Student loans assist with living expenses

A recent exchange of letters^1,2 discussed whether educational debt or total cost of attendance (including tuition, fees, and living expenses) should be used when calculating the internal rate of return of pursuing a veterinary education. As a recent graduate, I can confidently state that, for a variety of reasons, most veterinary students are taking out loans to pay for their living expenses. I agree that, as Lim et al² indicate, educational debt should take into account living expenses.

Most students are still relatively young when they enter veterinary school and have not had the opportunity to build up sufficient savings to pay for food and housing through four years of schooling. Because of the time demands of the veterinary curriculum, however, they also are not able to earn enough during those years to pay their living expenses. Complicating the matter is the fact that many students move across the country to attend veterinary school, and those who move from a state with a lower cost of living to one with a higher cost of living face additional challenges in affording rent and other living expenses.

As a result, many students have to take out loans to cover their living expenses while attending veterinary school. In fact, if I had not taken out loans to cover my living expenses during veterinary school, I would not be a veterinarian today.

Rachel Sangl, dvm

Riverside, Calif

Alternative route for controlling wild horse and burro population

Reading the recent JAVMA News story¹ on efforts to control the overpopulation of wild horses and burros, I couldn't help but think that cost-effective approaches toward this problem seem to be totally lacking. To a large extent, this arises because of constraints imposed by the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act. Meanwhile, however, native wildlife and their habitats continue to suffer in the extreme.

The United States is spending millions of public and private dollars maintaining these animals in holding facilities until they can be adopted and developing contraceptive methods to control population growth, all while the population continues to grow. In contrast, various fish and game agencies have effectively demonstrated the ability to control populations of other species, such as cervids and bears, through regulated culling.

A market exists for horse meat intended for human consumption. The elimination of USDA-inspected equine slaughter facilities currently precludes this option, but reinstating such facilities would not only help address the overpopulation problem but also help support private businesses.

Prejudices regarding the dietary preferences of other cultures and unrealistic priorities regarding these animals seem to have prevented adoption of more realistic and cost-effective methods to reduce the excessive numbers of these free-ranging equids. I, for one, would much prefer to see most of the millions of dollars currently being expended for wild horse and burro control diverted to scholarships and other programs focused on reducing student debt.

Paul L. Barrows, dvm, phd

Wimberley, Tex

In defense of low-cost vaccination clinics

In a recent letter to the editor,¹ Dr. Allan Simon commented that he believes that “vaccination clinics negatively affect the public perception of veterinarians and threaten the long-term survival of high-quality veterinary medicine.”

At one point in my career, I too wondered whether low-cost vaccination clinics were a source of unfair competition for local veterinary practices or gave pet owners the false impression that vaccinations are all that is needed to keep their pets healthy. After 24 years of practice, however, I firmly believe that such clinics provide a valuable contribution to the community.

What changed my mind? Over the years, I have seen and met a large number of people who would not have had anything done for their pets were it not for the existence of low-cost vaccination clinics. I have been to low-income communities and seen how appreciative owners are to have even just vaccinations done, especially rabies vaccinations because rabies is a public health issue and vaccination is required by most cities. When working at low-cost vaccination clinics, I always stress to owners the need to have a regular veterinarian for routine physical examinations, heartworm tests, and other services, but I also understand when vaccinations is all they can afford.

Does it bother me when people who appear to have enough money to afford to go to a full-service practice use our clinic? Of course. And, if we had the time and resources to screen owners to ensure that only those with demonstrated need were seen, we would. But we do not.

Concerns expressed about low-cost vaccinations clinics are in many ways the same as those expressed about high-volume, high-quality, spay-neuter clinics. In response, I would challenge veterinarians who have not done so to spend at least a day in a high-volume shelter and assist with the euthanasia of unwanted dogs and cats. Or spend some time working at a low-cost vaccination clinic and meet the types of people that I meet there, such as the farmer who was thrilled to find he could bring in the feral cats on his property that he was able to trap.

Take the time to visit spay-neuter clinics and low-cost vaccination clinics and you may find as I have that these clinics, far from being a threat, provide valuable services that may not be available anywhere else.

Jennifer Doll, dvm

Iowa Humane Alliance Veterinary Services Animals All About Solon, Iowa