquarium for an insight into the "great shark debate" - should be be culling sharks? What are shark nets and drum lines? What are they supposed to do? What impact do these have on marine life?

The evening will include short talks by marine ecologist Professor Dave Booth (UTS), shark incident policy researcher Chris Neff (Sydney University), shark bite victim Lisa Mondy, lobbyist Alexia Wellbelove (Humane Society International) and CEO of Australian Aerial Patrol Harry Mitchell. To register for tonight's event, click here.

Tomorrow Sydney University is sharing some great ideas. Professors Sarah Whatmore and Mike Michael [as the owner of a cat named Michael, I particularly like that name] will be charing a seminar entitled "More than Human".

Professor Lesley Head will be discussing the distinctive capacities of plants and the implications of these for animal studies; Associate Professor Dale Dominey-Howes will talk about animal-human relationships in natural disaster contexts, and Associate Professor Kane Race will discuss the instrumentalisation of animals in police powers with specific reference to drug detection laws. For more info and to register, visit here.

Anthrax is a fascinating disease, a feared biological weapon and even the name of a heavy metal band. On Wednesday evening, Dr James Stark (Leeds University) will discuss the social history of anthrax.

For more info and to register, visit here.

This Saturday don't miss the Good Dog Easter Dog Parade in Balmain. For details, check the Facebook page here.

Vetting potential owners: are shelters doing themselves a disservice?

Is it possible to over-vet potential owners?

I suspect this post will be controversial, but I want to talk about a discussion I had on the weekend which concerned me.  The discussion was with a client and friend who several months ago lost the family dog. The dog, let’s call him Frank, was adopted from a shelter 15 years ago, and loved by all members of the family. When he became ill they nursed and cared for him, and when it was time to say goodbye had him euthanased peacefully at home. 

During Frank’s senior years I had a lot of contact with this family. If they were concerned they called or brought Frank in. He was cared for incredibly well. They were all devastated by his loss.

When they contacted me recently and told me they were looking for another dog, but wanted to do the right thing and adopt one from a shelter, I recommended several shelters. I was so pleased that this loving family had another vacancy for a dog in need of a home, knowing that he or she will be well cared for.

I expected my next contact with the family would involve examination of their new pet. Unfortunately not. I received a concerned phone call, instead, asking “Are there not many animals in shelters in Australia?”.

“Ummm, no…” I replied. “There are many needing homes.”

Well, turns out this family weren’t deemed suitable by at least one shelter.

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud shelters for “vetting” potential adopters as they need to ensure that animals do not go through the trauma of re-surrender. But this is not the first case where I feel the vetting has gone too far.

At one shelter they were required to fill out a two page questionnaire, and then undertake an interview. The shelter staff noted that only three out of four family members were present and they were told that their application would not be considered unless all members were present and 100 per cent committed to adoption.

They were also chastised for ticking the box suggesting they would prefer a toilet trained dog. Their previous dog, Frank, was toilet trained but his hit rate was far from 100 per cent. The day they adopted him he passed a stool on the bed, and as dementia set in later in life he would toilet in the odd place. The family took this in their stride. It wasn’t an issue and if a new dog did the same, they wouldn’t re-surrender or punish the dog. They ticked a box expressing a preference. And I’ve got to say, I’d tick the same box. I'd prefer a toilet trained dog, but I'd hardly ditch someone who left a surprise stool in my lounge room.

There was no room for qualification and the motivation for box ticking was simply read into. The potential adopters were told that their expectations were unrealistic.

In this case, and it could well be an aberration, I think the expectations of the shelter were unrealistic. Essentially they are looking for owners who don’t expect a “perfect” dog. Equally, is it fair to expect “perfect” owners?

I know there are some individuals out there who should not own pets. People who want a dog to match their decor or those who simply expect a pet to amuse itself 99.9% of the time. But this family aren't those people. 

The upshot of this exchange was that a family of fantastic animal lovers are now considering purchasing an animal from a pet shop because they are frightened that they will never meet a shelter’s criteria. Clearly this isn’t the outcome that shelters want, but one can surely appreciate the mixed message here. One the one hand, we want all shelter animals to find home. We want them to find the best home – but is it ethical to vet potential adopters so strongly that we deter good owners? Are we reducing the pool of potential loving households that animals can be adopted into?

Pet adoption is a big deal, it is for life, and it is important that owners are informed and their expectations assessed to some degree. I believe this to be an unfortunate and extreme example. What do you think? Do you work in a shelter? Have you adopted from a shelter? Should the vetting of potential owners be ramped up, toned down or is it working overall?