Pet Talk-Feb. 15, 2007

No joy in Muttville: The tail wags the dog

By: Dr. Daniel Eubanks
   It’s February, it’s cold, and it’s deadline for pet-license renewal.
   Oh, happy day!
   I assume all of you either already have or are in the process of acquiring your 2007 pet license through the city, township or borough. Did you have any quarrels with the clerk regarding you pets’ rabies immunization status? I’ll bet many of you did.
   First, let me go on record as being 100 percent in favor of pet licensure.
   I commend the State of New Jersey for requiring and enforcing dog licensure and their requirements of proof of current rabies immunization.
   Pennsylvania has no feline license program and no enforced canine licensure. Even if you voluntarily acquire a dog license, no rabies vaccine information is requested. New Jersey is clearly better prepared for any potential threat of rabies epidemic.
   There is a conflict, however. It all stems from whose directive we should follow regarding a rabies booster re-vaccination date. Should it occur at the true expiration date of immunization or at the date the municipality requires for re-licensure?
   The proper protocol for rabies immunization is clear and simple. These guidelines have been recommended and endorsed by practicing veterinarians, the vaccine’s manufacturers, the American Animal Hospital Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association and the United States Department of Agriculture.
   The pet’s first rabies vaccine is given at no less the three months of age, and immunity is thus conferred for one year. The booster given one year later and every subsequent booster is good for three years.
   Current guidelines comply with the concept that "less is better." Vaccines of any kind are a stress to the animal’s immune system and an expense to the owner.
   We are making every effort to vaccinate only for the "core" diseases and to limit re-vaccination (boosters) to the least indicated frequency, following manufacturer and USDA recommendations.
   Simple enough, right? But alas, "there is no joy in Muttville."
   Unfortunately, the local pet licensing authorities have taken a different view of the protocol. They will only issue the mandatory license if the pet’s rabies duration of immunity remains in effect for the duration of the calendar year for which the license was issued. They insist the rabies booster date coincide with their fiscal calendar year (January to January with a two-month grace period) rather than the true anniversary date of the vaccination.
   This mandate has been issued by the New Jersey Department of Health and adopted by the League of Municipalities, a coalition of local governments who set policy for the common good.
   Motivation for this requirement is clearly for their bookkeeping convenience.
   So what’s the problem?
   The following examples will illustrate the common good of the patient and the owner are not the primary concern here.
   First, consider the puppy born May 2006. At four months of age, September 2006 and now weighing all of 4 pounds, he receives his first one-year rabies vaccine.
   Three months later, in January 2007, the municipality "requires" he be vaccinated again as his one-year immunity will expire in Sept 2007, prior to the expiration of the license.
   That’s correct; they require the pup receive the same vaccine again, three months after he just received the one-year vaccination. No exemption is permitted unless a licensed veterinarian documents a condition precluding vaccination.
   Second, consider the guy with five dogs, all of whom received three-year rabies vaccines in September 2004. They are legitimately valid until September 2007, but are "required" to be re-vaccinated in January 2007 — nine months early — because their immunity expires during the calendar year of the 2007 license.
   That’s a loss of 25 percent of the immunity paid for by the owner in September 2004. Twenty-five percent times five dogs is a significant investment.
   These vaccine-license incompatibilities occur very often, usually resulting in redundant administration of vaccine being forced by the municipality.
   The state justifies this process by providing free rabies vaccine "clinics." These occur only on certain dates and usually involve standing in line at a schoolyard on a Saturday morning.
   Many folks would prefer not to avail themselves of this service and take the pet to their own veterinarian for the vaccine. This represents an unnecessary expense to the owner. Either way, it’s an unnecessary stress to the pet’s immune system.
   To emphasis this fact, I quote the "AAHA Vaccine Guidelines and Recommendations" published in 2003: "Every effort should be made to change laws that require rabies vaccination more often than every three years since. It is known to increase adverse events."
   Obviously, the rational way to remedy this snafu is to synchronize license renewal with the actual vaccination anniversary. Thus, the patient and the owner are not subjected to redundant vaccine stress and cost.
   The bottom line is this: the pet, the owner, the veterinarian, manufacturer, USDA, NJVMA, AVMA and AAHA are all on the same page; that is, rabies vaccination more often than indicated is unnecessary and potentially risky.
   The municipalities, however, require rabies vaccination as often as necessary to comply with their bookkeeping convenience.
   Excuse me, but isn’t this a case of "the tail wagging the dog"?