Not sure I can say this 'properly' -- but each state tends to have it's own tendency towards how conservative they are, how much 'risk' they are willing to take in a variety of situations. Some states will minimize human risk at the expense of the animals, some just don't address it.
i know years ago when I was first doing demodex stuff, Ohio and Michigan *both*, at that time, made it patently illegal to have a vet dispense amitraz (Mitaban) to an owner for the owner to 'dip' the dog which resulted in treatments (at that time it was the "only" treatment used for demodex) that were incredibly expensive and out of the reach of many owners. Why? Because amitraz is very toxic and if handled wrongly can endanger the health of the person doing the 'dipping'.
Other states had no such reaction - my point is that different states are going to react in different ways simply because of how certain things are viewed.
Michigan, being a 1 year rabies state, is very very ... let's use the word "conservative" because I believe the majority of states at this point have either gone to 3 year rabies or at least a county-decided situation (Florida is a 3 year state, but individual counties can mandate annuals if they decide to). But again -- they are using pharmaceutical methods to -- at least give the impression that the emphasis is on perceived protection from risk, rather than the overall health of the individual animal.
I'm not saying that's bad or good -- I'm saying that's why the laws are steered in that direction, and then the owners themselves have to evaluate that.
I've heard you say before you have never seen any autoimmune reaction in your dogs, and I would only tell you (as an owner who has 'been there';) -- you *don't*.
Auto-immune disease is something that comes on fast, hard and often silently. It tends not to be something common, it tends not to be something easy or simple.
"auto-immune" or "immune-mediated" is simply where the body turns against itself -- and it tends to perhaps lend itself to the fact that dogs can't talk and say "boy, I don't feel good". It goes to the point that we owners have to "see" it. Because it's often something like the body destroying a component in it's own blood (like platelets as with Willow or red blood cells as with Billy), or sudden infections or swellings or things where the body just "allows" or "encourages" something to happen that shouldn't -- it's weird. But it's almost always -- at least in dogs because we have to go by outward "signs" as our own means of diagnosis -- something pretty bad, and often deadly.
I'm not trying to 'drown' you Lies -- not at all. In all the sick dog experience *I* have had, Billy's IMHA blew me off the chart. It's only because I'm so darned completely a*al-retentive and obsessive about watching them that I caught it (cos Buffy cockers just plain don't survive it -- other breeds do, but not cockers, and particularly not buffys for some unknown reason).
In other words -- the point that Lori and I keep making is, if you 'see' auto-immune it's too late to THEN not do vaccines. In fact, as Lori has pointed out (and is my experience also with Billy) these two dogs may have had immune-mediated stuff brought on by over-vaxing, but it was over-vaxing done when they were *young* dogs. Billy was 4-5 when we got him -- and he hasn't been over vax'd since he's been with me.
There's nothing concrete. I wish I could just categorically say to you "in this case it's ok, but in that it's not". But there is no line recognizable like that.
AND part of it is that you're involved in sports, clubs and training that is utilizing vax as a legal safety-net to reassure insurance companies and facilities that they've taken EVERY precaution to have only healthy dogs involved and so the 'risk' then is minimal.
The real reason why vax are so popular isn't because anyone is trying to make dogs sick -- it's simply an EASY method for insurance companies, doctors, and large governing bodies to legislate 'protection' -- and their whole idea of "more is MORE" is trying to make risk *look* minimal. But it's specific types of risk (usually trying to minimize the potential for litigation or human exposure to illness) -- and the actual risk of adverse health consequences to the animals is down played (because of the 'group at risk' they are trying to protect).
Does that make sense? I'm not trying to be adversarial here -- just trying to make it make sense for some.