Pet Owners in Rhode Island have initiated a legislative effort to change the state's 2 year rabies booster law to the national 3 year standard and on behalf of The Rabies Challenge Fund www.RabiesChallengeFund.org , I have sent the letter below.
What You Can Do to Help:
Contact your legislator and ask them to introduce a bill changing the 2 year booster requirement to conform to the 3 year protocol recommended by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians Rabies Compendium and ask your pet-owning friends to do the same.
Rhode Island General Assembly: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/ (this link will assist you in finding your legislators) A full e-mail list of Rhode Island's Senators and Representatives is at the bottom of this post.
PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST
February 18, 2009
Dr. Scott Marshall Dr. David R. Gifford, Director
State Public Health Veterinarian Department of Health
Division of Agriculture 3 Capitol Hill
235 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908
Providence, RI 02908-5767
RE: Chapter 4-13-30 Rules and Regulations Governing the Suppression of Rabies
Greetings Drs. Marshall and Gifford:
On behalf of The Rabies Challenge Fund and concerned Rhode Island pet owners who have contacted us, I am writing to alert you to the fact that Rhode Island’s rabies regulations (Title 4, Chapter 4-13-30) requiring that dogs and cats receive boosters “not more than twenty-four (24) months have elapsed since the most recent vaccine” is contrary to the recommendations of all the national veterinary medical associations as well as the labeled specifications of all rabies vaccines licensed by the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The Center for Disease Control’s National Association of State Public Health Veterinarian's (NASPHV) Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control 2008 states that, “Vaccines used in state and local rabies control programs should have at least a 3-year duration of immunity. This constitutes the most effective method of increasing the proportion of immunized dogs and cats in any population (50).” They specifically warn that, “[n]o laboratory or epidemiologic data exist to support the annual or biennial administration of 3- or 4-year vaccines following the initial series.” Also endorsing the NASPHV’s Rabies Compendium are the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)[1] and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA).[2]
Requiring Rhode Island’s pet owners to pay for medically unnecessary rabies vaccinations at least every 24 months, from which their animal derive no benefit, raises ethical and legal issues which may violate Chapter 6-13.1 of Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices as well as the Veterinary Practice Act (Chapter 5-25) when veterinarians are compelled to administer 3 year vaccines (there are no 2 year rabies vaccines licensed by the USDA), off-label every 2 years in order for their clients to comply with state law.
Immunologically, the rabies vaccine is the most potent of the veterinary vaccines and associated with significant adverse reactions such as polyneuropathy “resulting in muscular atrophy, inhibition or interruption of neuronal control of tissue and organ function, incoordination, and weakness.”[3] Auto-immune hemolytic anemia,[4] autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel, and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites are all linked to the rabies vaccine.[5] [6] It is medically unsound for this vaccine to be given more often than is necessary to maintain immunity.
The labels on rabies vaccines state that they are for “the vaccination of healthy cats, dogs…,” and there are medical conditions for which vaccination can jeopardize the life or well-being of an animal. A medical exemption clause inserted into the new 3 year Rabies Law being considered would allow veterinarians to write waivers for animals for whom medical conditions preclude vaccination. The State of Maine inserted such an exemption into the 3 year rabies protocol, 7 M.R.S.A., Sec. 3922(3), it adopted in 2004 as follows:
A. A letter of exemption from vaccination may be submitted for licensure, if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the dog. Qualifying letters must be in the form of a written statement, signed by a licensed veterinarian, that includes a description of the dog, and the medical reason that precludes vaccination. If the medical reason is temporary, the letter shall indicate a time of expiration of the exemption.
B. A dog exempted under the provisions of paragraph 5 A, above, shall be considered unvaccinated, for the purposes of 10-144 C.M.R. Ch.251, Section 7(B)(1), (Rules Governing Rabies Management) in the case of said dog’s exposure to a confirmed or suspect rabid animal.
The Rabies Challenge Fund strongly urges Rhode Island to amend the Rules and Regulations Governing the Suppression of Rabies to conform to the national standard set by the CDC’s NASPHV’s Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control and respectfully requests that medical exemption language be inserted into the law.
Sincerely,
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
cc: Rhode Island Legislature
Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch
Dr. W. Jean Dodds
Dr. Ronald Schultz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] American Veterinary Medical Association, Veterinary Biologics, June 2007, “Rabies Vaccination Procedures”
[2] American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Task Force. 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, 28pp.; and ibid. 2006 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Revised, 28 pp.
[3] Dodds, W. Jean Vaccination Protocols for Dogs Predisposed to Vaccine Reactions, The Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, May/June 2001, Vol. 37, pp. 211-214
[4] Duval D., Giger U.Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog, Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 1996; 10:290-295
[5] American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Executive Board, April 2001, Principles of Vaccination, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 219, No. 5, September 1, 2001.
[6] Vascelleri, M. Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal Fibrosarcomas; Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A August 2003, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 286-291.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rhode Island General Assembly: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/
ARKANSAS PASSES NEW RABIES LAW--3 Year Law to be Set!
The Arkansas House (91-5) and Senate (35-0) passed a new rabies law authorizing the State Health Department to establish rabies vaccination schedules http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1274 which will result in a 3 year rabies protocol for Arkansas dogs and cats.
Arkansas News 2/2/09 http://arkansasnews.com/?s=rob+moritz&x=0&y=0&=Go
"The senate also gave final legislative approval to House Bill 1274 by Rep. Pam Adcock, D-Little Rock, which would modernize the state’s rabies vaccination laws. Under the bill, rabies vaccinations for dogs and cats would be required every three years, rather than every year under current law."
Oregon HB 2470 Targets Breeders
Please write your legislator today!
January 31, 2009
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is on the march again, and this time they have set their sights on Oregon. Emboldened by the media attention and fundraising dollars attracted by winning constitutional rights for Florida's pigs and trashing the California egg industry, HSUS is now going state to state with legislation that attempts to regulate dog breeding with number limits and draconian engineering standards for kennel facilities.
HB 2470, introduced in Oregon this week, contains strict new regulations that threaten to seriously undermine the ability to responsibly breed dogs in our state. Not surprisingly, it closely resembles HSUS anti-breeder legislation that has shown up in several other states, including neighboring Washington, so far this year. HB 2470 is sponsored by Representatives Paul Holvey and Sara Gelser and Senators Peter Courtney and Vicki Walker, and has been referred to the House Consumer Protection Committee.
NAIA supports laws that improve animal welfare, but HB 2470 appears to be nothing more than an anti-breeder bill aimed at singling out and punishing breeders with onerous and unnecessary restrictions and requirements.
The bill includes the following provisions:
Defines any breeder who sells more than 20 dogs, or 3 litters in a year as "pet dealer".
Prohibits anyone from owning, possessing controlling or otherwise having charge of more than 25 intact dogs over 4 months of age.
Imposes care and facility engineering requirements above and beyond current minimum standards of care for anyone who owns, possesses, controls or otherwise has charge of 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age.
Mandates record-keeping requirements and certain disclosures at time of sale.
Provides “lemon law” remedies for consumers.
Exempts shelters, veterinarians, pet stores and research facilities from new standards of care.
Click Here to read the full text of HB 2470.
Although we disagree fundamentally with the overall approach taken by HB 2470, the provisions we find particularly unreasonable and harmful are its arbitrary number limits and excessive kennel standards.
Now is the time for all responsible animal owners in Oregon to contact your State Representatives with the message that HB 2470 is unnecessary, irresponsible and unfair and must not be allowed to move forward.
While we believe that steps should be taken to identify and eliminate substandard kennels, this bill stretches way beyond that goal and targets all breeders, commercial and hobby, good and bad, large and small. Worse yet, it profiles and punishes responsible breeders who provide the best source of healthy pets to the community.
There are more effective solutions available to help eliminate substandard kennels, from greater enforcement of Oregon’s strong anti-acruelty and nuisance laws to educating consumers about how to seek out responsible and humane sources of healthy pets.
Please use the talking points below to write an email to your legislator today, educating them about this bill early in the process, before it receives formal consideration.
Politely explain that, at a time of budget deficits, this bill is unnecessary. Offer your expertise as a constituent with hands-on animal experience who they can rely on instead of an out of state organization for their information about dog issues. Let them know that responsible Oregon breeders -- dedicated dog lovers with great subect matter expertise and experience raising, breeding, placing, rescuing and training dogs -- were not consulted in the drafting of this bill. We are ready to share our knowledge and offer NAIA's alternative solutions to more effectively and reasonably address concerns about animal welfare.
Thank you for TAKING ACTION on behalf of pets and pet owners!
I would appreciate it if you would alert your legislative people to the following bills just introduced in Illinois.
Go to http://www.ilga.gov/ and type in the bill #'s. SB 53 is a companion bill for HB 198 - Dog Breeder.
We need to kill these in committee. I am also concerned that SB 139 exempts Vets from animal cruelty charges for docking
and cropping. Does this make a breeder guilty if he docks or crops?
FDA warning on chicken jerky treats Subject: Chicken Jerky Treats--FDA WarningPERMISSION TO CROSS-POST U.S. Government Publications are NOT Copyrighted http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/ComplaintsChicJerky.htmPreliminary Animal Health Notification December 19, 2008FDA Continues To Receive Complaints about Chicken Jerky Products for Dogs and Cautions Consumers The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to caution consumers of a potential association between the development of illness in dogs and the consumption of chicken jerky products also described as chicken tenders, strips or treats. FDA continues to receive complaints of dogs experiencing illness that their owners or veterinarians associate with consumption of chicken jerky products. The chicken jerky products are imported to the U.S. from China. FDA issued a cautionary warning to consumers in September 2007.Australian news organizations report the University of Sydney is also investigating an association between illness in dogs and the consumption of chicken jerky in Australia. At least one firm in Australia has recalled their chicken jerky product and the recall notification stated the chicken jerky product was manufactured in China.FDA believes the continued trend of consumer complaints coupled with the information obtained from Australia warrants an additional reminder and animal health notification.Chicken jerky products should not be substituted for a balanced diet and are intended to beused occasionally and in small quantities. Owners of small dogs must be especially careful to limit the amount of these products.FDA, in addition to several veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the U.S, is working to determine why these products are associated with illness in dogs. To date, scientists have not been able to determine a definitive cause for the reported illnesses. FDA has conducted extensive chemical and microbial testing but has not identified any contaminant.FDA is advising consumers who choose to feed their dogs chicken jerky products to watch their dogs closely for any or all of the following signs which may occur within hours to days of feeding the product: decreased appetite, although some may continue to consume the treats to the exclusion of other foods; decreased activity; vomiting; diarrhea, sometimes with blood; and increased water consumption and/or increased urination. If the dog shows any of these signs, stop feeding the chicken jerky product. Owners should consult their veterinarian if signs are severe or persist for more than 24 hours. Blood tests may indicate kidney failure (increased urea nitrogen and creatinine). Urine tests may indicate Fanconi syndrome (increased glucose). Although most dogs appear to recover, some reports to the FDA have involved dogs that have died.The FDA continues to actively investigate the problem. Many of the illnesses reported may be the result of causes other than eating chicken jerky. Veterinarians and consumers alike should report cases of animal illness associated with pet foods to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html in their state.Web page updated by hd - December 19, 2008, 1:12 PM ET