Dog Community

Posted : 5/23/2010 6:48:51 AM

Absolutely! NOTHING that I or the RCF does would have any effect on this issue if it were not for the dog lovers who have been calling, e-mailing, and writing letters to the Committee and the bill sponsor. You have been moving mountains!

Johnny&Tessy

Posted : 5/23/2010 6:57:01 AM

Kris L. Christine

Absolutely! NOTHING that I or the RCF does would have any effect on this issue if it were not for the dog lovers who have been calling, e-mailing, and writing letters to the Committee and the bill sponsor. You have been moving mountains!

Should probably note that YOU are also helping in SOOOO many ways!

A BIG THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU ARE DOING KRIS!!!!

cakana

Posted : 5/23/2010 9:04:24 AM

Johnny&Tessy

Kris L. Christine

Absolutely! NOTHING that I or the RCF does would have any effect on this issue if it were not for the dog lovers who have been calling, e-mailing, and writing letters to the Committee and the bill sponsor. You have been moving mountains!

Should probably note that YOU are also helping in SOOOO many ways!
A BIG THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU ARE DOING KRIS!!!!

Yes, thank you for all that you've done Kris!!

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 5/24/2010 12:20:37 PM

It's a pleasure to be able to help our wonderful dogs!

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 5/26/2010 5:12:04 AM

UPDATE California Rabies Bill AB 2000 -- Jan Rasmusen, a Friend of The Rabies Challenge Fund, contacted Saulo Londono in AM Hagman's office Tuesday (5/25/10). Mr. Londono sent her an e-mail which said:

"We have indeed come to the understanding that we will remove Paragraph 2. I have put the request into Leg Counsel to have language written as such and I expect to receive that before the week is over. I will then immediately pass the amendment to the Senate Health Committee, and it is up to them to put it in print. With that said, I think the final language should be available by middle of next week. I have requested a hearing for this bill on June 23rd, at 1:30pm, in the Senate Health Committee. "

We are waiting to see the revised bill in print.

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 6/3/2010 3:51:03 PM

REVISED CALIFORNIA AB 2000 -- PLEASE SUPPORT

The quarantine clause in AB 2000 inserting a medical exemption in California's rabies law has been removed http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_2000_bill_20100602_amended_sen_v97.pdf , and The Rabies Challenge Fund is asking dog owners to voice their support for this bill. The bill has a hearing set for June 23rd in the Senate Health Committee. Please contact the members of the Senate Health Committee below and ask them to pass the bill.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST

http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/HEALTH/_home1/PROFILE.HTM

Senate Health Committee Phone: (916) 651-4111

Elaine Alquist (Chair) senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4013, Fax: (916)-324-283
Tony Stickland (Vice-Chair) senator.strickland@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4019 Fax: (916) 324-7544
Samuel Aanestad Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4004 Fax: (916) 445-7750
Gilbert Cedillo Phone: (916) 651-4022 Fax: (916) 327-8817
Dave Cox senator.cox@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4001 Fax: (916) 324-2680
Mark Leo senator.leo@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4003 Fax: (916) 445-4722
Gloria Negrete McLeod senator.mcleod@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4032 Fax: (916) 445-0128

Fran Pavley senator.pavley@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4023 Fax: (916) 324-4823

Gloria Romero senator.romero@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4024 Fax: (916) 445-0485
Bill Co-Sponsor Assembly Member Curt Hagman Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov Phone: (916) 319-2060 Fax: (916) 319-2160

calliecritturs

Posted : 6/3/2010 10:44:37 PM

AWESOME - I will do the emails!!

shamrockmommy

Posted : 6/3/2010 11:10:40 PM

Great! I need help with letter writing though, I get so tongue tied- um, finger tied? LOL

calliecritturs

Posted : 6/5/2010 3:18:52 PM

This is what I sent:

The quarantine clause in AB 2000 inserting a medical exemption in California's rabies law has been removed See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_2000_bill_20100602_amended_sen_v97.pdf , Please heed my request as a dog owner -- there is a hearing set for June 23rd in the Senate Health Committee -- please pass this bill. This will enable California dog owners with sick or health-compromised dogs not to have to endanger their pet's welfare with vaccines when a veterinary waiver is needed. Many dogs, like my Billy who had IMHA (immune-mediated hemolytic anemia) can not be vaccinated. It would, quite literally, kill him. My vet has me get a titer test done by Kansas State University (the only place in the United States to obtain a rabies titer, and closely monitored) to ensure that he is able to prove sufficient immunity to not have to take the vaccine. By removing that quarantine clause dogs that would likely not survive a quarantine can be safely waivered. Often dogs who have been extremely ill, may still be on medication -- and the slightest additional stress (and quarantine would be an ENORMOUS stress) can often spin them back into immune-mediated trauma. And frankly, a rebound like that is usually fatal. To be extremely blunt -- this isn't something that your average careless owner would bother with. An an owner like that is not someone who is going to let their animal "run at large" and potentially bite someone. Once you have brought a dog thru something that incredibly life-threatening (and typically unbelievably expensive to treat) you tend to be REAL careful of that dog and you're in protective mode ALL the time to make sure the dog is not put in any sort of a stressful situation -- in short, you're going to get the dog away from any sort of threatening situation BEFORE unpleasantness arises simply because you don't want the dog stressed, because stress can trigger more illness. No, I'm really not unusual -- but this isn't something that the average person understands. But it's very similar to how protective a parent gets of a human child who has been extremely ill. So, my thanks for your support of passage of this is deep and great. Please pass AB 2000 as amended.

Mrs. Callie Kennedy

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 6/6/2010 6:32:45 AM

Letter from The Rabies Challenge Fund

June 4, 2010

Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair
Senate Health Committee
State Capitol, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Revised Rabies Medical Exemption Bill AB 2000

Greetings Senator Alquist:

The Rabies Challenge Fund strongly supports the June 2nd revision of AB 2000, which will insert a medical exemption clause for dogs into Section 121690 of California’s Health and Safety Code, and we respectfully request that the Senate Health Committee vote to support this bill.

Sincerely,

Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND CHARITABLE TRUST
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com

cc:       W. Jean Dodds, DVM
            Ronald D. Schultz, PhD
            Assembly Member Curt Hagman

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 6/14/2010 2:13:30 PM

URGENT ACTION NEEDED -- On June 8th Monica Wagoner, the Deputy Director of the California Department of Public Health (916) 440-7502, sent a letter to legislators opposing the revised medical exemption bill AB 2000. Her letter states: "There is no scientific evidence that canine rabies vaccines are associated with severe or a high rate of vaccination reactions. ...Modern canine rabies vaccines are safe ...."

PLEASE make a brief call or send a short e-mail to the Senate Health Committee members below and tell them you support "Molly's Bill" AB 2000 and ask everyone you know to do the same. Opposition to this bill from the Health Department will require a very strong show of public support to overcome.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST THIS MESSAGE.

Senate Health Committee Members

Elaine Alquist (Chair) senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov (916) 651-4013

Tony Stickland (Vice-Chair) senator.strickland@sen.ca.gov (916) 651-4019

Samuel Aanestad Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4004

Gilbert Cedillo (916) 651-4022

Dave Cox senator.cox@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4001

Mark Leo senator.leo@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4003

Gloria Negrete McLeod senator.mcleod@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4032

Fran Pavley senator.pavley@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4023

Gloria Romero senator.romero@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4024

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 6/15/2010 5:23:32 AM

Clarification: This bill will not change anything regarding the frequency of rabies vaccinations required, it will only add a medical exemption clause for dogs who are too ill to be vaccinated.

The current law already authorizes the Public Health Officer to impose annual rabies boosters in "rabies areas," which all counties in the state have been annually declared to be since at least 2001. As far as I know, the Health Department has not exercised that power by imposing annual rabies boosters in the last few years. In order to remove that authorization, another bill will have to be introduced in the next legislative session.

There are many precious canine lives depending on this medical exemption being being passed into California law, and now that the mandatory quarantine requirement for exempted dogs, which the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) requested, has been removed from the bill, The Rabies Challenge Fund is fully supporting passage of this bill. We urge anyone concerned to take immediate action and call or e-mail the Senators on the Health Committee and ask them to pass "Molly's Bill", AB 2000. Once the mandatory quarantine clause, which the CDPH and CVMA had requested, was removed from AB 2000, they decided to oppose the bill. Government agencies carry a great deal of weight, and it is essential that there be a large voice of public support for this bill to get it passed in the face of such powerful opposition, so please call all the members of the Senate Health Committee and tell them to support "Molly's Bill", AB 2000.

Below again is the contact information for the Senate Health Committee which has a hearing set for AB 2000 on June 23rd. Included are the e-mail addresses of the specific legislative aids who are working on this bill:

Elaine Alquist (Chair) senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4013, Fax: (916)-324-0283
Tony Stickland (Vice-Chair) senator.strickland@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4019 Fax: (916) 324-7544
Samuel Aanestad Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov legislative aid: julie.nystrom@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4004 Fax: (916) 445-7750
Gilbert Cedillo legislative aid: luis.quinonez@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4022 Fax: (916) 327-8817
Dave Cox senator.cox@senate.ca.gov legislative aid: kirk.cowgill@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4001 Fax: (916) 324-2680
Mark Leo senator.leo@senate.ca.gov legislative aid: sara.rogers@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4003 Fax: (916) 445-4722
Gloria Negrete McLeod senator.mcleod@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4032 Fax: (916) 445-0128
Fran Pavley senator.pavley@senate.ca.gov legislative aid: elise.thurau@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4023 Fax: (916) 324-4823
Gloria Romero senator.romero@sen.ca.gov legislative aid: rae.flores@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4024 Fax: (916) 445-0485

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 6/16/2010 6:18:16 AM

The following is Dr. W. Jean Dodds' letter of support for "Molly's Bill", AB 2000, and her refutation of the California Department of Public Health's opposition:

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST

June 14, 2010

The Honorable Curt Hagman
California State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 4116
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: CA Assembly Bill AB2000

Dear Assembly Member Hagman:

I learned today from your staff person, Saulo Londono, that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has officially opposed your sponsored bill AB 2000. This decision by the CDPH is a huge step backwards for veterinary health care professionals, like myself, who need to be able to justify exemption from rabies vaccine boosters on a case-by-case basis. Your bill AB 2000 would permit a safe alternative for dogs whose illnesses were caused by a rabies vaccine, as well as those too sick to tolerate the rabies vaccine because of terminal cancer, kidney/liver failure, grand mal seizures, and other chronic diseases.

The CDPH letter of June 8, 2010 states that “there is no scientific evidence that rabies vaccines are associated with severe or a high rate of vaccination reactions.” This statement is just false. The letter goes on to state that “Modern rabies vaccines are safe and effective”, and that “ A recent study published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that rabies vaccines used for dogs ---- do not result in a high frequency or unexpected pattern of adverse events.” On the contrary, this same cited study found:

Rabies Vaccines and the USDA/CVB

Rabies vaccines are the most common group of biological products identified in adverse event reports received by the USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB). Currently, 14 rabies vaccines are labeled for use in dogs. Before licensure, a product must be shown to be safe through a combination of safety evaluations. The field safety trial is the most comprehensive evaluation and has the objective of assessing the safety of the product in its target population under the conditions of its intended use. However, safety studies before licensure may not detect all safety concerns for a number of reasons, as follows: insufficient number of animals for low frequency events, insufficient duration of observation, sensitivities of subpopulations (e.g. breed, reproductive status, and unintended species), or interactions with concomitantly administered products.

Reporting Adverse Vaccine Reaction to Manufacturer and the Government

There is no mandatory reporting of adverse reactions in veterinary medicine. The 2007 World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) Vaccine Guidelines states that there is: "gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products." WSAVA 2007 Vaccine Guidelines http://www.wsava.org/SAC.htm,

Despite the serious under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse reactions, the 2008 Report from the USDA’s CVB [JAVMA 232:1000-1002, 2008], states that between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2007, they "requested manufacturers of rabies vaccines to provide adverse event report summaries for their products. During this period, nearly 10,000 adverse event reports (all animal species) were received by manufacturers of rabies vaccines. Approximately 65% of the manufacturer's reports involved dogs."

The USDA/CVB 2008 Report further states that "Rabies vaccines are the most common group of biological products identified in adverse event reports received by the CVB." During the 3-year period covered in this report, the CVB received 246 adverse event reports for dogs in which a rabies vaccine was identified as one of the products administered.

The following clinical terms were listed “to describe possibly related adverse events in dogs vaccinated against rabies “ and reported to the USDA/CVB between April 1, 2004-March 31, 2007. For 217 adverse event reports – the clinical term is followed by the % of dogs affected:

Vomiting-28.1%; facial swelling-26.3%; injection site swelling or lump-19.4%; lethargy-12%; urticaria-10.1%; circulatory shock-8.3%; injection site pain-7.4%; pruritus-7.4%; injection site alopecia or hair loss-6.9%; death-5.5%; lack of consciousness-5.5; diarrhea-4.6%; hypersensitivity (not specified)-4.6%; fever-4.1%;, anaphylaxis-2.8%; ataxia-2.8%; lameness-2.8%; general signs of pain-2.3%; hyperactivity-2.3%; injection site scab or crust-2.3%;, muscle tremor-2.3%; tachycardia-2.3%; and thrombocytopenia-2.3%.

The overall adverse report rate for rabies vaccines was determined to be 8.3 reports/100,000 doses sold. Adverse events considered possibly related to vaccination included acute hypersensitivity (59%); local reactions (27%); systemic reactions, which refers to short-term lethargy, fever, general pain, anorexia, or behavioral changes, with or without gastrointestinal disturbances starting within 3 days after vaccination (9%); autoimmune disorders (3%); and other (2%).

While there may be no contraindications listed on the label for canine rabies vaccines, the labeling instructions on vaccine products clearly instruct veterinarians to only vaccinate healthy dogs. I submit that the dogs for which medically justified exemptions from rabies boosters are sought are not healthy.

The CDPH “believes that passage of AB 2000 could increase the risk to the public health by allowing dogs to be exempted from current rabies vaccination requirements.” This statement lacks credibility, as the number of dogs eligible for exemptions statewide would be small and such exemptions require that a primary care veterinarian justify them on a case-by-case basis. To deny these animals the opportunity to avoid serious or even fatal adverse events from rabies vaccines just encourages pet owners to break the law to save their pets from harm. They would then join the approximate 50% of pet owners in our State that fail to vaccinate their dogs at all. It is those that flaunt the law and never comply that we should seek out, rather than penalizing the few unfortunate pets and owners whose dogs cannot tolerate rabies boosters.

Finally, the CDPH letter states “ Standard veterinary immunization protocols already exist to prevent vaccine adverse reactions.” I know of no such standard protocols, and further, one often cannot predict which animals will react adversely without a prior history of reaction or family predisposition.

Sincerely,

W. Jean Dodds, DVM

Co -Trustee, Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust;
President, Hemopet

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 6/16/2010 3:11:54 PM

Below is the letter I just faxed to the Senate Health Committee.

PERMISSION TO CROSS-POST

June 16, 2010

Senator Elaine Alquist, Chair
Senate Health Committee
State Capitol, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Support for “Molly’s Bill,” AB2000

Greetings Senator Alquist:

The Rabies Challenge Fund, a California-registered charitable trust of which Co-Trustee Dr. W. Jean is a California resident, strongly supports “Molly’s Bill,” AB 2000.

For years, many states have had medical exemptions in rabies laws without experiencing an increase in rabies for the species of domestic animals covered by the laws, and there is no epidemiological or scientific data indicating that California residents will be at an elevated risk of contracting rabies if “Molly’s Bill” is passed.

Maine is a rabies endemic state, yet the Department of Health passed a medical exemption clause into the rabies regulations, which became effective in April 2005 (DHS Chapter 260 http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/10/144/144c260.doc). Dr. Donald E. Hoenig, Maine’s State Veterinarian (207) 287-7615, confirmed today that there have been no rabid dogs reported in the state since the passage of the rabies medical exemption clause more than five years ago.

Within the last year, the states of Alabama, Rhode Island, and Virginia have all passed rabies medical exemption clauses into their laws and regulations. The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust urges the Senate Health Committee to support “Molly’s Bill.”

Sincerely,

Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND CHARITABLE TRUST
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com

cc:       W. Jean Dodds, DVM
            Ronald D. Schultz, PhD
            Assembly Member Curt Hagman

Kris L. Christine

Posted : 6/18/2010 5:54:18 AM

Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association's Letter of Support for "Molly's Bill," AB 2000 California Rabies Medical Exemption
June 16, 2010

Senator Elaine Alquist, Chairperson
CA State Senate Health Committee
State Capitol Building, Room 2191
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 324‐0384

RE: Follow‐up Veterinary Support Letter for AB 2000 (Medical Exemption from Rabies Vaccination), including Response to California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Objections

Dear Senator Alquist and Committee Members:

I am writing on behalf of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA), an organization representing approximately 2,000 veterinary professionals nationwide with a focus on the health and welfare of all animals, including companion dogs and cats, to reiterate our support for AB 2000 and to counter objections voiced in the California Department of Public Health’s opposition letter, dated June 8. (Our original letter, dated May 7, in support of the bill, is attached for your reference.)

The CDPH statement that “there is no scientific evidence that rabies vaccines are associated with severe or a high rate of vaccination reactions,” is simply incorrect. The USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) reports that rabies vaccines are the most common group of biological products named in the adverse event reports they receive. Adverse vaccine‐associated reactions are not required to be reported in veterinary medicine. Even in the face of what is probably gross underreporting, the USDA/CVB Report, published in the April 1, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (pages 1000‐1002), states that from April 2004 through March 2007 nearly 10,000 adverse event reports were received by rabies vaccine manufacturers, and that about 65% of these concerned dogs. The overall rate of such adverse rabies vaccine reactions during the report period was 8.3 reports/100,000 doses of vaccine. These are by no means trivial findings nor is the magnitude of the numbers insignificant. Although canine rabies vaccine labels may not enumerate contraindications, the labeling instructions on vaccine products clearly instruct veterinarians to vaccinate only healthy dogs. A small number of companion animals have medical conditions for which vaccination is life‐ or health‐threatening and thus, inappropriate. In these cases, a dog’s particular exemption from rabies vaccination would be individually substantiated by a veterinarian, and under these stringent circumstances, we do not foresee the submission of illegitimate or frivolous requests.

Veterinarians are well trained in immunology and develop a great respect for both the powerful positive and potential negative consequence of vaccinating their patients. Veterinary schools require detailed study of those zoonotic diseases, like rabies, that are transmissible from animals to humans. State and national veterinary board exams rigorously test this understanding. Veterinary schools and professional advisory bodies regularly update vaccination protocols as new findings emerge. Vaccinology is one of the most active areas of research and discussion in the professional literature, at continuing education venues, and among clinicians around the country and throughout the world.

The Veterinarian’s Oath states, “I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering… (and) the promotion of public health…” As veterinarians we continuously safeguard the public health by protecting the health and welfare of our patients within the context of their families and our communities. Disallowing veterinary medical exemption from rabies vaccination impugns this professional commitment and puts the public at greater potential risk by those who, concerned
about their dogs’ health and deprived of a vaccination exemption option, may choose to fly ‘under the radar,’ eluding both licensing and vaccination entirely.

A number of states, including Alabama, Florida, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin, successfully provide medical exemption from rabies vaccination without quarantine provisions. Once again, we encourage your support of this important state legislation, similarly safeguarding the health and welfare of the companion canines of Californians.

Please contact me if you have any questions or if you would like more details about our perspective on these issues. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Barbara Hodges, DVM, MBA
Veterinary Consultant
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA)

NOTICE: CALIFORNIA DOG OWNERS