veterinary environmental impact

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 20 May 2019 22:37:05 GMT

I think what David meant was "If man made climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt" because I doubt any of us disagree that the climate here has been very different in the past (Ice ages and tropical ferns on our little island).

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Iain Richards — Mon, 20 May 2019 22:34:00 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]If climate change is shown to exist beyond all reasonable doubt, then great, I'll jump on board. It isn't.[/quote]

Start jumping! UK mean lower temp 1900s 8.5C now its 9.5C (Met Office hard data, not a model). I'm still open to debate on if this is natural cyclicity or anthropogenic (or both). Biodiversity is also a real and potenially more pressing issue

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Beats — Mon, 20 May 2019 19:31:58 GMT

As a closet tree-hugger who also hates fleas, I'm unsure what my preferred option should be.

In the last few years, I've been wondering if Bravecto (in-spite of its effects on arachnids as well as insects) is indeed my preferred option?

Given only 3-monthly (rather than monthly) and presumably mainly excreted in feces (which for most people ends up in landfill in a plastic bag where it will probably never biodegrade...), I reckon this *might* have less impact than some of the other narrower-spectrum insecticides?

Thoughts?

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Andrea Tarr — Mon, 20 May 2019 16:32:14 GMT

Environmental impact isn't only about run off of topical parasiticides into rivers. Overuse of medicines in general impacts on the environment through systemic drugs and metabolites excreted and packaging ending up in the environment.

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Chris Geddes — Mon, 20 May 2019 15:53:44 GMT

Well aware that fleas are not the only parasite of pets Andrea, but the thread is about environmental impact. I've only heard talk of environmental impact of ectoparasiticides of companion animals. Is the use of praziquantel in pets a risk to the environment now?

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Andrea Tarr — Mon, 20 May 2019 15:41:31 GMT

Fleas is just one aspect of risk assessment. Not all animals need protection against ticks or tapeworm. Roundworm is essential, but most don't need monthly protection. Lungworm is more difficult maybe - it would be helpful to know if prophylaxis less frequent than monthly was sufficient to reduce risk of disease.

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Bob Russell — Mon, 20 May 2019 15:32:25 GMT

Regular use is required to prevent ticks, prevent lungworm, reduce carcass condemnation, reduce the risk of toxocariasis (OK this would rely on everyone else doing the same).

I sense the guidelines are pushing for more regular prophylaxis, not less.

Environmental contamination by parasiticides used in pets is minimal. The newer products will have been very heavily tested for effect on sentinel species.

An occasional dose of something for a flea infestation has to be a potential recipe for disaster IMO.

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Lucy Fleming — Mon, 20 May 2019 15:29:30 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]Cats and dogs eat meat.[/quote]

They eat mainly byproducts and left overs. I am not sure that not having pets will make a difference. There is no farming done especially for pets. Is there?

[/quote]

This is one of the things that drives me wild about the boutique pet foods with all their "human grade ingredients" and "no by-products" claims...

a) Human grade is a meaningless term. It's all safe for us to eat, we just don't want to.

b) We shouldn't be wasting the "by products" - let dogs and cats eat all the squishy, not visually appealing bits of the carcass that humans don't want. If we're going to produce meat, which isn't a massively efficient process, we should be using as much as possible!

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Chris Geddes — Mon, 20 May 2019 15:05:51 GMT

[quote user="Andrea Tarr"]For example ESCCAP recommends a more conservative risk-based approach.[/quote]

ESCCAP guidelines say regular prophylaxis for all except indoor animals. I would argue that indoor animals need it too. I found fleas on my indoor cat after a pet sitter had been visiting, despite prophylactic treatment of cat and house. With recent study indicating infestation in 1 in 4 cats and 1 in 7 dogs, I wouldn't be recommending anyone stop prophylaxis.

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Andrea Tarr — Mon, 20 May 2019 14:55:28 GMT

There needs to be an appraisal of companion-animal parasiticide use. This seems heavily weighted in favour of reducing parasite risk without taking into consideration the effect on the environment or the risk of adverse effects to humans (as well as adverse effects in treated animals). For example ESCCAP recommends a more conservative risk-based approach.

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 20 May 2019 12:51:33 GMT

I'm pretty sceptical about all this too. It's inevitable that we will produce waste. It's debatable whether it's better to use disposable drapes or wash and re use. I suspect little in it.

Practically lets just try and waste less things. Don't throw food away. Don't open things and throw half away - use up the tin of food or whatever. Turn the light off. Turn the tap down. Don't make up a litre of Hibiscrub and throw 600ml away.

That seems sensible advice rather than go mad about things.

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Roger Wilkinson — Mon, 20 May 2019 10:36:16 GMT

'discourage' not 'eliminate'!!!!

think this one might have to go back in the box of 'things too difficult to discuss online'....along with you know what

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Julie Innes — Mon, 20 May 2019 10:29:49 GMT

you had me until

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]discourage ownership of >2 pets/household[/quote]

Which of mine would have to go??!

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 20 May 2019 09:12:27 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]If climate change is shown to exist beyond all reasonable doubt, then great, I'll jump on board. [/quote]

That is an extremely high bar for something with potentially catastrophic consequences.

How about: "If, on balance of probabilities, climate change is shown to exist, then great, I'll jump on board."

(Although still beggars the question of what you'll jump on board. Either way, it may need to be the Ark ).

RE: veterinary environmental impact

David Mills — Sun, 19 May 2019 12:06:19 GMT

[quote user="roger wilkinson"] It's becoming increasingly clear that we're all going to suffer some real-life consequences from climate change and biodiversity loss.[/quote]

It isn't increasingly clear, it's a belief system based on flawed (sometimes jaw-droppingly so) science, and pushed for political expediency.

[quote user="roger wilkinson"] They're not strictly 'necessary'.[/quote]

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]I'm wondering what we should be doing to mitigate our impact. [/quote]

As has been said, most things aren't necessary.

For anyone of the same persuasion (this isn't aimed at Roger directly), do anything you want, personally, so you can assuage any environmental guilt that may burden you. But please don't meddle and judge other peoples' lives via an unsupported belief you have. If climate change is shown to exist beyond all reasonable doubt, then great, I'll jump on board. It isn't. To pretend it does, and then use this a driver to inconvenience people is intellectually condescending.

RE: veterinary environmental impact

Dinu Catilina — Sun, 19 May 2019 11:33:39 GMT

I'll start, that's my take on it.

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]It's becoming increasingly clear that we're all going to suffer some real-life consequences from climate change and biodiversity loss.[/quote]

I think we are safe but next generations are not and it might be too late already :(

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]Cats and dogs eat meat.[/quote]

They eat mainly byproducts and left overs. I am not sure that not having pets will make a difference. There is no farming done especially for pets. Is there?

[quote user="roger wilkinson"] They eat and disturb wildlife directly[/quote]

Yes, but is it of any consequence outside Australia, NZ or pacific islands?

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]They're not strictly 'necessary'.[/quote]

90% of our life is not strictly necessary. Most of the things we have or eat are what we want and not what we need.

[quote user="roger wilkinson"] Veterinary chemicals may contribute to insect loss and other forms of disruption. [/quote]

Let's ban them especially when there are alternative that don't kill bees.

[quote user="roger wilkinson"] Veterinary practices (like most businesses) consume raw materials, energy and produce waste.[/quote]

Like everything else around us. Going back to what we need and what we want, banning what we want for just what we need we will end up living in a distopian society like in Equilibrium (the movie)

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]

-encourage ownership of small dogs rather than big dogs

-discourage ownership of >2 pets/household

[/quote]

See above. What about pet horses, donkeys, etc? What is their real effect on climate change?

[quote user="roger wilkinson"]encourage ownership of non-pedigree breeds to reduce need for vet care[/quote]

ok, but maybe breeding healthy dogs rather than no pedigree dogs? Some of the worse cases that require life long treatment were rescue non pedigree dogs. Ofcourse some breeds are broken, but breeding healthy animals doesn't go against breeding pedigree animals. To an extent all pets are pedigree animals as domestication involved some degree of selection and planned breeding.

We don't need pets, vets, flights, seeing Thailand or China, the Everest, a laptop, expensive cars, chocolate, cake, etc

Realistically, the only possible change is reducing global population. Ban all vaccines and antibiotics and nature will take care of itself.