Wys tans plasings met die etiket vaccination. Wys alle plasings
Wys tans plasings met die etiket vaccination. Wys alle plasings

Donderdag 19 Januarie 2012

Your Right to Own a Pet

There exist umpteen internet websites expounding on the responsibilites of pet ownership. And many of them loudly proclaim that "pet ownership is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT."

Standing at the helm of this "Pets are a Privilege" movement, we find the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA Executive Board recently approved new guidelines for responsible pet ownership. The guidelines are prefaced with this statement:

"Owning a pet is a privilege and should result in a mutually beneficial relationship."  (1)

      
The devil, you say. Really? A privilege?

A "privilege" is defined as a "right or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most; the condition of enjoying special rights." A privilege is a special right granted by those in authority; something for which you must obtain permission. A right is something for which you do not need permission.  

Pets are property, in both a technical and a legal sense. (More about that in a future post). Our right to own a pet is the same as the right to own any other property and must not be considered a privilege; something  by definition "beyond the advantage of most."

The UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states:


 "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."


Six of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution refer directly or indirectly to personal property rights. (2)

Owning an animal is a right, as is ownership of any other property. It's not a privilege.


To further bolster the case for the pet ownership, consider the vital role pets play in out lives. Let's look to current research studies. Pet ownership provides health benefits such as reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and reducing allergies. Pets provide companionship,  promote exercise and improve our social skills by helping to reduce shyness and isolation. (3)

We have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", so said the founders of our nation in the Declaration of Independence. Pet ownership definitely falls under the category of pursuit of happiness. Not to mention, it's good for our health.


Considering the postive health benefits of pet ownership, that right should not be abridged. If pet ownership becomes a "privilege" there would then exist an unreasonable usurpation of our rights. We have a right to pursue our dreams, and a right to pet ownership.

We have the right to purchase and own property. But just because we own something does not mean that we can do with it as we please. Sometimes there are restrictions placed upon the use of certain types of property, like a car, a gun, or an animal. You need to obtain a driver's license to use your car. You can own a gun, but cannot use it for illegal purposes. You can own an animal, but you must comply with animal welfare regulations.


Property ownership is a right, which may not be abridged unless we abuse that right. If ownership of pets is to be considered a privilege, then we must meet special conditions and requirements and may even be denied permission to make our purchase. However, constitutionally and legally, we do not need permission to purchase property.

Some breeders and pet rescuers firmly believe that the best interest of the pet supercedes the considerations of the owner.  


"After working in rescue for many years" a friend recently confided "I sincerely believe that not everyone should own a dog."

And after working in a shelter for battered women, I suppose one might form the opinion that not everyone should get married. Not much of a revelation there. After working for child protective services, one might form the opinion that not everyone should have children. No epiphany there, either. After working in a hospital for many years, one might conclude that life is filled with doom, gloom and misery. But of course, such biased viewpoints are never accurate or balanced.

We cannot deny basic human rights based on the actions of those who abuse such rights. 

True, some people don't give the proper consideration to dog ownership prior to making their decision. But probably, the majority of owners DO. And should the basic rights to ownership of animals for everyone be denied due to a few bad apples?

Owning an pet involves a good deal of responsibility. When you own an animal, you have a moral obligation to provide food shelter, care and kindness. We even have laws in all 50 states requiring humane treatment of animals; laws that forbid neglect and abuse. 


The AVMA further delineates their proposed markers for "Responsible Pet Ownership" which includes such recommendations as keeping your pet for its entire lifetime, limiting breeding to help ease "overpopulation", and other debatable concepts. Of course, the AVMA recommends:


"Providing preventive (e.g., vaccinations, parasite control) and therapeutic health care for the life of pet(s) in consultation with, and as recommended by, its veterinarian."

Humans have the right to refuse to seek medical care if they so choose. I suppose if we exercise that option for our animals, then we are not "responsible". In the eyes of the AVMA, in this case, we don't deserve to have a pet! 


Never mind the blatant conflict of interest in the recommendations by so many veterinarians for yearly vaccinations and monthly parasite managment treatments.

Another factor to consider when positing "responsible pet ownership guidelines" is that we may be projecting our own values about pet ownership onto others. We may forget that not all dogs are destined to function as pampered companions. Is it unreasonable to expect dogs to work as service animals for the disabled? What about keeping packs of dogs for hunting, or using dogs for herding, or having an outdoor guard dog?


Then there is the admonition for "socialization and appropriate training for pets." But what if the dog's purpose is to protect the owner? Perhaps the owner doesn't WANT their pet to be social and friendly to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Many breed standards call for an "aloof" quality. Again, the purpose for which some "pets" are kept can vary. That does not make the owner "irresponsible."


But put aside the AVMA's responsible pet owner commandments for a moment. Let's examine how responsible we as a nation have been in regard to pet ownership.


There are over 78 million owned dogs in the US, and over 86 million owned cats. There is also an unknown number of feral cats, and a minute number of unowned, stray dogs. Of the 156 million pets in the US, and the many millions more feral cats that exist, a small fraction of animals, estimated at 6-8 million, transit through shelters each year. Less than 4%. considering a significant number are feral ownerless cats, WAY below 4% of the owned animals in this country.

That means that over 96% of animals in this country are owned in a responsible manner.


Each year in the US, there are 17 million people who will adopt a new pet and haven't decided exactly where to get this new pet from. And there exists an estimated 2-3 million adoptable pets in shelters who are killed. There are 17 million households available to absorb 2-3 million shelter pets. To prevent their deaths, all that would be needed is to effectively use some creative marketing skills. Yet even if every adoptable animal was adopted, we would still need 14 million more pets each year.


Yes, Virginia, we CAN adopt our way out this problem. It has happened in many communities already; communities where the shelters are empty and need to import dogs from other area and even other countries. I'd say as a nation, we have proven our responsibility. We've heeded the call to adoption and emptied many shelters in the process. We are responsible enough to deserve to count pet ownership among our basic rights. 

Yet our cultural zeitgeist remains one of sanctimony toward pet owners. We are regularly subjected to lectures about our "obligation" toward our pets as though we were a nation of reckless kindergartners.

Those 14 million households deserve their pets. Pet ownership - it's a right, not a privilege!

Woensdag 07 September 2011

"Why Dogs Die Young"

Dr. Karen Becker interviews Ted Kerasote regarding his book "Why Dogs Die Young". Some excerpts from the interview...
 
Ted had seen some data that indicated dogs in Europe tend to live about a year longer than dogs in this country....But European dogs do receive fewer vaccinations. Rabies has been essentially eradicated in Western Europe, so dogs that don't travel aren't required to get rabies vaccines.
 
Ted goes on to explain that probably the biggest difference between how dogs in Europe are raised versus dogs in the U.S. is, Europe doesn't spay or neuter at nearly the rate we do in North America....sterilization seems to have a significant impact on both the endocrine and immune systems of dogs.
 
Ted explains that when he talks about the spay/neuter difference in front of groups, he receives a lot of concerned feedback and even angry responses, particularly from folks in the shelter community. People in the shelter community make the point that sterilization is how we control the dog population in North America.
 
So Ted went on to research the effectiveness of U.S. shelter operations. He wanted to know why we're still euthanizing an estimated two millions dogs each year. What are the key factors?
 
Ted talked to a lot of people in shelter leadership positions, and it seems the problem is becoming more one of supply and demand rather than that no one wants those two million homeless dogs. It's more a problem these days of connecting people with the dogs they want – getting the right dogs to the right shelters for the people who want to adopt them.
 
Dr. Becker goes on to comment: I worked at a kill shelter as a younger person, and we firmly believed owners who didn't spay or neuter were simply uneducated. And I could do enough talking as an employee of the shelter to convince people they must spay or neuter. At that point in my life, I believed pet owners couldn't necessarily be trusted to know what to do, and I also believed dogs were healthier if they were spayed or neutered.
 
These days, I have to re-educate a lot of my clients … after I apologize. I've cried many tears in my exam room as I apologized for creating some endocrine-related disease or other by insisting a pet be spayed or neutered, many of them before puberty.
 
I just didn't know then what I know now. And it saddens me.
 
Ted reveals that another cultural dynamic he sees operating here is in regard to breeding dogs.
 
Ted might tell someone: 'Pukka's got good genes. I spent a lot of time looking for genes like his. He's clear for centronuclear myopathy. He's clear for PRA (a genetic eye disease). He's got good hips and good elbows. It might be nice to pass these genes on.'
 
The response is almost always 'You want to breed him?' in a tone that says clearly this is not a good thing. There is a small but vocal minority of the dog-owning population in this country that thinks breeding any dog is morally reprehensible.
 
Ted's response is, 'If you carry that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, there are no more dogs.'
 
To alter every dog sounds crazy to Ted. It also takes a lot of genetically healthy dogs out of the population.
 
Ted feels what spay/neuter has done in the shelter population is what narrowing the funnel of purebred dogs to those with exaggerated anatomical features has done in the purebred population.
 
Both strategies have decreased the genetic diversity of dogs. Choosing only certain popular sires in the purebred world, and spaying or neutering everything that moves in the shelter world, has created fewer and fewer good sets of dog genes out there. At the same time, it has increased the incidence of disease because we are providing ever greater opportunities for recessive genes to meet.
 
Ted doesn't believe people are thinking through the issue of long-term canine health when they take the approach to 'Spay and neuter everyone.'
 
 
Let the message spread throughout the land! Amen, hallelujah!

Dinsdag 26 Julie 2011

Reproduction. It's a GOOD thing.


Here's a frightening concept. An "animal lover", Dr. Loretta Mayer, is working on non-surgical sterilization. The photograph is a bit absurd, isn't it? Dr. Mayer holding a litter of four pups. She won't see many puppies in the future if her project is successful.
We're talking "one generation and out"....possibly for the entire animal kingdom!

Drug may revolutionize control of dog overpopulation
By Stephanie Russo
The Arizona Republic
 
A Flagstaff, Ariz., scientist may have discovered a nonsurgical way to sterilize dogs — an advance that would revolutionize animal shelter medicine and address many states' canine overpopulation problem in the process, according to one veterinary expert. Dr. Loretta Mayer was looking for a way to artificially induce menopause in mice so they could be used to study human diseases when she and another scientist developed a drug that they realized also could be used to sterilize female dogs, removing the need for painful and expensive surgery.
Oh joy! We can now address the (nonexistent) problem of pet overpopulation in the US. Nice!

Soon any HSVMA member veterinarian, or vet tech on a sterilization crusade will be able to sneak your dog a sterilant-laced treat, and you will be none the wiser. 


Heck, I can see this wonderful new technique being applied to competitors at dog shows, and used by neighbors who might find it amusing to neuter your dog without your knowledge. Just think, no proof of wrongdoing, no need to worry about leaving evidence lying around....the perfect crime for a nut with an agenda!


Although the drug is years away from being approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Mayer will soon return to India, where she has been working to eradicate the spread of rabies in stray dogs there.

Gosh, haven't they heard of rabies vaccine in India? Seems like that would do the job just swell. It's worked everyplace else it's been tried.

Mayer also wants to eventually introduce the drug into Arizona and recently persuaded the state Legislature to alter state law to allow animal shelters to use non-surgical means for sterilizing cats and dogs. "I think that a lot of folks would rather give their dog a pill than make them have surgery," Mayer said.

I'll just bet! As discussed above.

  
Dr. Nancy Bradley, director of medical services with the Arizona Humane Society, said previous non-surgical sterilization products have had mixed success. But, she said, if one proved to be safe and successful, she would use it in a heartbeat.

Heck yeah! See above.

"I would really like to see us do things that improve our environment and are compassionate to other beings," Mayer said. "My passion, without question, is to stop killing animals, however we might do that."
Yes, unquestionably, it would demonstrate compassion and improve our environment to sterilize animals out of existence. That way, no animal would ever be killed! Perfect logic! Let's see, it might happen like this:


 
(A) Prevent prey animals like mice, rabbits and deer from being born
(B) no food for predators
(C) predators disappear, since there is no longer any food for them 

Win-win! We could even skip to the chase and spread plenty of this wonder drug out in the wilderness immediately, maybe get it into the general food or water supply, and viola! One generation and we are ALL out. Wayne Pacelle would really like that. Only plant life such as vegetables, soy and the like, might remain. Possibly. If this sterilant did not prevent plants from forming seeds. Hmmm.

That would really help the planet, to get rid of ALL carbon footprints! No more pitter-patter of ANY little feet! Brilliant!
 
"There is a very long timeline in this project," Mayer said. "Each and every one of our products takes years to develop."
Patience, Dr. Mayer! Once the technology is available, extinction shouldn't take too long. Just one generation!

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/21/20110721dog-sterilize-drug-new.html#ixzz1THJSc1VF

It seems that reproduction is widely viewed as an udesirable activity. America Humane Association recently awarded a $25,000 grant to the Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs to develop a nonsurgical sterilant. And Gary Mickelson's "Found Animals Foundation is offering up to $75 MILLION to researchers for development of non-surgical sterilant for cats and dogs.  Maybe the Dear Doctor is motivated by more than just her love of animals.

All together now:

"Reproduction.....it's a GOOD thing."


Sondag 17 Julie 2011

The Death of Liberty in Philadelphia


Philadelphia Freedom? Not likely under a new animal ordinance.

Passed in May, and effective immediately: All "adoptions" from shelter/rescue and dogs sold at retail must be sterilized. (police, service and competition dogs exempted).

Sale of Unsterilized Animals Prohibited. No animal retailer shall sell a dog or cat on a retail basis unless the animal is of an appropriate age for sterilization and the animal has been sterilized by a licensed veterinarian. In addition to a fine for any unsterilized cat or dog sold in violation of this subsection, the Animal Control
Agency may order an animal retailer to cease operations for up to one year from the date of a violation.
Some provisions in this ordinance sound eerily similar to the Title 10 ordinance in LA, including the requirement for  kennels to have staffing for 18 hrs per day. However, the mandatory sterilization requirement in LA applies to every owned dog. 

Does the "sold at retail" provision apply to private parties (i.e. small home breeders)? According to the definition included in the ordinance, it just might apply depending on what is considered a "business". If you deduct your expenses for tax purposes, are you a "business"?

Animal Retailer. A person in the business of selling dogs or cats to the
ultimate owners of such dogs or cats, including but not limited to a pet shop kennel under the Dog Law, and a dealer, to the extent such dealer engages in the retail sale of dogs or cats.

As in LA, the requirements necessary to qualify for an exemption as a "competition" dog have not been cearly defined. See page 15-16 for the MSN requirements.

http://www.pijac.org/_documents/pa_philadelphia_mandatory_spay-neuter_ordinance_2011.pdf

But wait! As if that mandatory sterilization law is not enough to make you want to move to some freer nation (Mexico perhaps?), there are yet more chilling new rules now in effect under this ordinance. Now veterinarians must verify dog licensure in order to treat the animal. And, a seller reporting requirement sounds strangely similar to a bill currently in the California legislature, AB 1121, that mandates "pet dealers" report the details of their sales to the local licensing agency.

  
(a) Licensing Upon Purchase or Adoption. A person obtaining a dog
that must be licensed under this Section from an animal retailer or animal shelter shall submit an application and the applicable fee for such license to a dog licensing agent or the Animal Control Agency as a condition of obtaining the dog. No animal retailer or animal shelter shall release a dog to a person unless such person has submitted a license application and applicable fee.
(b) Licensing Upon Provision of Services. Whenever a veterinarian, veterinary hospital, boarding kennel, or groomer provides services for a dog that must be licensed under this Section, such service provider shall verify that the dog is licensed.
http://www.pijac.org/_documents/pa_philadelphia_mandatory_spay-neuter_ordinance_2011.pdf

Can you imagine how many dogs will not be treated when they need it? Bad enough to make vets report their rabies vaccinations to the state, but now for veterinarians to be the licensing police?? 

All this out of a city that saw the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the assembly of the Continental Congress, and that was the seat of the new Republic in the 18th century. All traded away for Gestapo-style tactics aimed against the citizenry.

A sad reflection on how far we have strayed from the freedoms which founded our nation.

Woensdag 06 Julie 2011

Unfriendly Fire

In today's anti-dog breeder legislative atmosphere, it would be really beneficial if the groups organized to protect our ownership interests would join forces in that effort. Alas, this is not even remotely on the radar of at least one particular group in California. Let's call them, for the sake of discussion, "Group A".


Group A is sponsoring a piece of legislation this session that would allow discounted puppy licensing. This same bill also mandates that pet dealers report their sales to their local licensing bureau.


Enter Group B. Group B notices that this bill would produce many undesirable unintended consequences for dogs and their owners. Several other animal interest groups (I guess those would be groups C, D and so on! LOL) also raised concerns regarding this bill. In many areas we have mandatory sterilization requirements, and oppressive limit laws, as well as differential license fees for intact dogs that are, in most cases, exponentially higher than fees for altered dogs. Mandated reporting could adversely affect dog owners. For example, in Los Angeles, the license fee for a sterilized dog is $20. However, the owner of an intact dog must pay $100 for their dog license, as well as a $235 fee for a breeder's permit. The breeder's permit is NOT optional; if the dog is intact you MUST pay for a breeder's permit. Whether you intend to breed the dog or not. This adds up to a yearly license fee of $335....per year....per dog. IF that dog "qualifies" to remain intact, that is. Is it any wonder that people are not lining up to license their dogs in Los Angeles?


Aggressive licensing is fine when you have a Bill Bruce or a Nathan Winograd in charge of the shelter. Instead, what we in California are stuck with is PETArds like Judie Mancuso and power-hungry vets like Alan Drusys....AC departments lying in wait, breathless with the anticipation of punishing the "greedy evil breeders" (direct Mancuso quote) for some technical violation of licensing, limits, mandatory spay/neuter or... we can now add to the list.... NONREPORTING of their sales to the local licensing agency. Can you foresee the day when an owner with a puppy presents to the local shelter to apply for their license? "And just WHO sold you this dog?" Gotcha, you evil breeder!


Coincidentally, we have ANOTHER bill proposed here in California right now that prohibits anyone convicted of an animal offense from contact with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years! And yet ANOTHER bill proposed to criminalize sales of animals in public places as a violation of animal cruelty laws. Let's connect the dots here. Make laws that are impossible to comply with, criminalize the owner, and then prohibit them from future animal contact! Clever little devils, those Animal Rights Fanatics. You gotta respect their malicious and tenacious spirit.


So, Group B opposes the puppy licensing/seller reporting bill and writes letters to the committees as this bill advances. Group A gets wind of the letter. Instead of agreeing to disagree, and respecting a well-thought out opposing opinion, Group A publicly posts disparaging comments about Group B on their blog. They claim that Group B is a "just say no" group; a LIE because group B is a sponsor of one bill this year and has written in support of another good bill. Group B simply does not support THIS particular bill, because it is NOT a good bill. Group A further maligns Group B, stating in their blog post:


But we were stunned to see them give as a primary reason that all vets are already required to report rabies vaccinations to all local governments. From their letter:
Currently, veterinarians are already required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to licensing authorities. THERE IS NO SUCH STATE LAW. And we don't want such a state law.
Now Group A is being rather disingenuous here, because they should know that according to the California Health and Safety Code, section 12169 (e) in reference to rabies vaccination enforcment:


"The governing body of each city, city and county, or county shall maintain or provide for the maintenance of a pound system and a rabies control program for the purpose of carrying out and enforcing this section."


In many counties and cities in the state, particularly in the more heavily populated areas, veterinarians ARE required to report all rabies vaccinations that they administer to the local licensing agency as well as maintain records of the same. This is how the cities and counties comply with state law for rabies vaccination and licensing compliance. Yes, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange San Mateo and other heavily populated areas DO require veterinarians to report to the government the name and address of owners whose dogs they vaccinate.


San Mateo County states on their website:


" Rabies vaccination reporting is required under the California Health and Safety Code 12169."
And further goes on to quote their own ordinance:
"Every veterinarian who vaccinates or causes or directs to be vaccinated in the County any dog, cat, or wolf hybrid with anti-rabies vaccine shall certify that such animal has been vaccinated. Every veterinarian shall submit to the licensing authority a copy of the County-approved anti-rabies form, within ten (10) days of beginning of each month, for any dog, cat or wolf hybrid which he/she vaccinates or directs to be vaccinated with anti-rabies during the previous month. An Animal Control Officer or Animal Licensing Officer shall have the right to inspect records of rabies vaccination during normal business hours."


www.tinyurl.com/smrabies


Required reporting of rabies vaccination or sales of animals by pet dealers only results in more people avoiding vaccination/licensing. Another unintended consequence could be owners turning their dog in to the shelter when it reaches a year old, is not a cute puppy any more, and all of a sudden has to either have costly sterilization surgery or pay a HUGE license fee. And in Los Angeles, you don't even get that choice, you must opt for sterilization unless you can "qualify" to keep your dog intact. Many people will have no choice but to give up the dog, considering today's tight economy. Spaying a dog costs in the neighborhood of $300 and up, unless you can find some sort of government-sponsored clinic where God only knows what quality of surgical care your dog will receive.


And, to address some other items in this blog post by Group A, I could give a rat's patoot if 77% of owners sterilize their dog by a year old....what about that other 23%? And besides that, we should not be mindlessly encouraging the spay-neuter mentality. The result can be a host of adverse health consequences. Confinement is already the law, which means that if properly confined there is NO risk of unwanted litters, and the owner should make the decision about whether or not to sterilize his dog. NOT be leaned on by the government at gunpoint.


Being intact does NOT equate to being bred. There is absolutely NO justification for lower license rates for sterilized dogs.


As to lower license rates for puppies, license fees should be consistent regardless of age or reproductive status. Differential rates for puppies or intact adults must be vigorously opposed on principle.


But, returning to the issue of the proposed puppy license/seller reporting bill. Instead of considering all the logical reasons to oppose this stupid piece of legislation, Group A attacks and misquotes the opponents of the bill by claiming that they said that ALL vets must report ALL rabies vaccinations to the state; as well as stating that Group B claimed that this is a state law. Which, again, was NEVER stated. No such statement was ever made by Group B.


And why oh why are we fixated on a minor point like who must report dog owners to the state for licensing purposes? It seems in Group A's warped view of the world, everybody must be reported to the state by SOMEBODY ELSE. If not veterinarians reporting via vaccination records, then the seller must get into the act? I don't know how others may feel on the subject, but in my estimation nanny government is NEVER a good idea. People need to be responsible for themselves and their own actions, and we surely do not need tattletale busybodies reporting their neighbors to Big Brother. If my dog needs a license then I am the one responsible to procure said license.


Group A has a history of sniper attacks against other groups with whom they should instead be cooperating to protect our common interests. But with their sponsorship of this bill, and their constant libelous attacks on other animal ownership groups in the state, it is apparent that Group A is no longer working in the best interests of either dogs or their owners.


Well, there is certainly no point in sleeping with the enemy. We can only pray that Group A folds up their tent and goes away before they do further irreparable damage.

Sondag 13 Maart 2011

Vaccination-Addressing Common Concerns

Vaccination

The basics explained; addressing common concerns

Vaccines are one of the greatest medical developments of the modern era. Thanks to vaccines, many formerly common diseases have been controlled. Fatal and crippling diseases such as polio, whooping cough, measles, rubella (German measles) have been so reduced in incidence that many people today have never seen a clinical case. Smallpox, once a great killer, has been practically eradicated. Our dogs also reap the benefits of vaccination science for control of once-common diseases such as distemper, parvo and rabies.

However, in recent years, questions have arisen regarding the safety, efficacy and advisability of vaccinations for our canine friends. Most of these concerns are based solely on anecdotal evidence. A vaccine is given, and days, weeks or months later, a health problem surfaces. As we search for reasons why our dog was so unlucky to develop this problem, we wonder: did the vaccine cause the health problem? While it is tempting to blame the health problem of our dog on a prior vaccine, this is the logical fallacy of coincidental correlation. Simply because one event follows another does not mean that the first event caused the second. It is just as logical to state that putting gas in your car causes car accidents. Medical problems that occur after immunization are often blamed on the vaccine, but, in most cases, solid evidence is lacking.

Search the internet and you will find innumerable websites claiming that vaccines are unnecessary, even harmful.

Much research has been done on vaccination in humans. Despite the many wild claims about alleged dangers to humans from vaccines (liver cancer, autism, brain damage, etc), the studies do not support these claims. It is likely that the case for vaccine dangers in dogs has also been overstated.

Let’s examine some of these concerns about vaccinations for dogs:

“Vaccines don’t work”

Vaccines are highly effective. In several studies, vaccination against specific canine diseases is 100% effective in producing immunity. However, there are always some individuals who will not develop immunity after vaccination. Poor response to a vaccine may be due to the neutralizing effect of maternal antibodies circulating in very young puppies. It can also be a result of the vaccine losing its potency when stored improperly. Poor immune response may be due to a weak vaccine challenge (for example, killed vaccines are not as effective as modified live virus vaccines). Fever and impaired immune response of the host can reduce vaccine effectiveness. Regardless of the cause, these individuals with poor response to a vaccine have the same risk of contracting a disease as non-vaccinated dogs. It is due to the variability in response to vaccine that most veterinarians recommend a puppy “series”, and a second “booster’ vaccination for adults with unknown vaccine history.

In general, live vaccines are more effective than killed vaccines, and viral vaccines are more effective than bacterial vaccines. Bacterial vaccines such as kennel cough and leptospirosis, only provide immunity for a few months to a year at most. Luckily, the core vaccines are modified live viral and, in the case of rabies, killed viral vaccine, with a very high rate of successful, long-lasting immunity.

Vaccines are effective in preventing disease not only in individuals, but also in communities. This type of protection is called “herd immunity.” Herd immunity works by decreasing the numbers of susceptible individuals. When this number drops low enough, the disease will disappear from the community because there are not enough individuals to carry on the catch-and-infect cycle.

According to Ron Schultz, PhD, vaccine researcher the University of Wisconsin, although the US probably vaccinates more dogs than any other country, our coverage is only about 50% of the total canine population. “With anther 20-25% covered, we could, for all practical purposes, eliminate these disease, because we would have so much better herd immunity,” Schultz stated at a 2007 canine health conference.

“Vaccines are not safe”

In truth, few things meet the definition of “safe”. For example, every year in the U.S., 350 people are killed in bathroom or shower-related accidents, and 200 are killed choking on food. Yet few of us regard taking a shower or eating as unsafe activities.

No vaccine is 100% harmless. Almost all vaccines can cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of the injection. In addition, vaccination during the perinatal period can cause abortion, congenital anomalies, fetal death, and failure to conceive. More rarely, some individuals may develop transient immune suppression, arthritis, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, encephalitis, and seizures, The distemper vaccine is also under investigation as a possible cause of hypertrophic osteodystrophy. Vaccines can also cause fever and malaise, and (extremely rarely) death. It should be noted that these risks also occur with a naturally-acquired infection.

Allergic responses can result from serum components in the vaccine. A Banfield study done in Florida in 2001-2002 revealed a rate of severe anaphylactic reaction of 1 dog per 5000 (out of a study done on 838,015 dogs).

We need to understand that diseases such as distemper, parvovirus and rabies often cause permanent disabilities and fatalities. The risk of the vaccine must be weighed against the very real risk of contracting the disease.

“Vaccines are not necessary”

In some ways, vaccines are victims of their own success. Many dog owners today have never seen a case of distemper or parvo. As a result, they may question the continued need for vaccines. However, the disease organisms remain in the environment and a danger to every unvaccinated dog. Herd immunity is also some protection for unvaccinated dogs, but it is by no means a guarantee that the dog will not succumb to an infectious disease.

Rabies is transmissible to humans and invariably fatal; consequently, rabies vaccination and re-vaccinations are legal requirements in all states. Rabies is a killed, adjuvant vaccine with higher risk of adverse reactions. There is an ongoing rabies challenge study at this time, to determine duration of immunity obtained from rabies vaccination. If results are as expected, this will hopefully provide a basis for lengthening the legally mandated rabies vaccine administration intervals.

Some people believe that by not vaccinating, they can develop, through “survival of the fittest”, a strain of dogs with “natural resistance” to infectious disease. To illustrate the fallacy of this sort of idea, let’s consider that most deadly of zoonotic contagious diseases, rabies. The existence of this disease has been documented since at least 2300 B.C., and has likely existed for many millennia prior to that. If it were possible to develop a natural resistance to rabies through non-vaccination and “survival of the fittest”, rabies would have ceased to be a threat centuries ago, as the less fit, less immune animals died from the disease. Yet we humans and our dogs remain 100% vulnerable to rabies, and only through recent advances involving immunoglobulin administration and vaccinations have diseases like rabies become a reduced threat.

While in the US we have reduced risk of many infectious canine diseases, canine rabies and adenovirus (infectious hepatitis) have recently been found in imported dogs, so the continued threat of disease remains very real.

“Puppies are too young to be vaccinated”

Because young puppies have had limited exposure to diseases in the environment, they have little developed immunity and are more vulnerable than adults to contract infectious diseases. They receive protection from their mother’s antibodies for several weeks, but once that protection wears off, it could be argued that vaccination is more important for young puppies than for mature dogs.

The age to begin core vaccination in puppies is a topic of much debate. AAHA 2006 guidelines suggest the earliest age in normal circumstances should be 6 weeks, but in the face of an outbreak or in a shelter/rescue situation, vaccination can begin at an even earlier age. Rabies is not recommended to be given until after age 12 weeks. Studies in humans have shown that children are fully capable of responding to vaccines in the first months of life. Studies in dogs have produced similar results.

“It is best not to give more than one vaccine at a time.”

Puppies are capable of responding to millions of different bacteria and viruses because they have billions of immunologic cells circulating in their bodies. Therefore the vaccines given in the first few month of life are literally a raindrop in the ocean of what the puppies’ immune systems successfully encounter in their environment every day.

Studies on human infants show that multiple combined vaccines are easily handled by the immune system.

A Banfield study on dogs indicates that the risk of overall reactions is slightly increased with multivalent vaccines (27 per 10,000) as opposed to single vaccines (7 per 10,000). However, most reactions were transitory and not clinically significant. Also, since the dogs received multiple different antigens simultaneously, a reciprocal increase in reaction rate could reasonably be expected. There was an overall reaction rate of 16 per 10,000 dogs in this study; with 2 per 10,000 dogs vaccinated suffering serious anaphylactic reactions.

“Vaccines cause dogs to develop autoimmune disease”

Results from studies on families and twins show an important role in both genetic and environmental factors in the eventual development of autoimmune disease.

The portion of the genome that codes the genes that help us recognize “self” is called the MHC-the Major Histocompatibility Complex. These genes are located very close to each other and it is rare for recombination to occur. This in effect means that the genes from each parent are inherited intact. (Remember, you inherit genes in pairs, one from each parent). If the parents are closely related, the possibility exists that they share the same genes at that site…they are “homozygous by descent”. If so, there is a high likelihood that their offspring will inherit identical genes in the MHC. It appears that susceptibility to an autoimmune disease is determined by the lack of variability in the MHC genes. Linebreeding and inbreeding may result in this lack of variability. Close breedings increase susceptibility in the offspring to develop an autoimmune disease when an environmental trigger is present.

Though the tendency to autoimmunity is genetic, most autoimmune diseases are triggered by some sort of toxic assault, or viral or bacterial exposure. Scientist believe that the body reacts to small protein-like fragments of the vaccine base that are similar in structure to the normal cellular components of the body. A recent study showed that vaccine contaminants may cause the dog to make antibodies against these contaminants. Not all the vaccinated dogs in this study developed this response….and those who did were in the same particular family group, further reinforcing the genetic basis of autoimmunity.

Dogs who are genetically susceptible to the autoimmune process are at greater risk for such problems as thyroiditis, hypertrophic ostedystrophy, and autoimmune hemolytic anemia. These conditions may be provoked by vaccination and/or infection. However, as noted by Dr. Schultz, vaccines may trigger autoimmune disease, but they do not cause it. And, if dogs do not receive their core vaccines, Dr. Schultz notes, “They won’t go on to develop thyroiditis. They’ll die from distemper or parvo.”

Naked DNA vaccines are under development. These vaccines would contain solely the desired antigen, with no bovine contaminants. This would mean that when this type of vaccine is given, antibodies specific for the disease would be produced, without the high risk of allergic reactions or antibody responses to bovine components.

“My dog is too small to be vaccinated”

Small breeds, and several specific breeds, are at higher risk of adverse vaccine reactions. A Purdue study involving more that a million dogs found that dogs 22 lbs or less had approximately twice the risk compared to dogs weighing over 22 lbs. The one milliliter dose volume listed on most vaccine labels is recommended only because that is the dose used for the licensing process. During testing, the issue of breed or size of dog has received no attention. Since we have research indicating a higher risk of reaction to vaccines by small dogs, hopefully some studies will be done to determine the lowest effective dose for toy breeds and breeds at higher risk of reaction such as Chihuahuas, miniature pinschers, Boston Terriers and dachshunds. According to Dr. Schultz, body size is less critical with biologics than pharmaceuticals, and a toy poodle is as likely to need a full dose of a vaccine as a Saint Bernard.

Vaccine Basics

The goal of a vaccination program is to develop immunity to serious diseases while minimizing risks of allergy and inappropriate immune response.

Natural infection and recovery from a disease confers long-lasting immunity. A vaccine can also have the same beneficial effect on immunity.

The oldest and most common vaccine is the MLV (or modified live virus) vaccine. The actual disease-causing viral organism (the “antigen”) is cultured, then altered so that it won’t cause disease symptoms. Another type of live vaccine, the vector vaccine (VV), is a genetically engineered vaccine which is also very reliable and safe. Both MLV and VV are infectious vaccines. They work by producing a mild disease response in the individual. When the VV or MLV vaccine is given, the body’s immune system responds by producing antibodies which kill the virus. Immunologic memory allows the immune system to remember the organism to which it has been previously been exposed. Duration of immunity is determined by the memory cells, but the only way these cells respond is if the individual becomes infected. Due to the live virus which is introduced to the memory cells through use of a live vaccine, the VV/MLV vaccines induce reliable and long-lasting immunity. A stressed, ill, or immunocompromised dog should not receive a live vaccine.

Another type of vaccine is the noninfectious vaccine, “killed” or “subunit” vaccine. The virus or bacteria is actually killed by use of radiation or a chemical, and cannot produce disease. This type of vaccine has less chance of producing disease symptoms, but may also be less effective in provoking immunity in the host. Rabies vaccine is killed, so that there is no chance of the dog developing a fatal case of rabies. Manufacturers may add “adjuvants” or immune-boosting substances, to the killed vaccines in an attempt to improve their effectiveness. These adjuvants often produce adverse side effect such as local inflammation, allergy, and (in the case of one in ten thousand cats) tumor formation at the vaccine site. Cats lack the tumor suppression gene that would act on an injection site that is inflamed by certain vaccine adjuvants, particularly from rabies and feline leukemia vaccine. This problem in cats has prompted researchers to attempt to develop safer, purer vaccines.

“Core” vaccines recommended for dogs are distemper, adenovirus (hepatitis), parvovirus and rabies. These are all viral vaccines which readily provoke cellular memory and induce long-term immunity. There should be a dose of core vaccine at 14-16 weeks as the final dose in the puppy series, then at age one year, then after that not more than every three years,with the exception of rabies. Rabies should be given once some time after age 12 week, and then not more often than required by local law. Minimum duration of immunity from the core vaccines is thought to be seven to ten years. Yearly vaccination is outmoded and unnecessary, and exposes the dog to an increased risk of an adverse reaction. Those reactions are rare, but unacceptable if your dog receives something he doesn’t need and consequently dies.

Blood levels of antibodies can be measured. This is known as a “titer test”. There is no standardization between different labs and their testing methods, and testing can be costly. The presence of antibodies may indicate a level of protection against a certain disease; however, titer levels needed to infer protection from disease are not known. Titers can be positive in puppies as a "gift" from the mother, and do not necessarily indicate active immunity in the puppy. Titers can be elevated in dogs incubating a disease, who are actively contagious! Therefore, it is not possible to know if a given titer in a specific animal indicates adequate immunity. In the future, measurements of titers may provide a method of determining intervals for re-vaccination.

Vaccine programs should be individualized depending on the age of the dog, the breed, and the diseases prevalent in the area. Consult the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Guidelines (2006) for the most recent recommendations:

http://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/VaccineGuidelines06Revised.pdf



"Vaccination Dos and Don'ts"

11. Do Not Vaccinate Needlessly

Don’t revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines that prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk.

12. Do Not Mix Vaccines in a Single Syringe

If the vaccines are not combined by the company as a multicomponent licensed product, do not combine them prior to administration. Follow the manufacturer’s administration recommendations.

13. Do Not Split Doses

For miniature/toy or any other breeds. If you are concerned about the volume, reconstitute vaccine with 1⁄4 or 1⁄2 the recommended diluent (e.g., sterile water).

14. Do Not Vaccinate Anesthetized Patients

Should an anesthetized animal develop a hypersensitivity reaction, they may vomit and are at increased risk of aspirating.

15. Do Not Vaccinate Pregnant Dogs

The dog may abort or fetuses may get infected.

16. Do Not Vaccinate Animals on Immunosuppressive Therapy

These animals may not develop an adequate immune response, but even worse, they could develop disease (e.g., postvaccinal distemper, clinical canine parvovirus).

17. Do Not Administer Multiple Dose Vaccines Any More Frequently Than Every 2 Weeks

18. Do Not Vaccinate Puppies <2 Weeks of Age

19. Do Make Sure the Last Dose of a Puppy Immunization Series is Administered ≥12 Weeks of Age

At ≥12 weeks of age, interference by maternal antibody is less of a concern and the puppy’s immune system is more mature; thus, there is a greater opportunity for a robust immune response to the vaccine.

10. Do Not Give an Inactivated Product Prior to a Modified Live Product

This will interfere with the ability of the modified live product to immunize (e.g., canine parvovirus-2).

11. Do Not Administer a Canine Distemper-Measles Vaccine Subcutaneously (SC)

It has been shown that poor immunity results when this product is administered SC.

12. Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient

Vaccines are potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of producing adverse events.

13. Do Not Use Nosodes (Holistic Vaccines) to Vaccinate a Puppy

Nosodes do not provide immunity; thus, the puppy will remain susceptible to the disease the nosode was designed to prevent. Use a USDA-licensed vaccine to immunize puppies.

14. Do Not Revaccinate a Dog With Vaccines Previously Known to Induce Anaphylaxis in that Dog

Test the animal’s serum for antibody to determine if the animal is immune. The risk from vaccine-induced anaphylaxis may be much greater than the risk of infection

15. NEVER vaccinate an animal who is ill or debilitated.

References

Novak, Will, DVM, MBA; “Predicting the ‘Unpredictable’ Vaccine Reactions”; Proceeding of the NAVC Congress, 2007.

Schultz, Ron, PhD; “What Everyone Needs to Know About Canine Vaccines and Vaccination Programs”; AKC CHF Health conference, St. Louis, MO, Oct 2007.

Fortney, William, DVM “Newest Vaccination Strategies for Sporting Dogs”, North American Veterinary Conference, 2006.

Thorpe-Vargas, Susan, PhD. “Genetic and Breeding Strategies: Essays for the Dog Breeder”.

Offitt, Paul A., M.D.and Bell, Louis M, M.D., “Vaccines; What You Should Know”; 3rd edition, 2003..

Hogenesch, Harm, Azcona-Olivera, Juan, Scott-Moncrieff, Catharine, Snyder, Paul W.,and Glickman, Larry T., “Vaccine-Induced Autoimmunity in the Dog”; Advances in Veterinary Medicine, Vol 41, pp 733-747.

Rynders, Patricia E., DVM, MS; “New Protocols for Canine Vaccination”; Canine Pediatric Care Symposium,WSAVA 2005.

Greene, Craig E., “Avoiding Vaccine Reactions in Dogs and Cats”; WSAVA 2003.

Roth, J. A., DVM, PhD; “Factors Influencing Vaccine Duration of Immunity”; The North American Veterinary Conference; Jan, 2007.

Maybury, Bonnie A. and Peters, Pamela M., PhD; “Vaccines—How and Why?”; http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/vaccines_how_why.php


"The Science of Vaccine Damage" debunked here...

Pure BUNK and pure "JUNK SCIENCE" !!!

There has been a widely circulated article entitled “The Science of Vaccine Damage” which is filled with inaccuracies, half-truths, and scare tactics. Now I must confess, when I first read this article, I fell for it hook, line and sinker! Then, my skeptical nature took over. This article extensively references a limited Purdue study which involved a very small number of beagles. I accessed the study and read the entire report. This study concludes that certain dogs may develop antibodies to bovine contaminants in the vaccine serum. This is certainly no evidence for vaccines causing any long-term health effects in any dogs, let alone ALL dogs…yet that is just what this author states in her article!

I quote here from the Purdue report:

“This study did not find any evidence of autoimmune disease in the vaccinated dogs”

”There was a marked increase of autoantibodies to the skeletal muscle proteins, myoglobin and myosin, in BOTH groups of dogs”(vaccinated and non-vaccinated... this is surmised to be due to frequent blood sampling of the dogs for the study).

“There was no increase of anti-thyroglobulin antibodies in the vaccinated animals, or other evidence of thyroid dysfunction.”

"Vaccination did not cause immunosuppression or alter the response to an unrelated antigen (KLH)......we did not observe a transient lymphopenia in the dogs at any time"

Consider for a moment the process by which a "core" vaccine (such as parvo, distemper or rabies) is produced. The virus is cultured on tissue, in this case cow or "bovine" tissue. With current technology, vaccines invariably will contain traces of bovine serum proteins. When a dog is vaccinated, they will form antibodies not only against the virus, but sometimes against these bovine contaminant proteins also. Various autoantibodies to bovine contaminants were detected in some (not all) of the vaccinated dogs. These antibodies were not found to react with the dog’s own tissues. The long-term significance of these autoantibodies has not yet been determined.

“Since bovine serum components in the vaccine may be responsible for the majority of autoantibodies, elimination of these bovine components may avoid this problem...new generations of vaccines, especially naked DNA vaccines, are free of serum components, and these should not induce autoantibodies.”

BINGO!! Thank goodness for research and development. We are discovering how to make better, safer, more effective vaccines! Great news for our dogs! So the next time you see that article floating around the internet lists, just remember to read it with some skepticism.

I’d like to address a few more of her faulty accusations against vaccination in general. She states “The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites”… Per the CDC, SV40 has been found in cancers of people who either DID or DID NOT received the polio vaccine. SV40 has not been present in any vaccine since the early 1960’s. SV40 may be associated with some cancers, but the virus is transmitted to people by a mechanism other than vaccines. Lastly, SV40 has not been proven cause cancer, any more than any other virus which might lie dormant in the body.

She also states that “allergy…should be synonymous with the word ‘vaccination’”, and goes on to state that vaccines sensitize “render allergic”…this is such an inaccurate statement! Actual allergies are to vaccine components are rare, and the process of immune system activation, while perhaps sharing some similarities, is NOT the same as the allergic response process.

More false statements: She states “The Purdue study found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA”…Nowhere was this found in this study!

She states, “The study dogs were found good homes.” No, they were euthanized at 22 weeks so that their tissues could be examined....did this woman actually read the study? Or just doesn't understand it? Or doesn't choose to try to understand it?

There are many other misquotes in this article, and faulty conclusions as well, but the worst may well be her own conclusion, “Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all.”

Luckily for her dogs, herd immunity will likely afford them some protection…even if she refuses to contribute to the health of the community through vaccination.

Once you are terrorized against vaccinating your pets, you can go to the website where she will happily sell you untested, unproven remedies for health and wellness. For just $31 per year you can sign up for a newsletter!

The “Science of Vaccine Damage” article is not an unbiased viewpoint, and far from scientific. We would do better to look to the real scientists and the ongoing research when formulating our health care plans, and not quacks who don't have any understanding of basic biologic principles.

Donderdag 03 Maart 2011

Medicine, Shotgun Blast Style

Karen, a dog friend of mine, had a recent bad experience. A small dog she sold as a puppy developed a seizure issue as an adult, so the new owner (a veterinary technician) contacted Karen. Karen suggested testing for liver shunt as a possible cause of the seizures. Yes, owner reports, the bile acid test is positive. Next thing Karen hears, the dog is DEAD. Put to sleep, supposedly for seizures? Karen writes:
 
"I am not denying the dog had a liver shunt, according to the bile acid test and the vet statement she did, however, my concern was how fast she went to having a few "Hypoglycemic" issues a couple times over the last year, to having muliple issues on a daily basis, following all those vaccinations.  According to the bills (she hasn't asked me to pay them), she paid for a CBC, metabolic profile and bile acid test, Heartworm, lyme, DHLPP, Bordetella and Rabies vaccine and it says a free frontline Dose?  This was all done on the 14th of Feb and the dog went downhill on the 18th."
 
Free Frontline? Hope they also threw in a free cremation.
 
All the vaccine literature instructs that vaccines should ONLY to be used in healthy animals, not when they are stressed or sick. And hypoglycemic seizures, with a possible liver issue should have been warning flags to "proceed with caution". And who puts down a dog for hypoglycemic seizures? Things are not adding up here.
 
Lepto, lyme, bordetella and rabies all at once? All four of these have a high incidence of adverse reactions as they are all adjuvanted. And those are not "core" vaccines and are therefore are not a standard part of veterinary practice to administer, they should only be given to "at-risk" dogs (with the exception of rabies). And then to throw in frontline and heartworm treatment on top of it all on the same visit.....I can hardly believe a vet would be that stupid. Oh wait, yes, I can believe it. Maybe she was already heartworm positive; bet they didn't check. Who knows.
 
Spot-on flea products come with their own set of concerns:
 
One year ago, the EPA issued an advisory about spot-on products similar to the new Bayer formulas. These products are for application to the neck or back of dogs and cats as a flea/tick preventive.
The advisory was issued in response to a significant increase in adverse reactions to spot-on products in 2008 over prior years.
Among the EPA's findings:
  • The majority of adverse reactions were seen with the first application in 10- to 20-pound dogs under 3 years old.
  • Especially at risk were the following breeds: Chihuahua, Shih Tzu, Miniature Poodle, Pomeranian, Dachshund, Maltese, Yorkshire Terrier, Bichon Frise.
  •  Nervous system symptoms included lethargy, nervousness, movement problems, tremors and seizure.
 
Another thing that bothers me about the spot-on flea products like Frontline is the fact that the prepackaged dose for small dogs is the same whether the dog is 22 lbs or 3 lbs. And the vets generally advise you to use the whole thing on your three pound dog! When in actuality you don't need to do that. A 22 lb dog is 7 times bigger than a 3 lb dog!
A 3 lb dog has an approximate body surface area of 0.21 sq meter, while a 22 lb dog has a body surface area of 0.79 sq meter. And it is the body surface area that matters with Frontline as it is meant to spread over the body surface and enter the hair follicles. So considering BSA, would a 3 lb dog need the same dose as a 22 lb dog.....one has nearly four times less BSA than the other! So there is a concern that a small dog could easilyi be overdosed on this stuff.
 
 
And how would pet owners know not to put a whole dose on their small dog?? We are trusting the company to give us the correct information and it seems to me that they don't.
 
Mostly I am sad that people who are supposed to use their brain as part of being in a "caring" profession, don't do it, resulting in a careless accident, and the victim....er, I mean the patient....pays the ultimate price.
 
 

Vrydag 06 Augustus 2010

Do Vaccines Weaken the Health of a Breed?


Do vaccines affect the genetic diversity or strength of a breed?? Does vacccination and the protection provided by herd immunity produce a weaker population? Would it be better to allow "survival of the fittest"; avoiding vaccination completely and breeding only those who can survive infectious disease, with their presumed superior immune systems? Some proponents of natural rearing believe so. Here is another point of view from a canine genetics email list, reposted here by permission of the author. SB 


Is dying from a disease organism, adapted by its nature to try to overcome an animal’s immune system, a sign of “weakness” or “inferiority” of an organism? Is an animal immune-compromised if it dies of rabies? Since rabies is virtually 100% lethal in all mammals except bats (where it also apparently causes mortality, but not 100%), are we to assume that all mammals except bats have weak immune systems?


What about distemper or parvovirus? If dogs have become “weak” because vaccination has allowed the weaker individuals to live, then you might expect wild carnivores to be more resistant to these diseases. In reality, both distemper and parvo often cause high mortality among wild canids. Distemper affects many carnivore species other than canids and has been catastrophic for some of them. (I didn’t have much luck in a quick search for scientific articles accessible to the public without a university connection, but the Wikipedia article on distemper in dogs gives a few examples of wild species severely affected by dog distemper or strains of distemper that apparently evolved from dog distemper. I also found this interesting article in ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025094914.htm )

Distemper seems to be a recently evolved disease, maybe a few hundred years old. Parvovirus may be very recent, only a few decades old. Like many infectious diseases, I think these are both diseases that were aided in their evolution by the increasing population density of the affected organism (dogs, in this case, but also people because the distemper virus apparently mutated from the human measles virus). As population density increases, a disease organism has an easier time finding new individuals to infect. It has more individuals to provide a home to incubate in and undergo mutations that might help it be more successful, which to a disease organism means being better able to spread and overcome the victim’s defenses.

It was no accident that Europeans were the victims of so many more diseases than Native Americans prior to Columbus. Europeans had higher population densities that allowed the successive evolution of all sorts of infectious diseases (smallpox, measles, etc.) The Europeans didn’t have to face all these diseases all at once. They developed their resistance over many centuries of separate epidemics. The Native Americans got hit all at once with all these diseases that had forced Europeans to adapt (via massive high-mortality epidemics). By some estimates, 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by infectious diseases carried by Europeans in the decades following Columbus’s trips. Would you consider the pre-Columbus Native Americans genetically inferior or “weak” because they had been isolated from those diseases prior to Columbus? Would you consider Black-footed Ferrets (a species where dog distemper causes huge mortality) to be genetically “weak” compared to dogs that have had hundreds of years of exposure to distemper?

The point is, there will always be new, evolving diseases. All organisms are in an arms race with pathogens. Pathogens are constantly evolving new ways to overcome the immune defenses of organisms, which forces organisms to come up with new defenses against the pathogen. In some cases, the species cannot adapt fast enough and goes extinct.

All organisms face multiple challenges on all fronts: competition with other species, the need to survive the abiotic environment (heat, cold, storms, etc.), the need to find enough food, the need to find sufficient nutrients that may be difficult to get through their diet, and the need to defend against predators, parasites, and pathogens. What is most adaptive depends on the relative selective intensity of all these challenges. An arctic animal may face few challenges from infectious diseases but faces brutal environmental challenges, hence an arctic species may be more vulnerable to certain diseases it is rarely exposed to. A similar species adapted to a milder climate is probably better at disease resistance but could not survive the rigors of the arctic winter. So, a species ability to respond to challenges depends on how important those challenges are to them. No species can be good at all things. There is always some cost to an adaptation, even if it is only the cost in lost diversity of the animals that could not adapt.

So, the question for dog breeders is, how much value do you want to place on the ability of dogs to survive parvo or distemper without vaccination? Do you want to make that the first cut (very literally!) in your breeding selection by letting the puppies be exposed to see who lives or dies? If so, do you want to make sure they get exposed at their most vulnerable age to make it the best test possible? What about rabies? Surely, among the millions of living dogs, there must be a few that could survive rabies. After all, bats somehow evolved the ability to survive the disease. Shall we expose all unvaccinated dogs to rabies and breed from the 5 or 6 or so that survive? If none survive, well, then the weak dog species deserved to go extinct, right?

Also, a question for those that don’t vaccinate for parvo or distemper, but treat aggressively at the first sign of illness. If you want to select for stronger dogs, why do you treat at all?

Personally, I choose vaccination. To me, a weak immune system is NOT one that cannot fight every single new disease that evolves. It is one that cannot defend against non-pathogenic organisms that are always present or that is incapable of mounting a defense against most of the “normal” pathogens.

If you were to only select dogs resistant to distemper and parvo, then you would most likely be reducing diversity of the population, which would make it MORE vulnerable to the next completely new disease. The ability of a species (not an individual) to defend against a novel threat (one a species has never faced before) depends on the population having enough diversity that it increases the chances of some individuals having the adaptations they need to survive.

Kelly Cassidy, PhD
Curator, Vertebrate Museum
Washington State University
Aangedryf deur Blogger.

Labels