calliecritturs
Posted : 5/14/2010 10:48:26 PM
One dog 2 many
I don't know, accidents happen and dogs (even good, well-managed dogs) bite people. Just having insurance to cover medical expenses, doesn't save someone from going through a really painful (especially if the victim is a young child) medical treatment.
I'm sorry you went thru such a bad situation -- I have a friend whose health was literally completely wrecked because she had to take the rabies treatments.
HOWEVER -- at the same time I have a dog who is an IMHA survivor who can never take ANY vaccines ... ever. Not even one. It would kill him.
NOw .. let me explain.
The one year shot and the 3 year shot are the very same shot -- it's simply that one is certified for 3 years vs. 1. It is, plainly **marketing**.
Go beyond that -- the same shot is well known and medically proven effective for THREE years. and the diseases and health issues tied to rabies shots are far far beyond ANY other vaccine. injection site sarcoma, IMHA, etc. Too many to count.
BUT at this time (and this is where Kris usually keeps us informed) -- there is a study under way now (done by Dr. Ronald Schultz and Dr. Jean Dodds, that is endeavoring to EXTEND even that three year period. Meaning -- it is SO established that 3 years is a **minimum** of the effectiveness for this shot that they are now doing the Rabies Challenge Study to prove that the vaccine is actually effective for AT LEAST **seven** years if not longer.
Billy has had a rabies titer every year (I have to send blood to Kansas State for that -- it's the only vet school that does it) and he's showns sufficient immunity for me to get the waiver in Florida every year.
Bottom line -- the thing no one told you when you had your bite was that it is NOT dogs that spread rabies. It's wildlife. There has only been one case of rabies spread by a dog bite in like 75 years (I'm not able to quote the origin of that but it's pretty well known). The way to control rabies is by controlling it in wildlife. Dropping bait with the vaccine, among other methods is very successful.
The problem is it is EASY to legisltate it for DOGS. (not even cats -- and a feral cat is FAR more apt to carry rabies than any dog because it never gets ANY vax). It's an income generator for vets, it's easy politically because it makes the originatingpolitician look "concerned" -- but the end result is sick dogs. NOT any measurable difference in risk to humans.
The problem is -- most dogs that are running loose do run a higher risk of being unvaccinated because they have owners who DON'T CARE.
But the "payback" is that it is SO detrimental to the dogs whose owners ARE taking excellent care of them. I can tell you-- that a dog that has been treated for IMHA and the other immune-mediated diseases? That's an owner that has spent likely close to $5000 to $10,000 (or double that) to treat their dog on an ongoing basis. It NEVER ends.
The whole purpose in requiring annual vaccination isn't because "annual" is safer. NOT AT ALL> It's merely a safety net -- thinking that if shots are required **every** year then the chances that any dog MIGHT get vaccinated MIGHT be greater. That's the thinking -- it's not logical thinking because those dogs whose owners don't care enough to vaccinate just plain won't bother to license them EVER. And those who try to be compliant will over-vaccinate their dogs.
The owners who don't care will continue to be the wildcard and their dog is the risky one. The people who try to be compliant are simply the ones who GET punished -- because their dogs will be far more apt to get auto-immune disease, vaccinosis and cancer -- and those who don't bother to vaccinate still WON'T.