Ed’s Blog – Page 49 – Ed Boks Consulting

April 30, 2013January 10, 2018

Sustaining the no-kill vision By Ed Boks

In July 2010, the Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) embraced a no-kill ethic. We defined that ethic as applying the same criteria when deciding a homeless animal’s fate that a loving owner or conscientious veterinarian would apply to a beloved pet. That is, healthy and treatable animals would not be killed simply because we lack the room or resources to care for them.

With a 95 percent live release rate in 2012 and a 97 percent live release rate YTD for 2013, it could be argued that YHS has achieved its no-kill goal. The challenge now is sustaining it. Google dictionary defines “sustaining” as strengthening or supporting.

It is important to understand the life affirming momentum occurring at YHS. In nearly every community in every state in the Union, killing is the primary method employed to control pet overpopulation. In just three short years our community has become a national model for a better way, a way of compassion through strategic planning.

While it requires a lot of work to sustain a compassionate, no-kill community, we have our share of fun too. Take for instance our recent Walk for the Animals. It is remarkable how our community came together, for one of the most fun family events of the year, and raised over $41,000 to help sustain our many life saving no-kill programs.

This week we moved into a newly completed facility dedicated to sustaining quality medical care for our community’s sick and injured homeless cats. The facility was made possible thanks to the generosity of our community.

Also, this week, we are installing a climate controlled HVAC system throughout our Pet Adoption Center. This amazing enhancement was also made possible thanks to the compassionate generosity of our community.

Next on the drawing board is a canine hospital to care for our community’s lost and homeless sick and injured dogs. We are in the design phase and should have a budget for this project within 30 days. It is my hope that there is the same public support for our canine friends as there is for our felines, so we have no delay in building this much-needed facility. Naming rights are available to anyone willing to fund a substantial portion of the construction cost.

These new facilities are designed to help ensure our community never returns to the barbaric practice of killing homeless animals simply because we lack the room or resources to care for them. Achieving no-kill is not an Olympic moment; it is an arduous marathon. We’ve proven it can be achieved, the question now is can it be sustained?

Imagine if everyone reading this article donated $1 a day or $30 a month. We could then sustain our many no-kill programs – each designed to save animals’ lives, fight cruelty and rescue homeless animals. Choose a tax deductible amount that is comfortable, and you can change or cancel your participation at any time.

If you have questions about achieving and sustaining no-kill contact me today. It can be done in your community too! Together we can achieve and sustain no-kill throughout our nation.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at ed@edboks.com or by calling 213-792-4800,

March 9, 2013January 9, 2018

TNR helps feral cats, provides safe rodent control By Ed Boks

Ed Boks and feral cats — Ask you local shelter about their Working Cat Program

In a perfect world, all cats would have a loving home. Unfortunately, unaltered cats permitted to roam freely either become feral or produce feral offspring. Feral cats are wild and cannot be turned into house pets. When feral cats end up in shelters, they have little hope of coming out alive. Rather than kill feral cats, I promote reducing their population through a process called TNR (trap/neuter/return).

For feral cats who find their way into an animal shelter, I propose a “working cat” program to help save their lives by putting them to work in our neighborhoods and ranches.

Through a Working Cat Program, feral cats are spayed and neutered and released into areas where they can do what they do best: prevent an overpopulation of rodents. Their reputation as stealthy and successful exterminators is well known and many homeowners and businesses rely on cats as a “green” rat abatement program.

Sadly, I was recently helped rescue two dogs exposed to rat poison; one we were able to save, the other succumbed despite our best efforts. One benefit of a Working Cat Program is that it keeps rodents in check without toxic pest control chemicals that are dangerous to pets, wildlife and children.

The program also helps improve public health. Rodents carry many diseases including plague, leptospirosis, hantavirus, murine typhus, rat bite fever, salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium, and eosinophilic meningitis.

The beauty of working cats is that rodents flee the area when these cats make their presence known. These sleek legends of grace and beauty give off an odor through their paws as they prowl. Once rodents get a whiff of feline, they vacate the premises.

Less grisly and more effective than glue traps, cats go about their “work” naturally. They prowl, they eat and they sit in the sun; although they prefer to spend much of their time hiding.

Working cats are spayed or neutered so they don’t contribute to the feral cat population. They are vaccinated so they help mitigate cat diseases in our community. They are microchipped so they can be returned to their owner should they end up in a shelter, and they are ear-tipped (under anesthesia while the cats are being altered; veterinarians notch an ear, which is the widely recognized sign that a feral cat is altered).

When Working Cats are “employed,” they are transported in large wire cages where they are housed for about a month at their new location. This process is called recolonizing. It takes about 30 days for a barn cat to be comfortable enough to consider their new environs home. Local animal shelters should be able to help you colonize your working cat and teach you how to care for them.

Working cats can be put in any safe area – businesses, hotels, industrial parks, residences, and barns. If you are interested in participating in this cost-effective, humane rat abatement program, call your local shelter to be added to their Working Cat list. Y ou will be contacted when your cat is ready for you.

If you don’t have a rodent problem but love cats and would like to help fund this non-lethal, humane program, please make a donation to your local shelter and specify “Working Cat program.”

For more information on feral cats visit Developing an Effective Strategy for the Permanent Reduction of Feral Cat Populations.

March 5, 2013January 10, 2018

Tools to accommodate killing discarded By Ed Boks

Ed Boks and no kill — Horrific incinerator
removed from YHS
campus after no-kill
achieved!

Behind the Yavapai Humane Society’s Pet Adoption Center in Prescott was a large incinerator. Abandoned for several years, the incinerator had become emblematic of a bygone era when homeless pets in our community were euthanized and discarded like so much garbage. The removal of this nightmarish relic on Feb. 27 is symbolic of a new day for pets in Yavapai County.

According to data provided by Animal People, the leading independent newspaper providing investigative coverage of animal protection, central and western Yavapai County is now tied with New York City as the second-safest community in the nation for pets.

This ranking is determined by the number of shelter animals killed per 1,000 residents. In the 12 months ending in February, the YHS kill rate fell to an all-time low tied with NYC at 1.0.

Whidbey Island, WA is ranked the safest community at .8 pets killed per 1,000 humans.

In contrast, Mohave County weighs in at 33. The most dangerous community in the U.S. for shelter animals is Amarillo, Texas, at 54.5 pets killed for every 1,000 residents.

In 2009, the YHS kill rate was 10.5, but this rate started declining in July 2010 when the YHS Board of Directors and management team embraced a “no-kill” ethic. This ethic is defined as applying the same criteria to homeless animals that a compassionate veterinarian or loving pet owner would apply to a pet when deciding if or when that pet should be euthanized, meaning only irremediably suffering and dangerously aggressive animals would ever be euthanized.

Ed Boks and YHS cat hospital — YHS is building new cat hospital
consistent with no-kill ethic.

Today, YHS is a national model for having eliminated killing as a method of pet overpopulation control. Reinforcing the symbolic gesture of dismantling the incinerator, YHS is also building an infirmary to care for homeless sick pets. The facility is scheduled to open in May and was made possible thanks to municipal and private funding.

This life-saving transformation in our community is the result of YHS supporters, volunteers and donors and could not have been achieved without them. If you would like to achieve No Kill in your community, contact me today.

February 20, 2013May 10, 2018

New research reveals dogs’ intelligence, ability to understand humans By Ed Boks

Ed Boks and animal intelligence Although many of us think our dog is clever enough to understand us, this confidence has never been tested by science – until now.

A new UK study found that dogs are more likely to steal food when they think you’re not looking, suggesting they understand our viewpoint.

Dr. Juliane Kaminski of the University of Portsmouth’s department of psychology found that when a human forbids a dog from taking food, the dog is four times more likely to disobey in a dark room than a lit room, signifying dogs may take into account what humans can or cannot see.

The results have scientists questioning whether dogs have a cognizant understanding of other species’ minds, an ability assumed limited only to humans.

The research published in the journal Animal Cognition and funded by the Max Planck Society involved a series of experiments. In each test, a dog was forbidden by a human from taking food. When the room was dark, the dogs took more food and took it more quickly than when the room was lit.

The tests were complex involving many variables to rule out the possibility that dogs were basing their decisions on simple associative rules, for example, that dark means food.

In total, 42 female and 42 male domestic dogs aged one year or older took part in the tests. They were chosen only if they were comfortable without their owners in the room, even in complete darkness, and if they were interested in food.

“The findings suggest that dogs are deciding that it’s safer to steal the food when the room is dark because they understand something of the human’s perspective,” Kaminski said.

She added that more research is needed to understand what is influencing the dogs’ behavior because it was thought that a dog’s understanding is limited to the “here and now.”

Another study on dog smarts conducted by Dr. Dominique Autier-Derian from the National Veterinary School in Lyon, France, found that dogs recognize their own species among other species on a computer screen. Dogs picked faces of other dogs, irrespective of breed, among human and other domestic and wild animal faces and even grouped them into categories.

Autier-Derian studied this phenomenon among domestic dogs, which have the largest morphological variety among all animal species, with more than 400 registered dog breeds.

The study explored whether this large morphological diversity presented a cognitive challenge to dogs trying to recognize their own species while confronted with other species using visual cues alone.

On a computer screen, the researcher showed nine pet dogs pictures of faces from various dog breeds and cross-breeds and, simultaneously, faces of other animal species, including human faces.

The results found dogs can form a visual category of dog faces and group pictures of very different dogs into a single category, despite the diversity in dog breeds. In fact, all nine dogs were able to group all the images of dogs within the same category.

Here is the news flash: The research concluded that dogs learned to recognize their own species despite the diversity of breeds to insure mating between different breeds is always possible.

This is hardly news to any animal shelter where on any given day many wonderful pure- and mixed-breed dogs are looking for that certain human face – yours – to take them home. This research also reminds us why we need to have our non-discriminating pets spayed or neutered.

February 13, 2013January 9, 2018

Coping with the loss of a pet by Ed Boks

Ed Boks cat — “God’s finger touched him,and he slept.”
Lord Tennyson

I recently lost my beloved pet cat, Bo Bentley. While attempting to cope with the intense pain that accompanies the loss of a friend, I found some comfort in the words of Dr. Moira Anderson Allen, M.Ed., author of the award-winning book “Coping with Sorrow on the Loss of Your Pet.”

Dr. Allen explains that grief over the loss of a pet is normal and you shouldn’t be surprised if you feel devastated by your loss. Some people won’t understand your pain. Don’t let others dictate your feelings because your feelings are valid. Remember, you are not alone; thousands of pet owners have gone through these same feelings. Different people experience grief in different ways. Besides sorrow, you may also experience guilt, denial, anger and depression.

Guilt comes from the “if only I had been more careful” syndrome. It is pointless to burden yourself with guilt because it only makes it more difficult to resolve your grief.

Denial results from the inability to adjust to the fact your pet really is gone. It’s hard to imagine he won’t greet you when you come home, or nudge you for his evening meal. Some pet owners find it hard to adopt a new pet for fear of being “disloyal” to the deceased pet.

Anger may be directed at the illness that killed your pet, the driver of the speeding car, the veterinarian who “failed” to save his life. It is important that you don’t let anger distract you from the important task of resolving your grief.

Depression is a natural consequence of grief, but it can leave you powerless to cope with your feelings. Extreme depression robs you of motivation and energy, causing you to dwell only upon your sorrow.

It is important that you are honest with your feelings. Don’t deny your pain, or your anger and guilt. Only by examining and coming to terms with your feelings are you able to work through them.

You have a right to feel pain and grief. Someone you loved has died, and you feel alone and bereaved. You have a right to feel anger and guilt, as well. Acknowledge your feelings, but then ask yourself whether the circumstances actually justify them.

Locking away grief doesn’t make it go away. Express it. Cry, scream, pound the floor and talk it out. Do what helps you the most. Don’t try to avoid grief by not thinking about your pet; instead, reminisce about the good times. This will help you understand what your pet’s loss actually means to you.

Some find it helpful to express their feelings and memories in poems, stories or letters to the pet. Other strategies include rearranging your schedule to fill the times you would have spent with your pet; preparing a memorial such as a photo collage; and talking to others about your loss.

If your family or friends love pets, they’ll understand what you’re going through. Don’t hide your feelings in a misguided effort to appear strong. Working through your feelings with another person is one of the best ways to put them in perspective and find ways to handle them. Find someone you can talk to about how much your pet meant to you and how much you miss him – someone you feel comfortable crying and grieving with.

If you don’t have family or friends who understand, or if you need more help, ask your veterinarian to recommend a pet loss counselor or support group. Check with your church or hospital for grief counseling. Remember, your grief is genuine and deserving of support.

February 7, 2013January 9, 2018

Study fails to debunk Trap-Neuter-Return by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and feral cats Nature Communications, a journal dedicated to publishing research in the biological, physical and chemical sciences released a report on January 29th, on the findings of a combined Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and Fish and Wildlife Service study. The results quickly became fodder for an uncritical media willing to accept its questionable claims.

It is important to understand that this report does not rely on new research but a re-interpretation of previously published research. Although the authors claim their publication is a “systematic review,” the paper does not meet the standards for meta-analysis or systematic review. For example, the authors do not score the quality of the previous research they assessed or define the number of animals extrapolated in each paper. There is no correction factor to correlate the environments studied (urban vs. rural) with the actual land mass distribution of the US. Some of the papers cited simply restate or exaggerate data from other papers, so they are not even analyzing original data as meta-analysis/systematic review standards require.

Sadly, there won’t be much opportunity for critical analysis because the authors elected to place their “results” in the mainstream media rather than submitting them for peer review. Clearly, this report was not written for scientists; it was written to misinform policy makers and the media.

The study claims domestic cats in the United States kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals a year, most of them native mammals like shrews, chipmunks and voles rather than introduced pests like the Norway rat.

This estimate is two to four times higher than mortality figures previously bandied about, making the domestic cat the single greatest human-linked threat to wildlife in the nation – greater than automobiles, pesticides and poisons, collisions with skyscrapers and windmills and other so-called anthropogenic causes.

The results admittedly come with wide ranges and uncertainties but seem purposely designed to fuel the sometimes vitriolic debate between environmentalists who see free-roaming domestic cats as an invasive species and animal welfare advocates who are appalled by the millions of cats (and dogs) euthanized in animal shelters each year.

Both sides do agree on two points; pet cats should not be allowed to prowl the neighborhood at will, any more than a dog, horse or potbellied pig, and cat owners who insist that their felines “deserve” a bit of freedom are both irresponsible and are not cat friendly.

Recent projects like Kitty Cams at the University of Georgia, in which cameras are attached to the collars of indoor-outdoor pet cats to track their activities filmed cats not only preying on cardinals, frogs and field mice but also lapping up antifreeze and sewer sludge, dodging moving cars and sparring violently with large dogs.

These are some of the reasons animal advocates claim that it is inhumane to let pet cats roam freely outdoors.

The study takes lethal aim at feral cats, however, calling into question the efficacy of the Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) methodology for controlling and decreasing feral cat populations. TNR is the practice of trapping, spaying and returning un-owned cats to a managed outdoor colony in the area from which they came. What the authors of the report failed to understand is that TNR is the only possible means for reducing the number of wildlife killed by feral cats.

Although some communities try to employ eradication as a remedy, decades of such efforts across the United States has irrefutably demonstrated eradication does not work.

Feral cats have a strong biological survival drive; attempts to catch cats for extermination triggers two biological imperatives causing the surviving cats to both over-breed and over-produce. That is, instead of having one litter of two to three kittens per year, a stressed female will have two or three litters of six to nine kittens annually.

Even if a community could catch and remove all their feral cats, a phenomenon called “the vacuum effect” quickly results in the neighboring cats entering the newly open territory bringing with them all the associated annoying behaviors, including an increase in wildlife killing.

As we’ve seen time after time in location after location all over the country, the end result of “catch and kill” methodologies only exasperates the problem. That is, the vacated neighborhood swiftly finds itself overrun again with feral cats fighting and caterwauling for mates, over breeding, and spraying to mark their new territory.

The only way to save our wildlife is to reduce the number of feral cats. The only known way to do that effectively is through well managed Trap/Neuter/Return programs.

February 5, 2013January 19, 2018

Study fails to debunk Trap-Neuter-Return by Ed Boks

Nature Communications is a journal dedicated to publishing research in the sciences. They recently published a controversial report on the findings of a Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute study. The results quickly became fodder for an uncritical media willing to accept its dubious findings.

Curiously, the authors elected to place their “results” in the mainstream media rather than submit them for peer review – suggesting the report was never meant for scientists, but to misinform policy makers.

The study estimated that domestic cats in the United States kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion native mammals, like shrews, chipmunks and voles, a year.

The report comes with many uncertainties and seems purposely designed to fuel the sometimes vitriolic debate between environmentalists who see free-roaming domestic cats as an invasive species and animal welfare advocates who are concerned with the millions of cats (and dogs) euthanized in animal shelters each year.

Both sides do agree on two points; pet cats should not be allowed to prowl the neighborhood at will, any more than a dog or a horse; and cat owners who insist that their felines “deserve” a bit of freedom are both irresponsible and not very cat friendly.

Projects like Kitty Cams at the University of Georgia attached cameras to the collars of indoor-outdoor pet cats to track their activities. Cats were not only filmed preying on cardinals, frogs and field mice but were also seen lapping up antifreeze and sewer sludge, dodging moving cars and sparring violently with large dogs.

This is why the I say if you love your cat, keep your cat indoors.

However, the real purpose of the study is to call into question the well established Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) method for humanely decreasing feral cat populations through attrition. TNR is the practice of trapping, spaying and returning un-owned cats to a managed colony in the area from which they came. The authors of the report failed to understand that TNR is the only known means for reducing feral cat populations and as a result reducing the number of wildlife killed by feral cats.

The report deduces eradication is the best remedy for dealing with feral cats, not recognizing that decades of such efforts across the United States irrefutably demonstrates eradication does not work.

Feral cats have a strong survival drive, which means attempts to catch cats for extermination triggers a biological imperative to over-breed and over-produce. The consequences are exponential; rather than one litter of two or three kittens per year, a stressed female will have two or three litters of six to nine kittens annually.

Even if a community could remove all its feral cats, a phenomenon called “the vacuum effect” quickly lures neighboring cats into the newly open territory bringing with them all their annoying behaviors, including increased wildlife killing.

As we’ve seen time after time in locations all over the country, the end result of “catch and kill” is always the same: vacated neighborhoods are swiftly overrun again with feral cats fighting and caterwauling for mates, over breeding, and spraying to mark their new territory – sometimes leading to demands for stronger eradication efforts, which as we know, only exacerbates the problem.

The only way to save our wildlife is to reduce the number of feral cats. The only proven way to do that is through well managed Trap/Neuter/Return programs.

January 23, 2013January 9, 2018

Cruelty to animals a sign the abuser is disturbed, dangerous by Ed Boks

Many of us are still attempting to cope with one of the most senseless crimes in our lifetime, perhaps in our nation’s history – the cold-blooded murder of 20 children and six teachers. In the aftermath of this heinous crime, law enforcement, educators and mental health professionals are again asking themselves if there are ways we can predict and perhaps prevent such tragedies.

In a Dec. 22 USA Today article, “Predicting violent behavior isn’t easy,” experts described five characteristics that mass killers exhibit that lead to accurate predictions of who is most likely to kill. Those five characteristics are previous violent or aggressive behavior; being a victim of physical or sexual abuse; guns in the home; use of drugs or alcohol; and brain damage from a head injury.

I was surprised to find that one of the most recognized risk factors for future violence was not even mentioned: animal abuse.

Both the American Psychological Association and the FBI recognize animal abuse or torture as an important indicator of future violent behavior toward humans. So serious is animal abuse that it is a felony in every state except North and South Dakota. In Tennessee, even hunting for the “pleasure” of killing the animal without the purpose of hunting for food consumption is considered aberrant behavior.

Research has found that most animal abusers suffer from low self-esteem, lack of emotional maturity, feelings of resentment toward others or society, displaced aggression (the helpless animal is blamed for the killer’s unhappiness), loneliness, and an inability to establish constructive social relationships. Abusers often suffered from childhood neglect and/or physical abuse themselves. Animal abusers almost always suffer from mental illness and require professional treatment.

Arizona law stipulates that cruelty to animals is a Class 6 felony which, if convicted, could result in a year of jail time and as much as $150,000 in fines. According to Arizona State Statute § 13-2910 a person commits animal cruelty when the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects an animal to cruel neglect or abandonment; fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering; inflicts unnecessary physical injury; or subjects an animal to cruel mistreatment.

So the big question is, can we predict (and hopefully prevent) who might commit heinous crimes, including mass murder? Some studies suggest that we can. Many researchers are confident that animal abuse is an early indicator of future violence towards humans. One study of 314 inmates published in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect (1997) conducted by University of Iowa professors Karla Miller and John Knutson found that a high percentage of the subjects charged with violent crimes, including murder, initially engaged in various types of animal cruelty.

There are more than 55 national organizations, including several in Arizona, whose mission it is to prevent, stop and help prosecute individuals who engage in animal cruelty. Reporting abusers not only protects our community, but may prevent the individual from committing serious crimes against humans, including mass murders and other highly aggressive and destructive behaviors in the future.

Any parent who sees this type of behavior in their children should immediately seek out professional help for the child. Treating animals cruelly are not isolated incidents; almost every serial killer has a history of animal abuse. This is a fact, not a coincidence.

If you want to help animal victims of cruelty in your community, please send a designated donation to your local animal shelter.

January 16, 2013January 9, 2018

2012 paradigm shift in animal welfare by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and ape — Science acknowledges non-human sentience

The current issue of Animal People contains a noteworthy article, entitled “The most overlooked victory for animals of 2012.” The article, written by Kim Bartlett, president of Animal People, reported on a potentially earth shaking paradigm shift that sadly went largely unnoticed.

On July 7, 2012, a prominent international group of neuroscientists, biologists and physicists (including the eminent Stephen Hawking) gathered at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals and signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness; which states:

“We declare the following: the absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviours. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess substrates.”

This declaration repudiates the 17th Century, “father of modern philosophy,” Rene Descartes’ ideas that animals are not conscious and have no interests or sense of well-being that humans need to be concerned with.

For more than 350 years, animals were believed to be incapable of thinking, and therefore incapable of “being.” Descartes labeled animals “automata” which means they lacked minds and emotions and were incapable of feeling sensations. Descartes considered compassion for animals worthy of ridicule.

Descartes, and generations of his followers, contended that when animals act as if they are suffering, it is no different than a malfunctioning machine. This philosophy gave carte blanche to the practice of vivisection, which takes living and fully conscious animals apart as if they were pocket watches. Vivisectors were encouraged to laugh as animals screamed and to make fun of the “sentimental” and “ignorant” people who protested their barbaric practices.

Descartes formulated a philosophy of mind/body dualism, similar to Greek and Asian thinkers before him. However, unlike earlier intellectuals, Descartes only granted minds to humans, designating animals as mere machines. “I think, therefore I am,” declared Descartes. However, in his system, animals were incapable of thought and therefore incapable of “being” in any meaningful way people ought to respect.

One prominent protester of Descartes’ rationale for animal cruelty was the Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, who famously demanded, “You discover in the animal all the same organs of feeling that are in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal so that it may not feel?”

Descartes’ ideological reign of terror over Western science began to crumble over the past several decades as scientists became uncomfortable with animal cruelty in laboratories and started to question “automata.” A new wave of academic philosophers, such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer, began poking holes in the Descartes doctrine in the 1970s in tandem with the birth of the modern animal rights movement. During this same time, studies of animals in their natural habitats led to an understanding that animals have more in common with humans than ever recognized before. This has all led to the culmination of a new paradigm embodied within the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which thoroughly denounces Descartes and his philosophy.

January 9, 2013January 9, 2018

Cats improve quality of life for senior citizens

Ed Boks and senior cat I want to talk about senior cats. These lovable animals have many good years of love left – making them ideal pets for senior citizens.

According to the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society there are many health benefits for seniors who have a pet or two. In fact, the Journal states there are many benefits for the seniors, the pets and society as a whole. Geriatric researchers found seniors with pets more active than seniors without pets and they score higher in their ability to carry out normal activities of daily living. Many positive effects on physical well-being are identified, including a healthy ability to fend off isolation and loneliness.

The Journal report says that pet ownership has a statistically significant effect on the physical health of older people. Further, the care-taking role involved in pet ownership may provide older people a sense of purpose and responsibility and encourages them to be less apathetic and more active in day-to-day activities. In fact, researchers found that elderly people who lacked strong social support (family and friends) remained relatively emotionally healthy during life-crises compared with non-pet-owners placed in similar situations. The evidence demonstrates that pets provide real health benefits to the elderly.

10 health reasons why pets are great for seniors

1. Pets lower blood pressure: A study of health patients showed that people over 40 who own pets had lower blood pressure than people who did not have pets. Another study showed that talking to pets decreases blood pressure.

2. Fewer trips to the doctor: Seniors who own pets go to the doctor less than those who do not. In a study of 1,000 Medicare patients, even the most highly stressed pet owner in the study had 21 percent fewer physician’s contacts than non-pet owners.

3. Less depression: Studies show that seniors with pets do not become depressed as often as those without pets.

4. Easier to make friends: Seniors with pets meet more people and like to talk about their pets.

5. Seniors become more active: Seniors with pets are generally more active than those without pets.

6. Pets are friends: Most everyone, but especially seniors, will say that pets are their friends.

7. Pets ease loss: Older people who suffer the loss of a spouse and own a pet are less likely to experience deterioration in health following that stressful event.

8. Pets fight loneliness: You are less likely to be lonely with a feline friend around.

9. Taking better care of themselves: Seniors take good care of their pets and better care of themselves when they own a pet.

10. Sense of security: Pets help seniors to feel that someone they trust is always around.

If you are a senior citizen wanting to take advantage of all these health benefits please consider adopting one or two senior cats today.