How Frustrating

I don't get what they mean when they say they "shed" the pathogens?  I had always thought that was only in poop.  Where else are they shedding it from? 

I think someone must of complained about something for them to be so suddenly overly cautious. Someone must of said something in front of someone who knows nothing about it and they made a big thing of it.  I mean if someone was THAT immune compromised they probably wouldn't be allowed visitors at all. 

Not to mention that just because they are fed a commercial diet doesn't mean they are completely free of salmonella or anything else.  How many times have bags of food been recalled for bacteria?? 

Awww, poor Bevo and Shooter!  That really sucks for them.  I never knew about pathogenic bacteria and raw fed diets. 

I'm going to say it for the sake of saying it but is it possible to just tell them they don't eat raw?  How do they know what the dog eats?

BEVOLASVEGAS

I can't help but feel as if Purina had a hand in making this become a reality.

Delta has NEVER been on my list of good guys.  Back when they wouldn't even TRY to certify Muffin because he was DEAF???

This is pretty bizzare. 

Amanda -- a LOT of nursing homes don't even require certification.  Call some other ones.

Lori, that is what I thought too. I have always heard that dog's saliva has antibacterial properties that prevent salmonella from thriving there. Supposedly, the concern is that raw dogs may shed salmonella in their stools. Common sense tells me that you shouldn't be eating dog poo in the first place, & responsible, reasonable people clean up after their dogs, & wash their hands, so this shouldn't be such a big issue.

Johnny, out of principle, I refuse to say that my dogs are kibble fed. It is nobody else's business what my dogs eat, & if that's such a huge concern for Delta's board of directors, I'll take my dogs & go elsewhere. I can't get over the fact that they are always talking about how they need more therapy teams, yet they choose to eliminate teams because of what the dogs eat. It's like cutting your nose off to spite your face....

Callie, I know that I can go to other nursing homes, but we have a relationship with the residents at the two homes that we visit, & I'd hate to stop visiting them. I contacted their directors today to let them know that, if they wanted therapy teams to continue visiting, they would need to do something else because all 3 teams that visit these homes are raw fed. I know that one home is contacting TDI to try to start working with TDI teams.

BEVOLASVEGAS

Callie, I know that I can go to other nursing homes, but we have a relationship with the residents at the two homes that we visit, & I'd hate to stop visiting them. I contacted their directors today to let them know that, if they wanted therapy teams to continue visiting, they would need to do something else because all 3 teams that visit these homes are raw fed. I know that one home is contacting TDI to try to start working with TDI teams.

If there is a relationship there then that's paramount.  man -- I SO understand.  When you visit a place like that you don't just say to the dogs 'let's go to the Home" -- you say "Wanna go visit Mrs. Schmuckatella??  And Mr. Jones??"  Those people NEED them and they know it.

 Usually places like that are pretty motivated to keep you coming -- and if you can point out to them that Purina may have more than a 'healthy' sway over Delta's position ... AND since your guys are cross certified, hopefully they'll be reasonable.  Will definitely make it a matter of good thots and prayer.  Like I said -- those people NEED *those* dogs. 

Delta has NEVER been on my list of good guys.  Back when they wouldn't even TRY to certify Muffin because he was DEAF???

I agree, which is why I'm a T/O for Therapy Dogs, Inc.  Disabled dogs can be therapy dogs, too!!!  Not only that, but to exclude raw fed dogs is patently ridiculous.  Are they going to tell me that kibble fed dogs don't occasionally eat their own poop for gosh sakes????  Hellooooo, they're dogs.  Dogs also transmit MRSA via their feet.  Does that mean we should ban therapy dogs altogether?  I would be willing to bet that more people acquire infections from other humans in hospital settings, by percentage, than they ever do from the visiting dogs.  I remember visiting my own fiance many times in a hospital or rehab facility.  Before we went, Sioux got bathed, her teeth brushed, and a fresh bandana.  Meanwhile, the nurses and aids left things all over the room - wrappers from needles, half opened applesauce, tissues that he had accidentally dropped that were not picked up, facecloths, etc..  Can't tell you how many times*I* cleaned up his area (reported one facility to the state it was so filthy).  Enough so I started bringing antibacterial wipes with me in my purse.  My dog was the cleanest thing in the room.

 What does the research actually say.  You know you can find a study somewhere to prove any thing.  And you can usually find a study to disprove it.  A fast look at Wikipedia hints that we should keep people away from ill people.

 seems like a load of poop to me

I would imagine they'll lose a lot of dogs and owners with this

I guess this all fits with Amanda's title "How Frustrating" but my comments aren't just about the raw situation.  Yeah, dogs are dogs.

But unfortunately not all sitiutations with pet therapy are the same, and some are dictated by the actual facility (and some of their requirements are laughable) and some are dictated by the various agencies they choose to trust. 

Most of it boils down to the fact that the "activities people" (who generally run the whole therapy dog issue) often wouldn't know a beagle from a chihuahua (unless they'd seen them in a movie).  They aren't dog people and MANY of them have not the slightest clue WHAT "pet-assisted therapy" (or whichever name you want to use) is really about.

For many of them it simply falls under "entertainment" *sigh*.  Even at Give Kids the World -- an organization I love dearly -- David and I aren't "volunteers".  (and we've been going at least once a month for almost 7 years).  We come in under the "Entertainment" banner.  So we've never had their basic "volunteer" training.  That has it's good points and bad points.  But mostly it means that the people who make the rules for US have not even one small clue about dogs. 

Back when Muffin was doing the bulk of his "cancer kids" pet therapy we also went to Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children (here in Orlando).  TD, Inc had tried HARD to get pet therapy in there -- but the whole facility was terrified of "dog germs".  We couldn't go to 'rooms' -- they either put us in a room off the lobby and the kids had to STAND IN LINE to pet the dog for 2 seconds (sick children??? come on).  And even the kids in wheelchairs really didn't have stamina for that.

But the thing that really yanked my chain ... the second a child was done "petting the dog" an employee was standing there to pour a glop of Purell into their hands to "sanitize" them.

But immediately one boy sat down on the floor, took off his shoe and put it on (that was fine -- it was only the floor, right??)

The next two kids had wheelchairs.  After they Purell'd their hands, they reached down (because they were kids and had short arms) and used the WHEEL of the wheelchair (not the chrome rim) to wheel themselves right back out.

Not even a qualm of the staff with them.  Wait a second -- my dog's back is less sanitary than the wheels that just rolled all the way thru the hospital FLOOR?? (includng where the dogs and all the humans were standing?)

What Amanda said -- it's VERY frustrating.  For many reasons.  But mostly because pet therapy should be about helping the child cope emotionally and spiritually with their illness.  It's SUPPOSED to be about the child creating a bond .. maybe just a temporary one ... but a bond with the dog to help create an emotional environment conducive to helping the child heal.

Interestingly each facility is SO different - well, 'facility" and whatever parent organizations that facility may belong to (here in Orlando several of the hospitals and/or nursing homes, etc. are affilitated and the parent company always makes the rules).  Here the Florida Hospital Group (which is owned by the Seventh Day Adventists -- which have their own criteria about health/cleanliness) will have NONE of pet therapy.  Not any.  They don't see any merit at all to it.

However, it's my understanding that the Nemours group is far more liberal and wants pet therapy. 

With both Muffin and Foxy we went up to Gainesville to Shands Hospital (again a cancer hospital for children - affiliated with  the University of Florida)   Their criteria was completely different -- they honestly didn't even care WHAT health certification the dogs had (current rabies/titers was fine) and they didn't care about therapy dog certification.  What THEY cared about was the state of health of David and I. 

I'm not saying any of this is bad or good -- I'm saying that ALL these groups are completely at the mercy of whatever the "activities" people or "entertainment" people THINK they have read.  and LIKE AMANDA it really yanks my chain that someone at the top of a group like Delta can make such an uninformed completely weird decision.  They're run by "rules" -- unbending rules that seem to have no heart and no real connection to what the task of a therapy dog really is.  THAT is sad.

I guess that we've been lucky.  Tyler is NOT certified, but was welcomed at both nursing home/assisted living facilites Mom has been in.  All they wanted was proof of current rabies.

The facility here, does not allow outside volunteers of any kind.  But, I took to walking Tyler down past there on fine afternoons when the patients liked to sit out front.  I did this because one day we were walking and a resident called out and asked me to bring the dog to her.  The aide who was out with her seconded the request.  Since the staff were fine with Tyler visiting outside on the veranda, and since the residents enjoyed him AND since Tyler loves the elderly, shoot, why not?

But, this situation is stoopid.  Yeah, all dogs eat something raw now and then, kibble fed dogs sometimes eat their own stool or that of someone else (including the lovely kitty treats), and yeah, I'm thinking the Purina person had a whole lot of undue influence.

(For the nth time: Delta *does* register dogs (and other animals) with disabilities!)

Now onto the raw fed dog rule:

I've read a few study abstracts posted to an unrelated email list (I'll try to post them here if I can find them again) that do seem to indicate that dogs who eat raw meat shed increased levels of e. coli and salmonella in their stool.  This means that it is quite possible that licking their rear end and then their fur could potentially spread those germs onto the rest of the dog's body.  This is not an issue for normal immune status people, but for *immune compromised* individuals this could be quite dangerous.

Initially I was quite incensed by the new rule, but now I can see why it was made.  Ethically I could not allow myself to feed raw to my therapy dog if there was the slightest chance that doing so would result in illness to the very people I'm trying to help - it's all about minimizing risk without throwing the baby out with the bathwater imo.

I'm currently feeding Honest Kitchen Preference with cooked meat added, but I have asked Delta for clarification on what they consider raw.  THK does check to ensure that bacteria is not present in their dehydrated raw complete diets and I've shared that info with Delta - they are also looking into the use of Stella and Chewy's and Sojos foods.

Studies:

Joffe, D. J., & Schlesinger, D. P. (2002). Preliminary assessment of the
risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets. Canadian
Veterinary Journal, 43, 441-442.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

From the results section:

From the results of this limited study, a BARF diet is significantly more likely than a commercial diet to contain Salmonella spp. (P < 0.001), and BARF-fed dogs are more likely than commercially fed dogs to shed Salmonella spp. in their stools (P = 0.105). 

 Evaluation of the Risks of Shedding Salmonellae and Other Potential Pathogens by Therapy Dogs Fed Raw Diets in Ontario and Alberta http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121395591/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

The incidence rate of Salmonella shedding in the raw meat-fed dogs was 0.61 cases/dog-year, compared with 0.08 cases/dog-year in dogs that were not fed raw meat (P < 0.001). Controlling for therapy dog group, the repeated measures, and pig ear consumption and diarrhoea in the 2 months prior to specimen submission, dogs that consumed raw meat were significantly more likely to test positive for Salmonellaat least once during the year than dogs that did not eat raw meat [odds ratio (OR) 22.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1–58.8; P < 0.001]. Specific Salmonella serovars were more common among dogs that consumed raw meat versus those that did not include S. Typhimurium, S. Heidelberg and S. Kentucky. Raw meat consumption was also significantly associated with shedding ESC E. coli (OR 17.2; 95% CI 9.4–32.3). No associations between C. difficile, MRSA or VRE and consumption of raw meat were detected.

I tried to find the abstract, for LeJeune, J. T., & Hancock, D. D. (2001). Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9), 1222-1225. but had no luck.