Dear Readers:

I would like to clear up some confusion about the medical records review I conducted at my clinic.

Rio Rancho is in the process of reviewing animal-related city ordinances. It’s my belief the community would benefit from a new ordinance requiring animals be healthy at the time of sale, adoption or transfer. I also believe laws shouldn’t be proposed or enacted unless a need for that law has been demonstrated. To that end, I reviewed the records of all post-adoption, post-purchase and fecal exams conducted in my clinic from 2006 through 2008. The figures I gave only represent the percentages of animals seen and diagnosed in my clinic. These figures weren’t intended to be viewed as a statistical representation of the population of any particular facility. The only way that data could be obtained would be for a facility to release a review of results from fecal exams and physical exams conducted on each of their animals at the time of sale or adoption. When viewed from a public health perspective, intake results are not as important as the condition of the animals upon release into the community.

The review showed three diseases were found more often in post-purchase exams and post-adoption exams than for the general population. These three diseases are coccidiosis, roundworm infection, and ringworm infection. All three diseases are contagious and environmental contamination can play a role in the transmission and perpetuation of these infections.

The review results for the animal facilities (for the purposes of this article, animal facilities include Rio Rancho pet stores, animal control shelter and the private shelter in Rio Rancho) were separated from the general population for three reasons. Animal facilities are the source of the majority of new pets in Rio Rancho and thereby have the potential for the largest impact on our community. In addition, by their nature, these facilities take in animals from various sources, house them in close proximity and release them into the community. The third reason is that any disease issue that may arise within an animal facility can be an early indicator of an emerging disease issue within the community. This isn’t to criticize the facilities, but to acknowledge why extra vigilance over these populations of animals will benefit the health and wellbeing of all animals and citizens of any community.

Concern has been voiced that this study was the result of an anti-shelter bias. I can honestly say this isn’t the case. I’ve been a shelter veterinarian as well as the veterinarian for several humane societies and breed rescue groups. In addition, if I didn’t believe in the benefit to society of shelters, I wouldn’t be putting long hours into my position as veterinarian for New Mexico’s Animal Sheltering Services Board. If I didn’t believe in their mission and potential, I wouldn’t have donated over $20,000 worth of veterinary equipment to Watermelon Mountain Ranch.

That said, part of the veterinary oath taken upon graduation from vet school was to protect (or promote) public health along with the welfare of animals.

There has been good to come from this issue. More people in the community are aware of zoonotic diseases and our need to treat and prevent them wherever we can. When people are concerned about the cost of a animal, it helps to know why all of the de-wormings and other preventative measures were done prior to the animal becoming available for adoption or sale.

Also, personnel from two of the animal facilities mentioned in the review have requested information on how to improve things at their facilities so they can maximize the care of their animals.

The final question is where do we go from here? My hopes for the future are that all owners of new pets schedule wellness exams after the purchase, adoption or even the finding of a new pet. This would allow early detection of any problems and minimize their impact on the family.

My next hope would be that effective communications can be established between community veterinarians, animal facilities and citizens, which will benefit animals involved. These lines of communication should remain open even in the face of respectful disagreement.

And finally, I hope this and other dialogue will lead to the adoption of reasonable and equitable city ordinances that benefit both public health and animal welfare.

Patricia Feeser, DVM

High Desert Animal Hospital