Paws to Consider

 What??

Well, Cancer is what. In particular, canine osteosarcoma, which is a bone cancer that is responsible for an appalling number of limb amputations. I generally hear from the owners as clients, in need of a harness for their three legged dog. So, even at risk of putting myself out of business, I thought I would suggest to people to try to reduce or eliminate their dog's exposure to yard chemicals, which get on dog's feet and are often ingested as they lick their paws. (there is a common variant of that cancer that attacks the jaw bone, as well.)

I thought that after a thorough watering and a few days, that it was safe to be on a treated lawn. How else do you suggest taking care of ants, spiders, gnats, mosquitoes, ticks, ect.?

I quit using insecticides in my yard about 7 or 8 years ago. I decided I'd find other ways to battle the insects.  There are organic treatments for your lawn and organic fertilizers too.  I do treat my dogs for fleas and heartworms and those are insecticides (Comfortis and Interceptor) but unfortunately there are tradeoffs to be made and I think these are relatively safe for healthy dogs. If my home was invaded by a destructive insect and insecticides were the only remedy, I'd choose the least harmful that would still be effective.  It is something worth thinking about but I don't think you have to give up weedless flowerbeds or green lawns to achieve a safer environment for our dogs and for ourselves.

Oh, just remembered the fire ants.  I do kill their mounds in the yard with insecticide.  I make sure the dogs don't have an opportunity to get into these areas when I treat the mounds.

I would like to know why you think this? There is no supporting evidence. In fact here is an article that say's the exact opposite:

http://www.tualatinkc.org/pdf/Dispelling%20the%20Myths%20of%20Canine%20Cancer%20and%20Its%20Treatment.pdf

Now for the record I am adverse to using chemicals as a whole, I do on occasion spray round up around the borders of my fence. We never treat our yard, we keep it clean by doing the labor or finding alternate sources for treatment. My 1800 square foot garden is organic and off site. While I can control most things I cannot control air movement and rain. The harshest thing to touch any plant in my garden by my hand  was the soft soft and milk/water solution I used to kill some squash bugs and fight off powdery mildew.

I do NOT do this because my dog has allergies, or I am afraid he is going to get cancer. I started doing this at first for a fiscal reason, chemicals are dang expensive and half don't work and are nothing but a market ploy. I continued doing this because I actually like the results better.

I understand your concern, even agree to a degree, but I don't support that chemicals are the cause of all cancer.

There is a direct link between 2,4D (the active ingredient in weed-n-feed products and weed killers for use on the lawn) and bladder cancer in dogs.

It's NOT just cancer -- it's all auto-immune things and seizure stuff that are ALSO affected strongly by chemicals -- pesticides in particular.

And I don't think the op is suggesting "chemicals are the cause of all cancer" -- I think it was just an attempt to get people to think and dialogue about it -- which is a GOOD thing.

The more I speak to folks who have dogs with IMHA -- one of the common elements is "toxins" -- and nearly everyone shrugs and feels that the whole realm of chemicals they use is nearly too diverse to even track.  Not to mention the pesticides that cities/towns spray to keep down mosquitos, ect. 

I honestly think just a little common sense points the way here -- in the last 25 years diseases like cancer in dogs (and even in humans) are so incredibly widespread -- and so has the canine consumption of chemicals (whether it's the BHA, BHT or ethoxyquin in many kibbles to pesticides they are exposed to and chemicals used in and around the house).  Diseases like IMHA were literally unknown even 10 - 15 years ago. 

Everybody wants a "study" -- WHY?  How many years and how many captive groups of dogs have to be "tested" to bring a conclusion that is, quite honestly, simple logic.  We often forget they walk "barefoot" over everything --

Simple question -- if you bombed your house for fleas so that every surface of every dish was exposed to that coating of pesticide fog -- would YOU not bother to wash that plate just because "It's been a week since we fogged"???  No -- you'd probably rinse everything off at least, right?  (Or not want to USE a fogger in the first place **because** you didn't want "all that junk" thru your house??).

And yet -- we expect the dogs to walk on lawns treated wth all these chemicals -- after rain and dew have perhaps newly released the chemical?  And then how much of all that winds up in their mouths?

Sometimes I think we do ourselves a vast disservice demanding "studies" -- when pure reason and logic might dictate that such exposure or consumption (accidental or otherwise) just plain may not be a good or healthy thing. 

How many years do people want to blissfully go forward "ignoring" a thing just because no "study" has been done -- and why would a big $$ company WANT to support a study when that might bring them negative publicity and/or cost them profits and revenue???  so we'd then have to wait for lawsuits or private individuals to DO such studies??  But  why is it logical to ignore such logic just because no study can "prove" what might honestly be logically questionable?

You will find the folks who are a bit more prone to support or accept this type of logic or rhetoric are people who have experienced stuff like IMHA, pancytopenia, thrombocytopenia, or have lost more than one dog (or loved one) to cancer.

I'll be honest -- maybe my thinking on such things IS skewed by my own history -- not only do I have a dog who survived (at great cost) IMHA.  But I grew up in western NY state -- does anyone remember the phrase "The Love Canal"???  Where entire neighborhoods of people had this HUGE mortality rate due to toxic waste dumped (in what was originally an "ok" manner) -- and it laid waste to the entire economy of the area eventually aside from causing the premature deaths of an unbelievable number of people to cancer (and I think that was the only disease actually 'tracked';). 

But I remember only too well how long people screamed and pled for 'studies' and for someone to simply look at the statistics of such unbelievable mortality in what was a relatively small geographical area before anything was done about it.

Yes, it's 'all cleaned up now' but the Buffalo area will never be the on the sound financial footing it used to be -- there are still areas up there where no one wants to live. 

My point is ... I learned from a young age not to simply sit and wait for such to strike.  That maybe looking at trends logically bears watching for all such stuff.

I'm not suggesting a "ban" or a "law" -- just mere common sense and awareness.