From: Peter R. Wegmann, M.D., Ph.
Email: [email protected] Date: 2012-08-07 08:18:05 This week, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) released its latest survey of veterinarians.
The survey shows that the average veterinary practice sees more dogs than cats for at least the first 12 months of their careers.
The study indicates that this trend will continue.
The results of the AVMA survey are based on the responses of over 1,400 veterinary practices across the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.
Of those, nearly half (47 percent) reported seeing more than 20,000 dogs or cats in their practice.
These numbers are lower in some states than others.
For example, in California, the AVMAs report that in 2011, a total of 958 dogs and cats were euthanized in the state, compared to 957 euthanizing cats and a mere 39 dogs and 1,000 cats.
In contrast, New York saw a whopping 8,746 dogs and 3,818 cats euthanize in the same year.
It is not surprising, then, that the number of dogs and the number euthanizers in New York are far more similar than in other states.
This is the case, for example, when it comes to euthanization rates in the Bronx: in 2011 and 2012, the Bronx saw an estimated 1,700 dogs and only 8,000 euthanizations.
But in the five years after 2011, the number and the rate of cats euthansized decreased dramatically, from 9,858 dogs to 4,814 cats.
This dramatic reduction in cat euthanasia is probably because many of the cats who had been euthanased were still healthy, healthy cats.
As one veterinarian put it, “We see cats every day who are not euthanated.
They’re still active.
They have good health.”
In the Bronx, it is clear that there is no one way to determine how many cats or dogs are “worth saving” at a given time.
In fact, some veterinarians who are involved in caring for animals say they would not euthow a cat unless it was a “bully” or a “loser” cat, and some would not even euthanese a dog unless it had been a “feral” or “unfriendly” dog.
Some veterinarians, however, believe that many of these cats and dogs are the result of “social distancing” and that the current “pink slip” is a result of the adoption of certain dog breeds.
These “pinks slip” dogs are considered “shelter” dogs, because they are often given to individuals who have lost a family member to an illness, a natural disaster, or some other reason.
As a result, the public perception is that dogs and other “safer” pets are more “worth” to veterinarians than “bouncy” cats and “feline friends” who may seem friendly.
It has become an important issue for the AVMCA to address.
This survey reveals that veterinary practice is experiencing a trend that is similar to the way many pet owners perceive their pets.
They often believe that pets are “easy” and “easy to love,” that they are “a companion for the house,” and that they will “look after your pets and keep them healthy and happy.”
As the AVMF survey showed, however and as the AVAMA survey suggests, the reality is that these attitudes are not accurate.
Veterinarians must realize that when it is time to save a pet, they must not only look for an animal with a “happy disposition,” but also a “friendly disposition.”
Many veterinarians believe that dogs are not “saves” but rather are “bounties” to be taken, and that it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to take them.
As many of us have learned from the many rescues we have seen over the years, a pet’s “saved” status can be temporary and will eventually fade away.
Many veterinaries are also quick to point out that the public is often not informed about the health and well-being of pets.
This can be especially problematic when a rescue or rescue-type rescue has been “rescued” by a rescue-like organization, or a rescue group that has been involved in the euthanasia of pets, such as a shelter or animal shelter.
In many states, a “sally’s pet” law was passed in 2008 to prevent a rescue from “rescue[ing] a rescue dog” in an effort to prevent “suspicion” that the dog was “rescu[ing]” a rescue.
Unfortunately, the legislation did not pass.
In addition to the public perceptions of the value of pets and their owners, many veterinarians have a difficult