The Down and Up Sides of COVID-19 for Dogs
Though the down- and upsides of the human effects of COVID-19 dominate the media, the down- and upsides of COVID-19 for dogs receive relatively little attention. On the downside, dogs can contract the virus from people. On the upside, so far the effects of the disease seem relatively benign and the death rate is low. On the downside, not that many dogs, including critically ill ones, have been tested for the virus. Consequently, we don’t know how prevalent the virus is in the canine population. Although some cats have contracted the virus from people and tested positive for the disease, even less data is available about human-feline transmission. Given that adequate testing still isn’t available for all the human residents of the United States, this is sad but understandable.
Also on the downside, dogs may contract the corona virus by breathing air contaminated by unprotected, infected people spewing it. There also is concern that infected people may transfer the virus to the dog’s fur via petting. On the upside, the same protective measures that protect us and other people also will protect our dogs.
One of the upsides of spending more time at home in the COVID-19 era is how it’s improved some human-animal relationships. The ability to stroke the dog sleeping under your desk with your foot makes the most boring or irritating virtual meeting tolerable. Those lucky enough to have a purring cat lounging under there with the dog are doubly blessed. Taking work-breaks outside in ever-changing nature with the dog instead of walking the short distance to the same old vending machines or cafeteria also ranks as an upside. Being able to integrate programs to address problem canine behaviors into your at-home schedule also offers opportunities for new indoor and outdoor human-canine learning experiences.
On the downside, people working from home bored with COVID-19-related inactivity or missing an active social life may give in to the temptation to adopt a dog. Of these, some may adopt a dog identified as a rescue.
“What better way to lift my spirits than to share my home with a poor dog from a troubled background?” these potential rescuers may ask themselves. For some this may mean that, the more troubled the dog’s history, the better.
While boredom, loneliness, or the desire to save an animal from horrible conditions aren’t good primary reasons for adopting any animal, these are legitimate. Especially at a time when uncertainty dominates so many people’s lives. However, the primary focus before getting any animal at any time should be on educating ourselves regarding the animal’s physical and behavioral needs. And equally important, whether we possess the wherewithal to fulfill these needs in a meaningful way.
At this point, it helps to understand the history of rescue/transport animals to understand why this can be so difficult. Let me preface this by noting that, unlike human medicine which focuses strictly on human health and well-being, veterinary medicine always has been concerned about animal and human health. Whereas the potential for zoonoses—i.e., diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans or vice versa—is always on veterinary practitioners’ radar, such isn’t the case for many human medical practitioners. In fact, some in human medicine define zoonoses strictly as those diseases transmitted from animals to people, despite the evidence that the opposite also may occur as the human-canine and feline transmission of COVID-19 indicates.
Most veterinarians also have seen the emergence of other new diseases that killed or harmed large numbers of food animals, dogs, cats, equines, bats, bees and other wild animals. They’ve seen animals die despite the best symptomatic treatment available at the time; they knew the proper protocol to prevent the spread of such diseases, how to implement it, and they did; they accepted that it would take time before a new normal emerged for them, their clients, and the animals. Let alone a vaccine to prevent the disease Consequently, veterinarians didn’t share the view of many that rescue/transporting dogs as an all-positive, simple solution to a very complex problem.
Prior to COVID-19, it already was becoming clear that the number and quality of the rescue/transports capable of meeting veterinary and adopter expectations was declining. When the movement began, the system moved pre-screened dogs from shelters with experienced and knowledgeable staff in areas with too many dogs to shelters in areas where dogs were limited, thanks to successful spay and neuter campaigns and pet owner education. But over time, some lacking this knowledge started forming private rescue groups to transport dogs that the knowledgeable animal folks knew wouldn’t make quality human companions for health or behavioral reasons. Many of those in these private groups were sincere, but driven primarily by their great love of dogs. However, their abhorrence of euthanasia for any reason also often played an equal or greater role.
As the US canine demand increased, more entrepreneurial types realized that they could make money selling dogs to folks seeking to rescue a dog. While some of those people were knowledgeable, others were unscrupulous, far worse than those government-regulated puppy mills that many in the rescue movement love to hate. Meanwhile, some equally unscrupulous politicians decided that shipping their area’s unwanted dogs to other parts of the country was cheaper than addressing the cause of their canine problems.
As the population of profit-oriented dog-sellers increased, the amount and quality of any care given to some of these animals further deteriorated. So did the amount and reliability of any history shared with the adopters. But regardless how disreputable those in this group were, they also contributed to the shrinking national canine supply.
As rescue/transport dogs from within the country became more common, the human quest for novelty also practically guaranteed that transporting and selling unwanted dogs from other countries would be the next step. By this time, veterinarians were well-aware of the dangers to resident dogs and people posed by the mass interstate transport of dogs lacking proper screening, care, and documentation. When they started seeing more dogs from outside the country, their concerns escalated.
Nationally and internationally, all of this was made possible by the Internet. People who wanted a dog could surf the net, read whatever information the source provided, and accept or reject it. Some interactions would occur completely online with no physical contact between seller and buyer/adopter until the animal exited the transport system. And often not even then. Relative to ensuring a smooth integration of physically and mentally stable animals from completely different physical and mental environments into the average pet dog home, let alone a COVID-19 era one where the dog also might be expected to serve as a de facto emotional support animal, the system was highly flawed.
On the upside and indirectly thanks to COVID-19, help may be on the way for internationally sourced dogs, those who adopt them, and the concerned veterinarians who treat them.
In May, the Healthy Dog Importation Act was introduced in Congress by a bipartisan trio of 
Congressmen who all are veterinarians. The need for such legislation also has been obvious to the veterinary community for years. However, previously Congress showed little interest in ensuring the welfare of the estimated +1 million dogs annually transported/imported into the United States. But in the COVID-19 era when even those in Congress realize that zoonosis doesn’t refer to an infatuation with zoos, an awareness of the numbers of unhealthy dogs being imported into the US sans proper screening reached a more receptive audience.
Currently, ensuring the health of canines imported into the US falls under the duties of the Animal and Plant Heath Inspection Service (APHIS), a division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, APHIS agents currently only have the wherewithal to screen about 1% of the incoming dogs. Relative to picking up evidence of conditions that may cause problems for the resident canine and other animal populations, that’s not good enough.
The Healthy Animal Act is designed to safeguard the health and well-being of all dogs imported into the US as well as those living here. If passed, all dogs entering the country would be screened. These animals must be in good health, accompanied by health certificates issued by a licensed veterinarian accredited by a competent veterinary authority recognized by the USDA, and permanently marked so they can be more readily traced if problems arise. For example, if it turned out that dogs imported from another country carried a virus that they were immune to but resident dogs weren’t and there was no vaccine available to protect them, steps could be taken to locate the canine source(s) asap and protect the local canine population.
Additionally, the new legislation would streamline the communication between the USDA/APHIS, CDC, border patrol and customs. This would enable faster sharing of information that could prevent canine illness or even death in some cases.
Those familiar with the dog scene or living in the Chicago area may recall the 2015 outbreak of respiratory disease in local dogs. Eventually, scientists established that it was caused by the H3N2 virus. Resident dogs had no immunity to the virus and it eventually spread to cats with more dire results. The outbreak ultimately was traced to a single dog transported from South Korea, one of several Asian countries where the virus is common. This report compiled by the American Veterinary Medical Association offers additional information about this disease. You’ll notice that the protocol used to prevent its spread is remarkably similar to that used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Similarly, a lack of a coordinated government response at that time also compounded the problem and led to the virus’s spread to animals in other parts of the country.
Epidemics like COVID-19 or those triggered by other disease-causing agents will happen and all will have their down- and upsides. Both will create opportunities for us to learn more about ourselves and our animals and how to have physically and behaviorally healthy relationships with them in difficult times. But ultimately if and how we respond to these down- and upsides is up to us.
The Down and Up Sides of COVID-19 for Dogs
Though the down- and upsides of the human effects of COVID-19 dominate the media, the down- and upsides of COVID-19 for dogs receive relatively little attention. On the downside, dogs can contract the virus from people. On the upside, so far the effects of the disease seem relatively benign and the death rate is low. On the downside, not that many dogs, including critically ill ones, have been tested for the virus. Consequently, we don’t know how prevalent the virus is in the canine population. Although some cats have contracted the virus from people and tested positive for the disease, even less data is available about human-feline transmission. Given that adequate testing still isn’t available for all the human residents of the United States, this is sad but understandable.
Also on the downside, dogs may contract the corona virus by breathing air contaminated by unprotected, infected people spewing it. There also is concern that infected people may transfer the virus to the dog’s fur via petting. On the upside, the same protective measures that protect us and other people also will protect our dogs.
On the downside, people working from home bored with COVID-19-related inactivity or missing an active social life may give in to the temptation to adopt a dog. Of these, some may adopt a dog identified as a rescue.
“What better way to lift my spirits than to share my home with a poor dog from a troubled background?” these potential rescuers may ask themselves. For some this may mean that, the more troubled the dog’s history, the better.
While boredom, loneliness, or the desire to save an animal from horrible conditions aren’t good primary reasons for adopting any animal, these are legitimate. Especially at a time when uncertainty dominates so many people’s lives. However, the primary focus before getting any animal at any time should be on educating ourselves regarding the animal’s physical and behavioral needs. And equally important, whether we possess the wherewithal to fulfill these needs in a meaningful way.
At this point, it helps to understand the history of rescue/transport animals to understand why this can be so difficult. Let me preface this by noting that, unlike human medicine which focuses strictly on human health and well-being, veterinary medicine always has been concerned about animal and human health. Whereas the potential for zoonoses—i.e., diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans or vice versa—is always on veterinary practitioners’ radar, such isn’t the case for many human medical practitioners. In fact, some in human medicine define zoonoses strictly as those diseases transmitted from animals to people, despite the evidence that the opposite also may occur as the human-canine and feline transmission of COVID-19 indicates.
Most veterinarians also have seen the emergence of other new diseases that killed or harmed large numbers of food animals, dogs, cats, equines, bats, bees and other wild animals. They’ve seen animals die despite the best symptomatic treatment available at the time; they knew the proper protocol to prevent the spread of such diseases, how to implement it, and they did; they accepted that it would take time before a new normal emerged for them, their clients, and the animals. Let alone a vaccine to prevent the disease Consequently, veterinarians didn’t share the view of many that rescue/transporting dogs as an all-positive, simple solution to a very complex problem.
Prior to COVID-19, it already was becoming clear that the number and quality of the rescue/transports capable of meeting veterinary and adopter expectations was declining. When the movement began, the system moved pre-screened dogs from shelters with experienced and knowledgeable staff in areas with too many dogs to shelters in areas where dogs were limited, thanks to successful spay and neuter campaigns and pet owner education. But over time, some lacking this knowledge started forming private rescue groups to transport dogs that the knowledgeable animal folks knew wouldn’t make quality human companions for health or behavioral reasons. Many of those in these private groups were sincere, but driven primarily by their great love of dogs. However, their abhorrence of euthanasia for any reason also often played an equal or greater role.
As the US canine demand increased, more entrepreneurial types realized that they could make money selling dogs to folks seeking to rescue a dog. While some of those people were knowledgeable, others were unscrupulous, far worse than those government-regulated puppy mills that many in the rescue movement love to hate. Meanwhile, some equally unscrupulous politicians decided that shipping their area’s unwanted dogs to other parts of the country was cheaper than addressing the cause of their canine problems.
As the population of profit-oriented dog-sellers increased, the amount and quality of any care given to some of these animals further deteriorated. So did the amount and reliability of any history shared with the adopters. But regardless how disreputable those in this group were, they also contributed to the shrinking national canine supply.
As rescue/transport dogs from within the country became more common, the human quest for novelty also practically guaranteed that transporting and selling unwanted dogs from other countries would be the next step. By this time, veterinarians were well-aware of the dangers to resident dogs and people posed by the mass interstate transport of dogs lacking proper screening, care, and documentation. When they started seeing more dogs from outside the country, their concerns escalated.
Nationally and internationally, all of this was made possible by the Internet. People who wanted a dog could surf the net, read whatever information the source provided, and accept or reject it. Some interactions would occur completely online with no physical contact between seller and buyer/adopter until the animal exited the transport system. And often not even then. Relative to ensuring a smooth integration of physically and mentally stable animals from completely different physical and mental environments into the average pet dog home, let alone a COVID-19 era one where the dog also might be expected to serve as a de facto emotional support animal, the system was highly flawed.
On the upside and indirectly thanks to COVID-19, help may be on the way for internationally sourced dogs, those who adopt them, and the concerned veterinarians who treat them.
In May, the Healthy Dog Importation Act was introduced in Congress by a bipartisan trio of
Congressmen who all are veterinarians. The need for such legislation also has been obvious to the veterinary community for years. However, previously Congress showed little interest in ensuring the welfare of the estimated +1 million dogs annually transported/imported into the United States. But in the COVID-19 era when even those in Congress realize that zoonosis doesn’t refer to an infatuation with zoos, an awareness of the numbers of unhealthy dogs being imported into the US sans proper screening reached a more receptive audience.
Currently, ensuring the health of canines imported into the US falls under the duties of the Animal and Plant Heath Inspection Service (APHIS), a division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, APHIS agents currently only have the wherewithal to screen about 1% of the incoming dogs. Relative to picking up evidence of conditions that may cause problems for the resident canine and other animal populations, that’s not good enough.
The Healthy Animal Act is designed to safeguard the health and well-being of all dogs imported into the US as well as those living here. If passed, all dogs entering the country would be screened. These animals must be in good health, accompanied by health certificates issued by a licensed veterinarian accredited by a competent veterinary authority recognized by the USDA, and permanently marked so they can be more readily traced if problems arise. For example, if it turned out that dogs imported from another country carried a virus that they were immune to but resident dogs weren’t and there was no vaccine available to protect them, steps could be taken to locate the canine source(s) asap and protect the local canine population.
Additionally, the new legislation would streamline the communication between the USDA/APHIS, CDC, border patrol and customs. This would enable faster sharing of information that could prevent canine illness or even death in some cases.
Epidemics like COVID-19 or those triggered by other disease-causing agents will happen and all will have their down- and upsides. Both will create opportunities for us to learn more about ourselves and our animals and how to have physically and behaviorally healthy relationships with them in difficult times. But ultimately if and how we respond to these down- and upsides is up to us.