Search Results for “”

Feeding a raw protein diet can endanger the health of both people and animals, according to the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA). AAHA plans to release a position statement discouraging pet owners from feeding raw protein diets later this week. The second major veterinary group to take a stand on raw protein diets in recent weeks, AAHA says it is doing so because it wants to strengthen the valued relationship between human and animal. "We value the relationships between our pets and their families – we want to strengthen the human-animal bond by keeping both pets and people as healthy as possible," said Michael Cavanaugh, DVM, executive director of AAHA. AAHA joins the likes of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), which passed a policy discouraging the feeding of raw protein diets at its yearly conference in San Diego in early August 2012. AAHA leaders say its statement on raw protein diets was actually developed and passed by its board of directors prior to the AVMA policy. According to AAHA, the statement was developed without any input or knowledge from the AVMA. The text of the AAHA statement emphasizes the danger of feeding pathogenic organisms to animals that may then shed those organisms through their stool, creating danger for both humans and animals that may come in contact with it.

Suing for emotional distress is reserved for the deaths of humans, not animals, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled. On July 31, 2012, the court ruled that a close relationship with a pet could not be considered at the same level of a close familial relationship. "Although we recognize that many people form close bonds with their pets, we conclude that those bonds do not rise to the level of a close familial relationship or intimate, marital-like bond," Justice Helen Hoens wrote for the court in a 5-0 decision. According to nj.com, Joyce McDougall, sued after her 9-year-old maltese-poodle mix named Angel was mauled by a larger dog owned by Charlot Lamm in 2007. McDougall, a divorced mother of three living alone with Angel, sued for emotional distress and the cost to replace the dog, estimated at $1,395.

A ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals has opened the door for animals to be considered victims of crime, according to the East Oregonian.

New Jersey drivers can now face fines up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail for carrying an unrestrained pet in their vehicle.

Should working canines in the armed forces be classified as military "equipment"?

Legislation allowing veterinarians to work for non-veterinarians passed the Alabama State Senate with only three nay votes this week. The legislation will allow non-veterinarians to own and oversee nonprofit spay and neuter clinics in the state of Alabama. Under current Alabama law, each partner in a veterinary medicine partnership is required to be a licensed Alabama veterinarian. Under existing law, a licensed Alabama veterinarian is prohibited from practicing veterinary medicine as an employee of a person not licensed as a Alabama veterinarian. Alabama law also limits ownership of veterinary practices to licensed Alabama veterinarians. House Bill 156, however, will allow any veterinarian employed by a 501 (c) (3) to be exempt from employment and ownership restrictions. This means that veterinarians will be allowed to work for non-veterinarians in nonprofit spay and neuter clinics in Alabama. The bill was drafted as a response to efforts by the Alabama State Veterinary Medical Examiners Board (ASBVME) to shutter the state’s four spay and neuter clinics after closing one down last year. Members of the veterinary examiners board stated that the spay and neuter clinics, which they had inspected and approved on multiple occasions, provided substandard veterinary care.

California veterinarians are getting a mixed message from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regarding controlled drugs, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). The AVMA says that veterinarians in the Sacramento area were recently contacted by the regional DEA office and asked to confirm that their DEA license was associated with a residence. At that time, veterinarians were also reminded that federal regulations prohibited them from carrying controlled drugs out of the location associated with their DEA registration. The AVMA says that according to the national DEA office, there has not been a change in the DEA’s interpretation or enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. The review of registration applications in California appears to be the result of a regional office confirming that the applicant’s principal place of business was indeed a residential address, the AVMA said. Prohibiting veterinary practices from being allowed to transport controlled substances out of their DEA registration location would make it difficult for veterinarians to appropriately practice medicine.

Out-of-state veterinarians won’t be allowed to practice veterinary medicine free-of-charge in rural areas of Alaska after proposed legislation failed to pass committee in the Alaska State Legislature. The legislation represented the growing push in recent years to get medical care for animals and humans alike out in the rural Bush areas of Alaska. According to the bill sponsors, there were 350 veterinarians in Alaska as of Dec. 22, 2011. This number, sponsors say, is inadequate to handle the number of animals that Alaskans work with and keep in their homes. "As with many issues of health, there are numbers of Alaskans who rely on their animals and cannot always afford to send an animal for care or pay the overhead costs naturally included in services provided by veterinarians with established brick and mortar clinics," sponsors Rep. Alan Dick and Rep. Reggie Joule wrote. "Veterinarians provide a wide swath of services to animals and their owners and companions. From cancer to diabetes, eating disorders to wounds and infections, veterinarians see all manner of health care issues."

Nestle Purina Petcare Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. are facing a class action lawsuit from a pet owner who says his 9-year-old Pomeranian died from eating chicken jerky treats. Illinois resident Dennis Adkins sued over Nestle Purina’s Waggin’ Train Yam Good dog treats after his canine companion Cleopatra became ill and died of kidney failure after consuming a Nestle Purina treat from Wal-Mart each day for three days. Adkins said he did not change anything about Cleopatra’s diet other than the addition of the treat. His other 9-year-old Pomeranian, Pharaoh, was not fed the treat and did not become ill. In the lawsuit, Adkins said he incurred more than $2,300 in damages, including the value of his dog and veterinary expenses. The lawsuit claims that Cleopatra died from eating chicken jerky treats that Nestle Purina and Wal-Mart both knew posed a substantial risk of illness or death.

California legislation that would have amended state code relating to the practice of teeth cleaning within veterinary medicine failed Tuesday without receiving a single affirmative vote. The legislation, which would have allowed non-veterinarians to use a scaler on pets’ teeth, died in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Committee April 17, 2012. The legislation marks another chapter in the ongoing debate over veterinary dental care. Veterinarians currently hold the exclusive legal right to use a scaler on pet teeth and perform other dental procedures on animals. The bill proposed that non-veterinarians would be allowed to use nonmotorized instruments to remove calculus, soft deposits, plaque, or stains from an exposed area of a household pets tooth above the gum line, provided that the service is performed exclusively for cosmetic purposes and the person performing the service first obtains written permission from the person requesting the service. The bill would have exempted cosmetic teeth cleaning from classification as a "dental operation".