How Pooches Can Replace Drugs

Dogs may help to correct certain human mental health disorders by beneficially affecting brain chemistry and function, a new study suggests.

The research shows how interacting with dogs improves mood among teenagers living in residential treatment centers. In this case, the teens were in therapy for drug or alcohol abuse.

“We suggest that the dog interaction activities and/or the dog itself could potentially serve as a non-drug stimulus that may heighten the adolescents’ response to naturally occurring stimuli therefore potentially helping to restore the brain’s normal process,” said Lindsay Ellsworth, who led the research.

Ellsworth, a doctoral candidate at Washington State University, brought dogs from the Spokane Humane Society to the Excelsior Youth Center, also in Spokane. Teen participants were all males.

During daily recreation time at Excelsior, some of the teens played pool, video games or basketball. Another group interacted with the dogs, by brushing, feeding and playing with them. Before and after the activities, the teens filled an assessment used to scale and study emotion.

Teens who spent time with dogs experienced heightened joy, improved attentiveness and serenity. Symptoms for participants being treated for ADHD, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder dramatically decreased.

Ellsworth suspects that social companionship with dogs may stimulate the release of opioids, psychoactive chemicals that can relieve pain and promote pleasurable feelings. Certain drugs — legal and illegal — bind to opioid receptors in the brain, but the doggy-produced high is natural with no side effects.

Repeated drug use can significantly alter opioid systems, leaving the person feeling lonely or depressed. Social companionship with dogs appears to help alleviate these negative states.

“The relationship between humans and dogs has been in existence for thousands of years,” Ellsworth explained. “They actively seek out their owner’s attention and, from the human perception, they provide displays of affection.

She described how one teen at the center with behavioral problems benefited from the animals.

“During his first couple of encounters with the dogs, he had to learn how to control his behavior in order not to startle the dogs,” she said, adding that “his tone and voice eventually became quieter, his stroke softer, his moves more calculated versus spontaneous, and he appeared to become more aware of himself and how he was acting.”

After sessions with the dogs, his interactions with staff improved, becoming “positive and productive.”

“It could be a really novel, cost-effective and beneficial complement to traditional treatments,” said animal behaviorist Ruth Newberry about using dogs to help treat substance abuse. “This could be a win-win innovation for everyone involved, including the dogs.”

Jaak Panksepp, chair of Animal Well-Being Science at WSU, added, “This is wonderful research, and highlights how companion animals can promote therapy with teenagers who have emotional problems.”

Ellsworth suspects that dogs similarly benefit the mental health of adults, children and seniors too. Interaction with cats likely also stimulates opioid release, particularly for people who are already feline fanciers.

Although not animal related per se this article should be brought to everyone’s attention. Granted, research is essential to help determine causes and cures of diseases, but in out tumultuous, uncertain times, with the significant risk of bioterrorism, we could be at risk if certain projects are not kept secured.

A likely culprit: the much talked about H5N1 avian flu virus, among the deadliest known in percentage of victims it kills. It has so far been spread almost entirely by direct contact of a person — usually a poultry worker in Asia — with infected chickens or ducks. But what if it were airborne-transmissible from person to person? Imagine the devastation if a tourist could catch it from an infected poultry worker and spread it by a cough or a sneeze among fellow travelers who would all carry it home. Such an outbreak could lead to that unimaginable pandemic.

Making the H5N1 virus transmissible from person to person is precisely the goal of such research, which could be stepped up sharply as soon as the NIH establishes rules governing such experiments for its own grantees.

But the dangerous race is already on. A lab in Germany is trying to make canine distemper virus contagious between humans. Once again the rationale is to understand how that might occur in nature. Why risk a laboratory-caused outbreak of virulent, human contagious distemper? And a lab in China reported making combination of H5N1 bird flu and human H1N1 viruses contagious in guinea pigs, again with the goal of creating human contagion. Should we try to make any and all animal viruses contagious in humans simply to learn how it can be done?

In 2009, the pandemic caused by H1N1 flu virus infected one in every four people in the world but killed very few. What if its fatality rate had been 50 percent to 60 percent — the current death rate for workers directly infected by birds with the H5N1 virus? The 40 million dead from the 1918 virus could become hundreds of millions killed by an accidental laboratory release of such an engineered avian virus.

The CDC’s own data indicate that such an outcome is likely enough to create an urgent demand to stop this kind of research. Our calculations from data the center published in its 2013 report on theft, loss and release of pathogens and toxins suggest that for two dozen labs working with human-transmissible H5N1 viruses, there would be a 50-50 chance of a release in just 30 years. However, if live SARS virus research can be taken as a guide, more than 100 labs could end up researching human-transmissible avian flu. It would then take a mere seven years for that 50-50 chance of a release by one of them.

What are the chances of a pandemic resulting from such a release? Victims infected with influenza viruses typically become contagious in one to three days. This rapid onset of contagion after becoming infected is a major reason why influenza outbreaks are difficult to control through quarantine. It is not hard to believe that as few as one in 10 to one in 100 lab releases could result in a pandemic.

That a lab release occurring in seven to 30 years could seed a pandemic with hundreds of millions of deaths is an intolerable risk, and we have been considering only accidental release. The likelihood gets worse if one also considers deliberate release by a deranged lab worker — as occurred in the 2001 anthrax mailings — by terrorists or by hostile nations.

In our commentary to this post, “The Human Fatality Burden of Mammalian-transmissible Bird Flu Research,” we calculate that each lab developing human-contagious H5N1 bird flu could carry with it the possibility of causing 50 to 5,000 deaths per year if they are successful. To put these numbers in perspective, no Institutional Review Board tasked with assessing human-subjects research would approve a proposal with fatalities estimated at 50 to 5,000 per year.

Whatever number we are gambling with, it is clearly far too high a risk to human lives around the world — and to do so for very little scientific return. There is no persuasive evidence that H5N1 in nature is creeping toward being contagious in humans on its own.

This research must be stopped completely. Its practical benefits range from unclear to absent, and its risk is staggeringly high.

The United States should take the lead in starting discussions toward an international agreement requiring the strictest oversight and highest biosafety level for research on other potentially highly contagious and lethal pathogens. Failure to act would offer tacit permission for the entire world to carry out such research without regard to consequences. That can only lead us ever farther down a most dangerous path and a never ending gamble with all of our lives.

Lynn C. Klotz, Ph.D, and Edward J. Sylvester are the authors of Breeding Bio Insecurity: How U.S. Biodefense is Exporting Fear, Globalizing Risk, and Making Us All Less Secure, University of Chicago Press, 2009. They post articles on biological security here and on their blog Breeding Bio Security. Klotz is Senior Science Fellow, the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation. Sylvester is a science writer and Director of the Cronkite Program in Science and Medical Writing in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

Breed-specific regulation: Not new and not working

Breed-specific regulation did not originate with pit bulls. Long Branch, N.J., banned the Spitz in 1878. Massachusetts banned bloodhounds in 1886. Australia prohibited the further importation of German Shepherd dogs in 1929.

None of these breed-specific regulations made communities safer, and all have long since been consigned to the dustbin reserved for government failures.

More recently, some have redirected this failed idea on the so-called pit bull. (“Pit bull” is not a breed. The definition varies, depending upon where you are.) Directing attention to a different dog has not turned a failed idea into a successful one.

Breed-specific regulation misses the mark because it is over-inclusive, penalizing dog owners who do not permit their pets to be problems; and under-inclusive, since it overlooks owners of other dogs who do. This makes it tough on some dog owners and pets, without making anyone safer.

There has never been any evidence that breed regulation has reduced the incidence of dog-bite injuries, serious or otherwise.

Recognizing this, American communities, the state of Ohio and two European countries — the Netherlands and Italy — have repealed breed-specific laws, and focused instead on public education in dog safety, and on holding dog owners to higher standards of humane care, custody and control.

Florida was ahead of the curve. In 1990, Florida preempted towns and counties from regulating dogs by breed. Miami-Dade is an exception.

Neither the National Animal Control Association nor the Florida Animal Control Association endorses breed-specific regulation, of pit bulls or any other dogs. These are the professionals on the ground in our communities, charged with protecting people and animals. They know it is not good policy.

The American Veterinary Medical Association, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Humane Society of the United States, the Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA also know it is not good policy.

We certainly must punish reckless owners who have allowed their dogs to cause harm. However, if safety around dogs is our goal, we must do more than that; we must enact policies that prevent serious incidents from occurring. Prevention results when communities adopt a responsible pet-ownership model.

Both the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA recommend community implementation of responsible pet-ownership models. The principles of such a model are straightforward:

1) License and provide permanent identification for your pets.

2) Spay or neuter your pets.

3) Provide training, socialization, proper diet and medical care for your pets.

4) Do not allow your pets to become a threat or nuisance in the community.

5) Procure your pet ethically and from a credible source.

Communities that adopt these clear principles apply them to all dog owners, whether their dogs are big or small, however many they have and whatever kind they choose to keep.

Let success be our guide, and failure serve only as a cautionary tale.

Donald Cleary is director of communications and publications for the National Canine Research Council.

The Story of Adam & Eve’s Pets

This week: more developments in the battle against distracted driving.

The Ontario Government states that distracted driving is cited as a causal factor in 30 to 50 per cent of traffic collisions and pedestrian fatalities. Distracted driving is blamed in more than 10 per cent of all U.S. highway fatalities, according to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The problem is people fussing with their phones, e-mailing or texting when they should have their eyes on the road. Well, here’s another distraction that I have personally noticed countless times, but now there’s some data that backs up my suspicion. Simply put, pets in cars increase crash rates.

According to NHTSA, drivers should never take their eyes off the road for more than two seconds at a time. A moving pet, especially in the front seat, can cause a driver to do exactly that. I recently saw a woman barrelling down our street with a small dog in her lap with its head stuck out the window. Often times, I see a large dog sitting in the front passenger seat as a car roars past.

An animal loose in the front seat should automatically result in the driver getting the $155 distracted driving fine.

If a dog or cat gets startled and moves suddenly, it stands a good chance of causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle. “Adding another distracting element, especially an active, potentially moving animal, provides more opportunity for an older driver to respond to a driving situation in a less-than-satisfactory way,” said McGwin.

There may not be laws to keep pets out of the front seat, but there are lots barring motorists from texting or using hand-held devices while driving. A number of auto makers have been adding supposedly safer voice-to-text features to their vehicles and I have tried many of them.

Sometimes the voice recognition system works fine if you tell it to turn up the heat or change the radio station, but plenty of times it doesn’t. It shouts back at you, “Invalid Command” or some such phrase and tells you to try again. Sometimes it will list a bunch of “valid” commands and tell you to choose one. Some systems display the valid commands and you take your eyes off the road to read them. Most of the time, I yell back at the damned system or start pushing buttons on the touch screen; in either case, I’m seriously distracted.

Well, now there’s a new study by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) that warns that this hands-free voice recognition technology is just as likely to leave drivers distracted and at risk of a crash as monkeying with your cellphone. Despite being billed as a safer alternative, the new study indicates that texting in any form is a dangerous distraction.

The study took 43 licensed drivers between the ages of 16 and 60 and sent them driving on a closed course four times. They were asked to drive once while focusing on the road, once while texting manually, and then once each using an iPhone voice-to-text app and an Android phone using voice-to-text.

“Results indicate that driver reaction times were nearly two times slower than the baseline condition, no matter which texting method was used,” according to TTI’s Christine Yager. It’s interesting to note that the drivers perceived the voice-operated systems to be safer, but the study showed driving performance suffered equally. In fact, in some cases, manual texting actually took less time to complete.

As I have discovered, voice-to-text technology isn’t perfect and, when you start arguing with the thing, you are taking your concentration off the road. If the dog starts barking, too, you’ve got a real problem. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has outlined an aggressive campaign to eliminate most high-tech distractions from the automobile, including not just Bluetooth systems but most on-board navigation devices.

The battle over the safety of voice-based systems is just getting started.

Illinois Senate narrowly favors puppy lemon law

The measure won by a narrow vote — 31 “yes,” 18 “no” and 6 “present.”

At least 20 states have similar laws, commonly called “puppy lemon laws,” that outline legal remedies for pet buyers who discover their animal was seriously ill at the time of purchase.

To make a claim under the Illinois proposal, a new pet owner would have to present a written statement from a veterinarian that says the animal, at the time it was purchased, suffered from an undisclosed illness or condition that “adversely affects” the animal’s health.

New pet owners with a sick animal would have to act within 21 days after the date of sale — or within a year of sale for a claim based on a congenital or hereditary condition.

If a claim is successfully made, the proposal outlines three remedies. The owner can return the animal for a full refund, exchange the animal for another of comparable value, or keep the animal and be reimbursed for reasonable veterinary fees, not to exceed two times the purchase price.

The proposal also would require pet stores to alert the Illinois Department of Agriculture if a dog or cat became sick with an outbreak of distemper, parvovirus “or any other contagious and potentially life-threatening disease” and alert recent customers if the department issues a quarantine.

The original proposal from sponsor Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, would have included sales by anyone, not just pet stores, but this was opposed by dog breeders.

Even the narrowed proposal was criticized — for not being applicable to animal shelters.

Opponent Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, argued that animal shelters should also be required to notify the Illinois Department of Agriculture of disease outbreaks.

“We are going to protect the consumers who have the money to pay $1,000 for a dog as a pet,” Righter said. “But what about all of those consumers who can’t afford that, so they are getting their pet from an animal shelter? They get no consumer protection under this bill.”

The measure, Senate Bill 1639, now goes to the Illinois House.

Microchipping is a great tool to help reunite lost pets with their owners. We highly recommend that all dogs and cats get microchipped, as there is no telling when they could become separated from their families. Most every veterinary hospital, shelter, and police department have a scanner, so when they are presented with a lost pet they can read the microchip, contact the microchip company which has the owner’s information on file, so they can be called and the pet returned.

However, the system only works if the contact information is kept up to date. Let’s say your pet is microchipped at six months of age, you register with the microchip company (your veterinarian also will have your contact information on file). Years down the line, if you move, but do not update your contact information the situation may become difficult. If your pet has the misfortune of getting lost, but then is found and the chip scanned, but your old address and phone numbers are on file, there is no way you can be contacted! So if there is ever a change of address, phone numbers, emails, etc., make sure you keep it updated with the microchip company where you originally registered.

Another problem we have seen…..families get a pet from a shelter, pet store or breeder, and that pet is already microchipped. That is a nice perk, however, the microchip is registered to them not you. The microchip company can trace the microchip number back to who purchased them, but you must change the contact information to yours! So be certain that when you get a pet that is already microchipped, that you obtain the company name and phone number of the microchip manufacturer so you can call and have the new contact information.

Now for the real life story…….

One day we had a client bring a wonderful, friendly, young beagle dog into the hospital, which they had found wandering in their neighborhood. They did not see any posters, checked with the local police, veterinary hospitals, and shelters, but there was no report of a lost beagle. They brought the dog in so we could check the dog out and also see if we could determine the rightful owner.

As I am sure you can surmise, we used our microchip scanner, obtained a microchip number, and identified the manufacturer of the chip.We contacted the manufacturer who checked the registration information, and provided us with the owner’s address and contact phone numbers. They were current and they came in later that day to pick up the dog. We knew it was their dog as when he heard their voices he got all excited, started barking and was very animated in the kennel. When we let him out of the kennel he went running into their outstretched arms.A heartwarming reunion and a great example of the importance of microchipping, as well as having current information on file.

There were a couple things the family of the lost dog should have done to expedite the reunion, however. The dog had been gone a couple of days and their only attempts to find the dog was canvassing the neighborhood, calling his name. They should have called local veterinarians, shelters, and the local police to report a lost dog. In addition, they should have put up posters about the lost dog in their neighborhood. It might have got their dog back to them sooner. If it was not for our Good Samaritan client, this reunion may never have happened.

Dr. Sakas

Research Finds That Neutered or Spayed Dogs Live Longer Lives

After examining 40,139 dog death records spanning a 20-year period, University of Georgia researchers have concluded that spayed or neutered dogs tend to live longer than intact dogs.

The study revealed that sterilized dogs had an average lifespan of 9.4 years, while intact dogs lived 7.9 years on average, according to ScienceDaily.

In addition to highlighting the differing mortality rates between intact and sterilized dogs, the study also showed that these groups of dogs often die from different causes. Sterilized dogs were more likely to die from cancer or autoimmune diseases, while intact dogs tended to die from infectious disease and trauma, researchers reported.

“At the level of the individual dog owner, our study tells pet owners that, overall, sterilized dogs will live longer, which is good to know,” said Dr. Kate Creevy, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine. “Also, if you are going to sterilize your dog, you should be aware of possible risks of immune-mediated diseases and cancer; and if you are going to keep him or her intact, you need to keep your eye out for trauma and infection.”

According to Daniel Promislow, Franklin College genetics professor and co-author of the paper, the study has provided insights that could benefit future research into how reproduction affects human mortality causes.
“When researchers have looked at the effect of survival rates in humans, the results have varied from one study to the next. Our findings suggest that we might get a clearer sense of potential costs of reproduction if we focus on how reproduction affects actual causes of mortality rather than its effect on life span,” Promislow said.

Teaching Children How to Prevent Dog Bites